Candace Rodriguez v Alana Boney Rodriguez

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: Mohammed, J.
• Judgment Date: 18 September 2025
• Neutral Citation: TT 2025 HC 278
• Year: 2025
• Docket Number: Suit No.: CV2020-02033

Candace Rodriguez

and

Alana Boney Rodriguez

Mohammed, J.

Suit No.: CV2020-02033

High Court

Appearances:

Mr. Reynold Waldropt for the Claimant

Mr. Fulton Wilson for the Defendant

I. INTRODUCTION & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mohammed, J.

1 By Fixed Date Claim and Statement of Case filed on 20th July 2020, the Claimant sought an order against the Defendant in her capacity as Executrix of the Last Will and Testament of Roderick Rodriguez (“the Testator”) that the Court pronounce for the force and validity of the Will of the Testator dated 27th January 2017 in Solemn Form.

2 The Claimant is the daughter of the Testator, while the Defendant is his Widow and one of two Executrices named in the purported Will. The other being the Claimant. The Defendant and the Testator were married on 18th June 2013.

3 In August 2016, the Testator was diagnosed with Glioblastoma multiforme, Stage IV brain tumour. Surgical intervention was conducted in September 2016, following which, he developed right-sided hemiplegia, which caused paralysis and weakness to the right side of his body, including his hand. This made him incapable of writing or signing documents. The Testator's speech was also severely affected by his condition. After a year and a half battle with the disease, the Testator died on 22nd November 2017.

4 The Claimant contends that on 27th January 2017, the Testator gave written instructions to his Attorney-at-Law, Tim Charriandy (“Mr. Charriandy”), for the preparation of a Will. At that time, the Testator was ill and could not write; therefore, he placed his right thumbprint on the said written instructions. On even date, the Will was prepared by Mr. Charriandy and duly executed by the Testator by placing his thumbprint on the document in the presence of Mr. Charriandy and two witnesses, namely, Magnesia Sargeant-Prescod (“Mrs Prescod”) and Pascula Martin (“Ms. Martin”), after the contents thereof had been read over to him by Mr. Charriandy.

5 In accordance with clause 1 of the said Will, the Testator appointed the Defendant to be the sole Executrix and trustee of the Will and provided that if she was unwilling or unable to carry out her duties as Executrix, the Claimant would be appointed as Executrix and trustee of the Will.

6 Under the will, the Testator devised his property situate at No. 12 Pomegranate Avenue Santa Rosa Heights, Arima and the residue of his estate to his children, Jesus Rodriguez, Candace Rodriguez, Reann Rodriguez and Kristoff Rodriguez. However, the Testator made no provisions for the Defendant as outlined in clause 5 of the Will.

7 Since the death of the Testator, the Defendant has refused to admit the Will to probate despite numerous requests by the Claimant to do so.

8 The Defendant, by her Defence and Counterclaim filed on 18th September 2020, challenged the validity of the Will on the grounds that the Testator lacked testamentary capacity and did not know and approve of the contents of the Will. It was also averred that the purported Will was not executed in accordance with Section 42 of the Wills and Probate Act Chap 9:03. The Defendant thus counterclaimed for the following reliefs:

• i. That the Court pronounce against the force and validity of a purported Will and Testament of Roderick Rodriguez, dated the 27th day of January 2017;

• ii. A declaration that the Deceased did not have the testamentary capacity to execute the purported will and/or that the purported Will is invalid for want of knowledge and approval;

• iii. Alternatively, that the purported Will did not comply with Section 42 of the Wills and Probate Act Chapter 9:03;

• iv. A declaration that the Deceased died intestate, and the Defendant is entitled to one-half share and interest in the estate of the said Deceased by virtue of the fact that she is a widow of the Deceased;

• v. Costs; and

• vi. Such further and/or other relief the Court deems just.

9 The trial was conducted on the 6th and 7th of October 2021. In support of the claim, the Claimant called three witnesses: herself, Mr. Charriandy, and Mrs Prescod. The Defendant was the sole witness in support of her case.

10 Following the trial, written closing submissions were filed by the Claimant and the Defendant on 15th December 2021 and 11th January 2022, respectively.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

CLAIMANT'S CASE

11 The Claimant contends that although the Deceased was ill at the time of the execution of the Will, he had the requisite mental capacity and understanding to give instructions to Mr. Charriandy to prepare the Will and, thereafter, to lawfully and competently execute it.

12 In support of her case, the Claimant relied on a medical report dated 18th October 2016 from oncologist, Dr Arvind Verma, who treated the Testator at the Brian Lara Cancer Treatment Centre during the period of September to December 2016. According to the report, the Testator was “fully cognitive and had all higher functions intact”. The Claimant also relied on a posthumous doctor's report from the Testator's primary physician, Dr Murlin Leelah, dated 3rd April 2019, wherein he certified that he saw the Testator intermittently, on a house call basis, from November 2016 to July 2017 and during those visits, the Testator was mentally aware of his medical condition, his surroundings and his immediate family. He opined that the Testator was “fit to make rational decisions of his own free will”.

13 The Claimant also averred that Mr. Charriandy exercised extreme care, caution and due diligence in taking instructions from the Testator, in preparing the Will and in its subsequent execution in his presence by the Testator.

14 The Claimant pleaded that Mr. Charriandy knew the Testator for over 10 years before his death, as the Testator was his wife's uncle. Sometime in mid-2016, the Testator and the Claimant visited Mr. Charriandy at his home, and the Testator asked to speak with him privately. During their private conversation, the Testator shared with Mr. Charriandy that his relationship with his wife was fractured and he sought some advice on how best to dispose of his assets. Mr. Charriandy advised him to prepare a Will, and during this conversation, the Testator indicated how he wished to dispose of his assets and who were to be the beneficiaries of his estate. He specifically told Mr. Charriandy that he wished to leave his property and assets to his children, and they also discussed the possibility of a divorce.

15 Shortly after this conversation, the Testator became quite ill and was subsequently diagnosed with cancer.

16 On 27th January 2017, the Claimant contacted Mr. Charriandy by phone and indicated that the Testator wished to have a Will prepared. During this conversation, he requested from the Claimant that she provide a document from a medical professional indicating the Deceased's mental state and instructed her to bring to his office two persons to witness the execution of the Will.

17 Later that afternoon, the Testator, the Claimant, Mrs Prescod and Ms. Martin attended Mr. Charriandy's office. The Claimant physically assisted the Deceased to enter the office. Once seated, the Claimant gave Mr. Charriandy the document dated 18th October 2016 from the Brian Lara Cancer Treatment Centre, which he signed and dated. He then requested that the Claimant leave the room, and she did so.

18 According to the Claimant, Mr. Charriandy realised from his interactions with the Testator that he was unable to communicate orally, so he asked the Testator many questions to which he responded by shaking his head in a horizontal manner to indicate “No” and in a vertical manner to indicate “Yes”. He also explained to the two witnesses who were present that they were there to witness the taking of the Testator's instructions for the preparation of the Will and the subsequent execution of the same.

19 At the end of the exercise, Mr. Charriandy read aloud all the questions and asked the Deceased to place his thumbprint on all the correct responses, either “Yes” or “No, and he complied. The witnesses were also asked to sign their names as having witnessed the taking of the instructions.

20 Mr. Charriandy then prepared the Will for execution. He asked the Testator whether he wished to place someone other than his wife, the Defendant, as the executrix, but he vigorously shook his head horizontally to indicate “No” and also grunted “No”. Mr. Charriandy advised the Testator that he should have a substitute executor if the Defendant was unwilling to execute her duties. Mr. Charriandy then began to call the names of the children, starting from the youngest and the Testator vigorously shook his head, indicating “No” until he got to the name “Candice Rodriguez” when he shook his head vertically and indicated “Yes”.

21 Upon completion of the Will, Mr. Charriandy read the entirety of the Will aloud to the Testator and the two witnesses. He asked the Testator whether the contents of the Will were accurate and represented how he wished his estate to be disposed of, and he nodded “Yes”. Mr. Charriandy then invited the Testator to place his thumbprint at the appropriate spot, and he did so in the presence of the two witnesses. Thereafter, the witnesses placed their signatures as having witnessed the due execution of the Will, and both ladies did so in the presence of each other and the Testator.

22 Mr. Charriandy then called the Claimant back into the office, and she, along with the Testator and the two witnesses, left the office.

DEFENDANT'S CASE

23 In response to the Claim, the Defendant alleged that the Statement of Case disclosed no reasonable cause or action against her and as such the Claimant was not entitled to any of the reliefs sought.

24 The Defendant averred that at the time the Will was executed, the Testator was confined to bed, gravely ill with terminal brain cancer and unable to speak. She contended that the circumstances...