Brooks v Brooks

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Court: High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla)
• Judge: Saunders, J.
• Judgment Date: 30 March 2001
• Neutral Citation: AI 2001 HC 3
• Docket Number: 92 of 2000
• Date: 30 March 2001

High Court

Saunders, J.

92 of 2000

Brooks

and

Brooks

Appearances:

Mr. E. Gaskin for the plaintiff

Mr. G. Hamilton for the defendant

Administration of estate - Action by brother for removal of his sister as administratix of his late father's estate for alleged breach of trust — Finding that actions of administratix were not unreasonable.

Saunders, J.

1 John Joseph Brooks died on 29th June, 1946. He was survived by six children all equally entitled to his estate. The children are all alive. In order of birth they are Drucilla, Kenneth, Phillip, Elsa and the twins Roderick and Ethne. Of course they are all elderly persons now and I refer to them as “children” only in the context that they are offspring of the deceased, John Joseph Brooks.

2 At the date of his death the deceased owned three parcels of land in his own right. He was also entitled to a one-fifth share of his mother's (Mary Jemima Gumbs') estate. The latter estate was not administered in the lifetime of John Joseph Brooks. In 1992 Ethne Brooks applied for and obtained Letters of Administration in the estate of her deceased father. She has since taken several steps to administer the estate. Her brother, Kenneth, is dissatisfied with the manner in which she has gone about her work. Among other things, he is upset that a particular piece of land, Parcel 192, was not vested in him. He complains that his sister has acted in a high handed and dictatorial manner. He has instituted this suit for breach of trust. He wants the court to remove Ethne as Administratrix and vest Parcel 192 in him.

3 Several witnesses gave evidence during the course of these proceedings. Among those testifying were five of the siblings. Only Drucilla did not give evidence. Kenneth and Ethne testified on their own behalf. Elsa testified on Kenneth's behalf. Roderick and Phillip were called by Ethne. Of the eve, it is clear to me that Kenneth was the dominant male in every respect. He lives in England but he visits Anguilla regularly. Ethne claims that it was at his urging that she took out Letters of Administration in 1992. Kenneth gave the court the impression that Ethne had obtained the Letters of Administration surreptitiously. The truth may well lie somewhere in between. Perhaps Kenneth had told her in the past that she should do so but then was not kept abreast as to whether and precisely when it was done. Either way, in my judgment it does not matter a great deal.

4 Kenneth said that in 1998 he discovered by accident that his father's lands had been vested in Ethne as Administratrix. He was very disappointed that he and his siblings had not been involved in the decision-making processes. After making this discovery he had a discussion with Ethne about sub-dividing the lands. Prior to 1998, the beneficiaries had built houses on portions of the estate. Kenneth therefore suggested to Ethne that the portion of land upon which the structures were erected should be divided so as to enable each beneficiary to own the land on which that beneficiary had already built. Kenneth was also able to procure the signatures of all his siblings, save Ethne, to a document instructing Ethne that the time was now right to carry out a sub-division of that portion of the land upon which the various structures had already been built. This sub-division was accomplished in due course and no one has any serious quarrel with the manner in which it was done.

5 The crux of the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant surrounds Parcel 192. To better understand the basis for the dispute one must delve into some family history and inter personal dynamics. Kenneth can justifiably claim that he has been very generous to his brothers and sisters. When their father, John Joseph Brooks, died the latter left certain debts. Apparently an uncle paid off those debts and in consideration thereof the uncle took possession of the lands of the estate. It fell to Kenneth, then a very young man, to work and earn sufficient funds to repay his uncle and so redeem the estate for the benefit of himself and his brothers and sisters. Kenneth never looked to his siblings for repayment.

6 Kenneth also played an active part in the affairs of his grandmother's (Mary Jemima Gumbs') estate. He was one of the prime movers behind a lawsuit instituted in relation to that estate. The suit, apparently aimed at protecting the integrity of the estate, was eventually settled. In pursuing the suit, Kenneth freely expended his own money, time and effort. He never sought nor did he receive any recompense. His father was due a share of that estate and Kenneth had firm views (that ultimately prevailed) on precisely which portion of the Mary J. Gumbs estate should be allotted to the estate of his father. It was common knowledge that the share ultimately allotted to the estate of John Joseph Brooks would have to be further sub-divided among Kenneth and his brothers and sisters. Kenneth had therefore earmarked for himself personally a particular portion of that allotment. That portion was Parcel 192.

7 It was obvious that Parcel 192 was the choice lot. It was closest to the road and therefore afforded easy access to utilities. Kenneth expected that in view of all that he had gratuitously done for both estates (his father's and his grandmother's) no one would place any obstacles in the way of his realizing this expectation. He did not leave matters to chance. On or about 10th March, 2000 he procured the signatures of Elsa, Phillip and Roderick to a document titled CONSENT. The signatories thereby gave their consent to Kenneth being granted (what ultimately became known as)...