Christopher v Turnbull

• Jurisdiction: British Virgin Islands
• Judge: Hewlett, J.
• Judgment Date: 09 December 1976
• Neutral Citation: VG 1976 HC 8
• Docket Number: Civil Suit no. 37 of 1976
• Date: 09 December 1976
• Court: High Court (British Virgin Islands)

High Court

Hewlett, J.

Civil Suit no. 37 of 1976

Christopher

and

Turnbull

Appearances:

L.W. Barker for the plaintiff

J.S. Archibald for the defendant

Administration of Estates - Will — Execution.

Facts: The defendant was named executor in a will. The defendant had his own idea as to how an estate was to be distributed. The executor failed to distribute to the plaintiff such as remained to be transferred to her under the will.

Held: Transfer of land to plaintiff ordered. Residue to be transferred to plaintiff conditional upon her settling the testamentary expenses incurred and the funeral expenses. Cost of present application to be borne by executor personally since all problems in the administration of the estate were created by him.

Hewlett, J.

1 It would appear that the beneficiaries in this estate did not all work and live together harmoniously. At the outset there was disagreement between the named executors in the will resulting in the fact of a caveat being filed. This delayed the grant of probate for same years.

2 It has been urged upon me that the proving executor is at least an honest: man in that he did not endeavour to get all for himself but it also seems apparent to me that he had his own ideas of how the estate was to be distributed, and that for some unstated reason he was unfavourably disposed to the applicant herein.

3 The executor, while he failed to distribute to the applicant herein such as remained to be transferred to her under the will, did however perform his duty as regards the devise to Celestine Harrigan in accordance with clause 4 of the will. She, he confirms, received her entitlement. But problems arose as regards the devises to Ilva Brathwaite and Ruel Turnbull because as the executor alleges the applicant herein had intermeddled in the estate and had sold those specific portions of land to one Blackwell. This of course has been strongly denied by the applicant who asserts that the sale she effected did not relate to the lands devised to Ilva Brathwaite and Ruel Turnbull but related to the parcel conveyed to her inter vivos by her father before his demise by deed of Conveyance No. 221/1966, the parcel referred to at paragraph 5(a) of the will. It is important to verify the truth of the respective allegations because the will spoke of three acres whereas the deed passed five acres more or less and the transfer to Blackwell is for 4.8 acres as described on a plan annexed to the deed. I had the opportunity of inspecting the plan in the presence of the parties and their counsel and it corresponded very materially with a rough plan shown to the court and drawn by the defendant. I am therefore quite satisfied that the plaintiff is to be believed when she said that she had sold the land referred to in paragraph 5(a) of the will to one Dick Read for $5000.00. I find therefore that it is untrue that the applicant had disposed of the parcels devised to Ilva Brathwaite and Rue! Turnbull, and I...