Williams v Matthew et Al

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Court: High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Judge: Williams, J.
• Judgment Date: 09 January 1989
• Neutral Citation: KN 1989 HC 1
• Docket Number: 17 of 1984.
• Date: 09 January 1989

High Court.

Williams, J.

17 of 1984.

Williams

and

Matthew et al

Appearances:

Henry Browne for the Plaintiff.

Sir Probyn Inniss for the Defendants.

Deed - Undue influence — Transfer of house and land — Whether plaintiff was induced to sign document while under influence of defendants and their solicitors — No direct evidence of undue influence and the relationship was not such that it could be presumed — Finding that both plaintiff and defendants have a beneficial interest in the property — Property to be sold by public treaty or public auction within 6 months.

1 On the 15th February, 1980 the plaintiff signed a document in which she requested a Solicitor to transfer her house and land in the name of the defendants.

2 By a writ and statement of claim filed on the 16th February, 1984 the plaintiff sought the following reliefs:-

• 1. “A Declaration that the plaintiff was induced to sign the document referred to above whilst acting under the influence of the defendants and their Solicitor.

• 2. An Order declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to have the said property duly transferred to and duly registered in her name.

• 3. An Order cancelling the Certificate of Title issued in the names of the Defendants.

• 4. Such further or other relief as to the Court seems just”.

3 By a defence filed on the 2nd March, 1984 it was contended by the defendants that the plaintiff was not entitled to the reliefs sought.

4 The plaintiff was born in the year 1910. She now resides at Ponds Pasture but before that she lived in a house at Half-way-tree which she sold. She could not recall how much was the selling price but from the proceeds of sale coupled with a loan of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) from the Central Rousing and Planning Authority she built a house on a plot of land at Ponds Pasture which she obtained from the said Authority commonly known as C.R.A.

5 She claimed that she made payments of $10.00 per week to the Central Housing and Planning Authority towards repayment of the loan which payments were entered in a book provided for the purpose. She said that there was a period of time when Mr. Lee Moore kept the book for her and that he also assisted her in paying the instalments by using his own funds on occasions.

6 She said that in the year 1980 the defendants came to live with her rent free with her consent and permission. That she did so because the second-named defendant told her she would take care of her if she got sick.

7 She said that the defendants cooked for her; that she eventually got sick and during that time the defendants took care of her. She claimed that she received $10.00 per week from the Government for Social

8 Security which sum she gave to the defendants to provide her with food; and that she also took the Central Rousing and Planning Authority book from Mr. Moore and gave it to the defendants.

9 The plaintiff says that early one morning in the year 1981 Lawyer Renville came to her home and in the presence of the defendants persuaded her to sign a document. She claimed that she did not know what the document was about and that when she enquired of Mr. Renville he patted her on her shoulder and told her “no trouble, no trouble”. She said that at first she refused to sign the document saying she wanted to take it to her Lawyer Mr. Lee Moore, but that Mr. Renville encouraged her to sign the document and eventually she did so; Mr. Renville then left with the document. The plaintiff contends that in addition to Mr. Renville encouraging her to sign the document the first-named defendant also persuaded her to sign it.

10 The plaintiff claimed that she was not aware of the nature of the document or its content, that she had not transferred her interest in the property in dispute to the defendants, nor was she aware that she had done so.

11 Some time later in the year 1981 the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants broke down. The plaintiff says that the first-named defendant brought a man to the house and instructed him to cut off her electric light in spite of her protest. That the first-named defendant removed the water pipe from one portion of the premises to another part, saying it was for her benefit but eventually he prevented her from using the pipe.

12 The plaintiff admitted that the defendants after coming to live with her had made additions and improvements to the house at their expense but that it was done without her approval.

13 Finally some time in 1986 the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants became so intolerable that the defendants removed from the premises and let the portion of the house which they had occupied to tenants.

14 In cross-examination the plaintiff admitted that when she was working she worked as a labourer but she could not remember when she stopped working. She admitted that at a time after she had ceased working her financial circumstances became so precarious that she would go and sit at a supermarket commonly known as “CEMACO” and in her words “beg a change”. She said that she became ill and was not able to make the payments at the Central Housing and Planning Authority, but that she made payments in 1978 and 1979, and when she became ill and was unable to make the payments at a time when Mr. Moore had the book he made the payments from his own pocket on her behalf. The plaintiff said before the defendants came to live with her the first-named defendant would purchase fobdstuff and bring same to her, but that it was purchased with money that she had provided him with, and that she also gave the defendants money to buy food while they were living with her.

15 The first-named defendant says he first came to know the plaintiff in 1979; at that time his wife was working at Miss Bradshaw's shop, and that when he went to collect his wife in his car to take her home he would sometimes give the plaintiff a lift home. Re said that he and his wife went to visit the plaintiff at her home and the plaintiff complained to them how badly she was being treated by a lady who then lived with her.

16 He said the plaintiff gave them food and asked them to cook it for her which they did and that he promised to take her meals daily, which he did. After about two weeks of this the plaintiff said to them “why not move here, pay off for the house, add a bath and toilet and make yourselves comfortable”. At first he did not take up her offer but the next day when he took lunch for the plaintiff he asked her if she was serious about what she had said and the plaintiff replied “yes because we came and help her when she was in need”. That in addition she told him that “Hr. Lee Moore had the house book and was not giving her anything and when she died he would just come and take the house and we who helped her would not get anything”. He said he told her that if he did it, it would have to be done legally because she had a son and he did not want any trouble.

17 He said the plaintiff told him that her son and herself were not on good terms, that her son had beat her and that he should do what was necessary, as a result he consulted Lawyer Renville, the Central Housing and Planning Authority and later the local Bank of Commerce where he obtained a loan of $7,000.00 with which he paid off the amounts owed by the plaintiff to the Central Housing and Planning Authority which was as follows:-

• (a) $5,097.00 which was for the house and

• (b) $605.33 which was for the land

18 making a total of $5,702.33. The first-named defendant also said he refunded Sr. Moore $70.00 which Mr. Moore had expended on behalf of the plaintiff for payments which he had made to Central Housing and Planning Authority on her behalf. That in addition to all of this he had previously made other payments in respect of the said property to the Central Housing and ‘Planning Authority.

19 The first-named defendant contended that he took the receipts for the respective payments to Mr. Henville and gave him instructions. That Mr. Henville gave him a document for the plaintiff to sign in the presence of a witness. The document is Exhibit A.W.6 and it was duly signed by the plaintiff in the presence of one Virginia Bradshaw. He took the said document back to Mr. Renville and Mr. Henville accompanied him to the home of the plaintiff where the plaintiff signed a document presented to her by Mr. Henville.

20 The first-named defendant says that both in the presence of himself and his wife Mr. Renville enquired of the plaintiff if she was Agatha ‘Williams and she said “Yes”. He asked her if she knew us and wanted her house to be turned over to us, she said “Yes”. Mr. Renville showed her the document Exhibit A.W.6 and asked her if the signature on it was hers, she said “Yes”. Mr. Henville then turned the page of another document and asked the plaintiff to sign her name which she did and Mr. Renville (then left.

21 The first-named defendant says he then began improving the property by adding a bath and toilet and later on another room. The room was made of concrete blocks. In addition he painted the entire house inside, tiled several floors, put in kitchen cupboards, put in a built in wardrobe and extended the partitions to the ceiling. That the costs of these additions inclusive of labour amounted to about $12,000.00.

22 He says he started the improvements before he moved into the house but that he moved in before they were completed in about October, 1980.

23 He says that at that time the relationship between the plaintiff and his wife and himself was good. That they would all eat together at the table, his wife would prepare the meals and the food was bought at their expense.

24 The first-named defendant says that shortly after he received the deed from Mr. Renville he told the plaintiff about it and her attitude began changing. She stopped eating with them at the table, would take the food to her room and in...