Peter M Adams (as Co-administrator of the Estate of Precious Millicent Adams) v Ermine Adams-plotkin (as Co-administrator of the Estate of Precious Millicent Adams)
| Jurisdiction | Anguilla |
| Judge | BLENMAN, J |
| Judgment Date | 13 December 2010 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2010] ECSC J1213-1 |
| Date | 13 December 2010 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla) |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO.AXAHCV 0034/2009 |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CLAIM NO.AXAHCV 0034/2009
Ms. Merline Barrett and Ms. Jean Dyer for the Claimant/Applicant
Mr. Courtney Abel and Ms. Eustella Fontaine for the Defendant/Respondent
This is another claim in what appears to be an ongoing family feud in relation to the unadministered estate of Precious Millicent Adams deceased.
The application is one for the approval in respect to the sale of a Family Home. It has its genisis in the dispute that surrounds the unadministered Estate of Precious Millicent Adams in which the persons who are entitled to benefit are involved in acrimonious and contentious litigation.
The present application is brought by one of the Co-Administrators Peter Adams against the other Co-Administrator of Precious' estate, Ermine Adams-Plotkin.
By way of history, it may be appropriate to say that Precious Adams and Peter Emmanuel Adams had seven children. He died before her, leaving Precious and their seven children. Regretfully, Precious died intestate and there commenced ongoing disputes between the siblings in relation to the estate. Most of the estate has been distributed. At the heart of this claim is the Family Home which is situated in what is referred to as Flowers Avenue, Registration Section South East Block 78913B Parcel 223.
This dispute also attends Parcel 223 which has received judicial comment by the learned Trial Judge Justice Janice George Creque as she then was in Claim No 37 of 2001. In that judgment Justice George Creque said that Ena Angela had no beneficial or equitable interest in the Family Home save and except to her entitlement to a 1/7 share in the Family Home like all of her other siblings. The court also said that by virtue of the provisions of the Intestate Act RSA once the estate is Precious properly vested the Administrators of her estate it was incumbent on the administrators to act fairly and justly in vesting it in the seven beneficiaries.
Section 3 (1) (b) of the Intestate Act of Anguilla stipulates as follows:
"The residuary estate of an intestate shall be distributed in the manner or be held on the trusts mentioned in this section namely: if the intestate leaves issue but no husband or wife, the residuary estate of the intestate shall be held on the statutory trusts for the issue of the intestate."
Section 4 of the Intestate Act states that the residuary estate is held upon statutory trust and is to be divided equally between the beneficiaries.
Section 5 of the Intestate Act stipulates that where the residuary part of an estate held on statutory trust, it shall be held upon trust to sell same and to stand possessed of the net proceeds of sale upon such trusts and subject to such powers and provisions as ma be requisite for the giving effect to the rights of persons in the land.
Peter Emmanuel Adams, by his will, left the Family Home to his wife Precious. As stated earlier, Precious died intestate thereby leaving her estate to be administered in accordance with the Intestate Estates Act of Anguilla. The consequence of this is that on Precious' death all of her seven children became entitled to an equal share in the Family Home. This was clearly stated by the learned Trial Judge Creque J as she then was.
It is clear that the administrators of Precious' estate hold the residuary estate upon a trust for sale. The administrators of Precious' estate are entitled to sell the Family Home and to hold the net proceeds, on trust to be divided equally between the seven children, who are the beneficiaries.
As alluded to earlier, Peter Adams and Ermine Adams Plotkin are the Co-administrators of Precious' estate. The two of them seem to have been at logger heads over the years. This has apparently not abated.
From the uncontroverted evidence, it is clear that Peter Adams seems mindful to sell the Family Home to Ena Angela while Ermine and some of her siblings do not want their sibling Ena Angela to have it. They say it should not be sold to Ena Angela. The siblings are divided on this issue. What is critical is the fact that the other faction of the siblings are totally against the property being sold to EnaAngela. In fact, Ermine and three of her siblings say that they are prepared to purchase it.
It is against that background that Peter Adams seeks approval from the court to permit the Family Home to be sold to Ena Angela upon terms and conditions stated in the application. The application is strenuously opposed by Ermine Adams-Plotkin.
The sole issue for the court to resolve is whether it should approve of the sale of the Family Home (Parcel 223) to Angela Ena.
Learned Counsel Ms Merline Barrett urged the court to grant the application sought since it is fair and in the best interest of the estate.
Ms. Barrett Learned Counsel said that the court is clothed with jurisdiction to grant the order sought. See Part 67.2 – 67. 4 CPR 2000. In support of her arguments, Ms. Barrett referred the court toClifton St. Hill v Austin St. Hill, Civil Suit No. 402 of 1996 St. Vincent and the Grenadines in which Mitchell J stated:
"that it is always the duty of the administrator of an estate to satisfy the beneficiary that he is properly administering the estate. He is required to act at a higher level than he would in protecting his own interest. He must report and account more than that, he is well advised to seek and obtain approval from the beneficiaries. If he tries and fails to secure the approval of a particular beneficiary, he is opening himself up to a law suit. He is expected in such a case to apply to the court for directions on the administrator of the estate".
Ms. Barrett said the factors in support of the sale to Ena Angela must be weighed against the fact that all of the other siblings have homes of their own and therefore do not need to live in the Family Home. All of the other siblings except Angela and Lena reside permanently outside of Anguilla and this has been so for in excess of 30 years; Angela has maintained and improved the Family Home.
Ermine's opposition to the sale of the Family Home to Ena Angela has nothing to do with what is in the best interest of the estate but is based on personal grudges and braises against Angela. Ms. Barrett urged the court not to accede to Ermine's request to order that the Family Home be sold by an open sale since this is likely to cause the Family Home to be artificially infected thereby limiting Angela's ability to purchase it.
Ms. Barrett said that Ermine has not sought an order from the court to permit her to purchase the Family Home; so she is precluded from purchasing it.
The evidence discloses that the sale of the Family Home to Ena Angela is objected to on the basis that Ermine and three of her sisters are also interested in purchasing the Family Home therefore a sale to Ena Angela is tantamount to placing Ena Angela in a preferred position in relation to the other siblings.
Learned Counsel Ms. Barrett urged the court to accept that the most reasonable and equitable course is to permit Ena Angela to purchase the Family Home. The factors the court should take into consideration in its determination are:
(a) Angela has lived in the Family Home for about 20 years is 73 years old and unmarried with no children; has made substantial improvements to it which have made it comfortable for her to live in; has never lived elsewhere in Anguilla; has no other house in Anguillaor elsewhere and considers the Family Home to be her only home; is willing to pay fair market value.
Learned Counsel Ms. Barrett advocated that in the case at bar, a trust was created. Therefore, Peter could properly seek the court's direction in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Trust Act of Anguilla.
Section 57 of the Trust Act allows a trustee to apply for directions in relation to the administration of trust:
"A trustee may apply for directions as to how he should or might at in any of the affairs of the trust and the court may make such order as it thinks fit"
The relevant legal principles that are applicable to the circumstances in which a trustee seeks the directions of the court can be found inMarley and others v Mutual Society Merchant Bank and Trust [1991] 3 All ER 198 at 201. Where a trustee is in doubt as to the right course of action, he is entitled to seek guidance from the court and a trustee who seeks the approval of the court for the exercise of his discretion surrenders his discretion to the court and accordingly must put the court in possession of all information necessary to enable that discretion to be exercised; and
"in exercising its jurisdiction to give a direction on a trustee's application, the court is essentially engaged in determining what ought to be done in the best interest of the trust estate and not in determining the rights of adversarial parties." Lord Oliver in Marley and Others v Mutual Society Merchant Bank and Trust ibid where the beneficiaries oppose a proposal of a trustee with a number of objections of more or less weight, the court is of course inevitably concerned to see whether these objections are or are not well founded, but that must not be permitted to obscure the real questions at issue which are what directions ought to be given in the interest of the beneficiary and whether the court has before it all the material appropriate to enable it to give those directions."
Learned Counsel Ms. Barrett posited that, in view of all of the relevant information that has been placed before the court, it is in...
To continue reading
Request your trial