Jennifer Peterson et Al v Roslyn Franklin and Unknown Person as Tenant

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: James, J.
• Judgment Date: 18 February 2026
• Neutral Citation: TT 2026 HC 75
• Year: 2026
• Docket Number: Suit No.: CV2022-02330

Jennifer Peterson et al.

and

Roslyn Franklin and Unknown Person as Tenant

James, J.

Suit No.: CV2022-02330

High Court

Ms. Angelique S Olowe and Mr. Andrew Gordon, Attorneys at Law for the Claimant

Ms. Grace Denise Butcher-Milne, Attorney at Law for the Defendant

BACKGROUND

James, J.

1 These proceedings arise out of a dispute concerning whether the First Defendant, Ms. Roslyn Franklin, has an equitable interest in property located at Lot No. 62–1 Pipiol Circular Road, Santa Cruz and the Claimants who are seeking possession.

CLAIMANTS' JOINT AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM

2 By Fixed Date Claim Form together with the Claimants' Joint Affidavit in Support of Claim was filed on 28th June 2022. Jennifer Peterson, Virginia Patrick, Tevin Peterson, and Phylicia Chandler (“the Claimants”) assert that they are the legal owners of the property located at Lot No. 62–1 Pipiol Circular Road, Santa Cruz, having inherited it from the deceased, Thomas Peterson. They state that the deceased purchased the land in 2010 and constructed a “Front House” using the money he had won in a lottery while living in Canada.

3 The Claimants contend that the first-named defendant, Roslyn Franklin, was a tenant who was permitted to occupy the property under a monthly agreement starting in May 2008. They allege that she only paid rent for five months and has remained in occupation unlawfully since October 2008. They describe serving multiple Notices to Quit in 2013, 2020, and 2022, all of which were refused, and they further allege that Ms. Franklin is now acting as a trespasser by renting out the Back House to unknown third parties.

FIRST-NAMED DEFENDANT'S AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION AND COUNTERCLAIM

4 The First-named defendant's Affidavit in Opposition and Counterclaim was filed on 8th November 2023. Ms. Franklin denies the Claimants' assertion that they are the sole owners and claims that she is beneficially entitled to the Front House and the land upon which it stands. She asserts that she relied on repeated assurances from the deceased that the house would be hers upon its completion because she was his “constant and only source of support.”

5 Ms. Franklin detailed her long-term relationship with the deceased, stating she provided him with financial support between 2002 and 2005 and served as his primary caregiver from his cancer diagnosis in 2008 until his death in 2012. She categorically denies ever having a landlord-tenant relationship with the deceased and argues that the rent receipts produced by the Claimants are actually her own private handwritten records of her personal savings that were allegedly stolen from her home. She counterclaims for a formal declaration of her beneficial interest in the property.

CLAIMANT'S REPLY TO AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM

6 The Claimants' Reply to Affidavit in Opposition and Defence to Counterclaim was filed on 12th January 2024. The Claimants reject Franklin's claim of proprietary estoppel, maintaining that the deceased never made any assurances or promises to leave her the property. They specifically aver that any funds Franklin spent on the property were actually monies transferred to her by the deceased from his own bank accounts.

7 In their Defence to Counterclaim, the Claimants refute all of Franklin's assertions and restate their original request for relief. They seek an order for vacant possession, a declaration that Franklin is not beneficially entitled to the land, and special damages for accrued unpaid rent. They also express significant doubt regarding her claim that the Back House remained uninhabited for nine years, given her alleged financial investment in the premises.

FIRST-NAMED DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM

8 The First-named defendant's Reply to the Claimants' Defence to Counterclaim was filed on 16th May 2024. Franklin maintains that the deceased's assurances were made during private conversations and that she relied on these promises to her own financial and personal detriment. She challenges the Claimants to identify who else provided care for the deceased during his illness, noting that she had to reduce her work to part-time to accommodate his needs in both Trinidad and Canada.

9 Ms. Franklin further addresses the Claimants' request for bank records by stating that she no longer has access to statements because the financial institutions do not retain records from that far back. She denies that the deceased transferred money to her accounts, claiming instead that he closed their joint account during his lifetime because she could not access it. She concludes by reiterating her position that her occupation of the home is based on the deceased's promises and her own extensive contributions to its construction.

CLAIMANT'S EVIDENCE

KEVON PETERSON

10 Kevon Peterson is the grandson of the deceased, Thomas Peterson. He is the son of Virginia Peterson and the nephew of Jennifer Peterson, both of whom are Claimants in the matter. He was appointed as the lawful attorney for his mother and aunt to manage efforts related to his grandfather's estate.

11 Kevon recounts that while he was a teenager, his grandfather emigrated to Canada and won a lottery of approximately five million Canadian dollars. He said that the deceased regularly provided him with funds for his tertiary education and eventually promised to gift him the “Back House” on the Santa Cruz property once Kevon finished his studies. Kevon asserts that he was the owner of the property through these discussions and was encouraged to help maintain and paint the premises.

12 Regarding the Defendant, Kevon states that Roslyn Franklin was only known to him as a tenant. He notes that his grandfather informed him that money for construction materials would be sent through Roslyn to assist with acquisitions. After the deceased's death in 2012, Kevon reviewed estate documents, including the will and codicil, and found no provision or reference made for Roslyn Franklin.

13 Following the death of his grandfather, Kevon had a telephone conversation with Roslyn in December 2012, requesting that she vacate the property. He claims that during this call, Roslyn admitted she did not want to take anyone's property and acknowledged it belonged to his grandfather. Despite these acknowledgements and the delivery of a formal Notice to Quit in 2020, he notes that she has remained on the premises.

14 In cross-examination, Mr. Peterson described a strong grandfather-grandson relationship, noting that the deceased was involved in his life and visited him frequently in Diego Martin. He testified that his grandfather supported him financially through his tertiary education at the University of the West Indies between 2005 and 2006. He clarified that he only became personally involved with the Santa Cruz property in 2011 or 2012, when his grandfather explicitly offered the “Back House” to him.

15 Mr. Peterson was questioned regarding the Defendant's allegations of theft and illegal entry. He categorically denied breaking into Ms. Franklin's home or removing any of her personal documents or savings records. He stated that he had no knowledge of any financial contributions Ms. Franklin may have made to the property and was unaware of any business relationship she might have had with his grandfather.

16 Finally, Mr. Peterson addressed the intended gift of the property, maintaining that his grandfather's plan was always to leave the land to his biological descendants. He confirmed that he was appointed as the lawful attorney for his mother and aunt to manage the estate and protect their inheritance. He maintained that the Defendant was only known to him as a tenant through discussions with his mother and grandfather.

VIRGINIA PETERSON

17 Virginia Peterson, a resident of Baltimore, Maryland, is one of the daughters of the deceased. She left Trinidad in 2003 and confirms that her father emigrated to Canada in the early 1970s, where he eventually won a multi-million-dollar lottery. She asserts that after her father's remarriage, she only knew his new wife, Octavia, to be his caregiver.

18 She describes the Santa Cruz property as consisting of a “Front House” and a “Back House”. Around 2005, her father began construction on the Front House using lottery winnings, frequently updating her on progress, such as painting and the installation of security cameras. In 2008, her father mentioned he intended to rent the Front House to a member of his church who was looking for accommodation.

19 Virginia identifies this church member as the First Defendant and maintains that her father always described the arrangement as a landlord-tenant relationship. She claims her father explicitly promised to leave the houses to his daughters and intended the Back House specifically for her son, Kevon. She emphasises that she never observed any provision in her father's wills that entitled Roslyn to any part of the property.

20 After her father died in 2012, Virginia and her sister commenced efforts to probate the will and preserve the estate. She authorised her son, Kevon, to inform Roslyn that she needed to move out, as the beneficiaries did not wish to extend the rental arrangement. She recounts a speakerphone conversation where Roslyn allegedly acknowledged the property belonged to the sisters and stated she would not fight them for it, though she ultimately refused to leave.

21 Virginia Peterson, in cross-examination, testified that her relationship with her father was not the greatest, but was maintained through regular telephone calls after her migration to the United States. She admitted that due to her absence, she had no personal knowledge of who was providing her father with daily care or moral support in Trinidad. She confirmed that she had returned to Trinidad only twice, in 2018 and 2024, and had never personally met Roslyn Franklin prior...