Dr. Ramraj Deonarine v Lauralee Ramcharan
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Jones J.A. |
| Judgment Date | 04 September 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 2020 CA 46 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Docket Number | CA P. No. 66 of 2018 |
| Date | 04 September 2020 |
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
Archie C.J.
Jones J.A.
Pemberton J.A.
CA P. No. 66 of 2018
CV 2013-01674
In the Matter of the Wills and Probate Act Chap 9:03
In the Matter of the Administration of Estates Act Chap 9:01
In the Matter of inherent Jurisdiction of the Court Under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act Chap 4:01
In the Matter of the Real Property Act Chap 56:02 and in Particular Section 119 thereof
In the Mater of the Succession Act Chap 9:02 and in particular part VIII Sections 94–116 thereof
and
In the matter of an agreement dated January 27, 2012 registered as DE201200614096, deed dated January, 27, 2012 registered as DE201200558003 and deed of rectification dated June 7, 2012 and registered as No.De201202078032 (ALL) of arrangement, settlement and compromise between the Claimant of the First Part and First, Second, Third and Fourth Named Co-Defendants of the Second Part
and
In the Estate of Seeram Seejattan (Also known as Peter Seejattan) deceased late of De Gannes Village, Siparia, Trinidad who died on the 21st day of March, 2008)
(Putative Executor of the last Will and Testament of the deceased)
and
(By her Lawful Attorney Terance Seejattan also known as Terrance Seejattan)
Mr. H. R. M. Seenath S.C. and Mr. K. Neebar instructed by Mr. H. Ramnath on behalf of the Appellants
Mr. S. Jairam S.C. and Ms. S. Lakhan instructed by Ms. S. Jairamon behalf of the Respondent
I have read the judgment of Jones J.A. and I agree.
Ivor Archie
Chief Justice
I too agree.
Charmaine Pemberton
Justice of Appeal
Delivered by Jones J.A.
This appeal concerns the estate of Seeram Seejattan also known as Peter Seejattan, deceased (the deceased). The deceased died on the 21 st March 2008 leaving property in Trinidad and Tobago and in the United States of America (USA). By his will the deceased appointed the first appellant Dr. Ramraj Deonarine (Deonarine) sole executor. The will directed Deonarine to sell all his property, real and personal, pay all funeral and testamentary expenses and then distribute the remainder to the second to fifth appellants his four children, Laura Seejattan, Terrance Seejattan, Gina Marie Seejattan and Lisa Marie Cascarano herein, (collectively referred to as the Beneficiaries and individually by their first names) in specified shares. Deonarine and the Beneficiaries are also collectively referred to as the Appellants.
On May 15, 2009 Deonarine applied for probate of the deceased's estate. By a series of letters the Respondent, Lauralee Ramcharan (Ramcharan), by her Attorneys, wrote to Attorneys for the Appellants indicating that she was the common law wife of the deceased. She claimed to have an interest in the assets of the deceased. In particular she claimed an interest in two pieces of real property by virtue of the doctrines of trust and donatio mortis causa. She also advised that as a result of the deceased's failure to make adequate financial provision for her she was in a position to make a claim for reasonable financial provision pursuant to the Succession Act. She further indicated that unless the Beneficiaries were willing to settle her claims on the estate amicably she would institute proceedings to enforce her interest and sought an undertaking that the application for probate be withdrawn.
The probate application was not withdrawn. Thereafter a series of caveats were filed by Ramcharan. On the 21 st July 2011 a warning to the last caveat filed by Ramcharan was issued by Deonarine in proceedings L 1378/2009 and on 26 th July 2011 an appearance to the warning was entered by Ramcharan. By the appearance Ramcharan alleged entitlement to the estate of the deceased based on her being a cohabitant of the deceased and having contributed towards the acquisition of the properties forming the assets of the deceased's estate.
Meanwhile discussions between Ramcharan and the Beneficiaries resulted in both sides alleging that an agreement had been arrived between them with respect to the distribution of the deceased's estate. This appeal concerns the written agreement alleged by Ramcharan to have been signed by the Beneficiaries. Ramcharan alleges that the written agreement was presented to the Beneficiaries by her American attorney, David Farbstein, (Farbstein) and executed in the presence of a witness Krishna Harry (Harry) who made statutory declarations to this effect.
The written agreement comprised several documents. The first was an undated agreement; the second, an agreement of arrangement, settlement and compromise, the third a deed of arrangement and finally, the fourth, a deed of rectification which sought to rectify the deed of arrangement by including paragraphs in the recital. For the purpose of this appeal these documents, referred to by the Judge and in the pleadings as the compromise documents, will collectively be referred to as the written agreement.
Essentially the written agreement provided for two things: for the appointment of Ramcharan as the legal personal representative of the deceased's estate in the USA and for the distribution of the deceased's estate in Trinidad and the USA in a manner not consistent with the distribution under the will. The written agreement also provided that it be governed by the laws of Trinidad and Tobago.
In addition the written agreement contained the following clause:
“INDEPENDENT ADVICE
13. This Agreement has been prepared on the instructions of both the common law wife and the children, and the children acknowledge that they have been recommended to taken independent advice about it but have decided of their own free will to execute this Agreement and not to take independent advice about it even though both Gina and Lisa have taken independent advice prior to the execution of this Agreement”.
On April 19 2013 Ramcharan commenced these proceedings against Deonarine, as the putative executor of the last will and testament of the deceased, and the Beneficiaries. By the claim Ramcharan contended that she was the common law wife of the deceased and, by paragraph 22 of her statement of case stated that by this litigation “she simply seeks the imprimatur of the Court to give effect to their arrangement, settlement and compromise as set out in the [written agreement] and to have an immediate distribution of the deceased's estate in accordance with the [written agreement].”
By her statement of case Ramcharan sought declarations to the effect that the will not be admitted into probate on condition that she and the Beneficiaries had entered into a compromise with respect to the division, distribution and allocation of the deceased's estate and that the compromise took immediate effect to vary the distribution of the deceased's estate.
She also sought orders that the will not be admitted to probate; the contentious probate proceedings No. L/1378 of 2009 be struck out; Deonarine be relieved of his duties as executor and she be appointed the legal personal representative of the deceased in Trinidad and Tobago and the USA and that she be at liberty to administer the estate in accordance with the written agreement and all the costs incurred be paid out of the estate.
Deonarine and the Beneficiaries were represented by the same attorneys but filed separate statements of case. They both deny that Ramcharan was the common law wife of the deceased. The Beneficiaries admit entering into an agreement with Ramcharan with respect to the deceased's estate but deny that the agreement was in the terms as alleged by Ramcharan. In particular they deny signing the written agreement produced by Ramcharan. By way of their counterclaim the Beneficiaries allege fraud on the part of Ramcharan with respect to the written agreement, deny having had independent legal advice and seek orders that the written agreement be declared null and void and set aside.
The Judge determined that Ramcharan was the common law wife of the deceased but found that she had failed to establish that she was a cohabitant for the purpose of the Succession Act. The Judge declared that the estate held a 50% interest in one of the properties in Trinidad and Tobago, Laura Valley, on trust for Ramcharan. With respect to Ramcharan's claim for an order that the will not be probated the Judge noted that there was no challenge to the validity of the will. She was of the opinion that the executor ought to be allowed to apply for the grant of probate.
With respect to the written agreement the Judge refused to make any order. According to the Judge there was no reason why Ramcharan could not seek to enforce the agreement after the grant of probate. In those circumstances she held that the claim and the counterclaim must fail; the caveats preventing the grant of probate should be removed and Ramcharan should seek to enforce the written agreement after the grant of probate. The Judge ordered that the Beneficiaries pay to Ramcharan the costs of the counterclaim and the Appellants pay to Ramcharan 1/14 of the costs of the claim.
At the end of the day therefore the only relief granted by the Judge on the claim and counterclaim was that Ramcharan was entitled to a 50% interest in Laura Valley and costs. Not surprisingly both parties have appealed the Judge's orders.
Deonarine and the Beneficiaries appeal the order giving Ramcharan a half share in Laura Valley. They submit that the Judge was wrong to conclude that Ramcharan was the common law wife of the deceased; that there was a common intention trust formed by Ramcharan and the deceased and that Ramcharan contributed to the development of Laura Valley. Further they submit that the Judge failed to recognize or to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial