Piggott v Royal Bank Trust Company (trinidad) Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Edoo, J.G.A.
• Judgment Date: 25 March 1985
• Neutral Citation: TT 1985 HC 43
• Docket Number: No. 1375 of 1983
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Date: 25 March 1985

High Court

Edoo, J.

No. 1375 of 1983

Piggott

and

Royal Bank Trust Co (trinidad) Ltd

Appearances:

Mr. Hayford Benjamin and Mr. Scobie for the plaintiff

Mrs. Alcala for the defendants

Inheritance and succession - Will — Application by widow of deceased for maintenance from estate of deceased — Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act, 1972, Schedule 2 — Evidence that widow had deserted deceased for 17 years — Application refused.

Edoo, J.G.A.

1 This is an application brought under Part III of the Wills and ProbateOrdinance, Ch. B. No. 2 [“the Act”], which by virtue of Section 63 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act, 1972 has been repealed and replaced by Schedule 2 of the latter.

2 Section 90(1) sets out the scheme of the legislation, i.e. if by the disposition of a deceased's estate effected by his Will, or the law relating to intestacy or a combination of both, is not such as to make reasonable provision for the maintenance of a defendant, which term includes a wife or husband, daughter or son, the court may order such reasonable provision as it thinks fit to be made out of the deceased's net estate for his or her maintenance.

3 The plaintiff is the widow of the deceased, Hugh Cuthbert Piggott who died on the 10th March 1981, leaving a will dated the 21st November 1980, appointing the defendants, the sole executors thereof, wherein no provision has been made for the benefit of the plaintiff. Probate of the will was obtained on the 10th December 1982. The application herein was made within the stipulated period of six months prescribed by Section 91 of the Act.

4 By Order of Warner J. made herein on the 14th June 1983, certain beneficiaries to whom bequests were made by the will, viz. Violet Gulston, Inez Archer, Violet Holder and Valerie Monica Smart were given the opportunity to intervene and take part in the proceedings. These persons attended on one of the dates of hearing but evinced no intention to take part in the proceedings.

5 The facts in support of the application are contained in the affidavit of the plaintiff sworn to on the 14th April 1983. In summary, they are as follows:–

1

That for 24 years from 31st January 1940 until the year 1964, she lived in the matrimonial home at 60A Belmont Circular Road, Port of Spain when she was deserted by the deceased. During that time she performed her wifely duties. 2. Through her thrift and economies, the deceased was able to acquire various real property. 3. The deceased behaved unreasonably towards her and their two sons in not providing them with necessities as a result of which she had to take up teaching employment. 4 She provided for the entire education of their two sons, the deceased failing to provide any financial assistance whatever in this regard. 5 She earns, at the present time, an income of $650.00 per month and she receives a remittance of £25 per month from one of her sons who is in the United Kingdom. She also owns a house at No. 25A Belmont Valley Road, given to her by her mother, which requires extensive repairs.

6 At paragraphs 19 and 20 of her affidavit, she deposes to the circumstances of the alleged desertion by the deceased, that in 1964, the deceased went abroad on holiday leaving her alone in the matrimonial home, when she discovered that the keys was missing from the doors and there was no lock on the garage gate; that she was afraid to remain there and so went to stay with her mother at 25A Belmont Valley Road. She later discovered i.e. in 1964 that the deceased was annoyed because of her refusal to file joint income tax returns with him.

7 In her cross-examination with leave, she admitted that the mother of the deceased who was then of the age of 83 years, had continued to live in the matrimonial home at the time the deceased was away; that up to the time of the death of the deceased in 1981, a period of 17 years having elapsed, the only time she ever visited him was at hospital in 1966 when he was warded there suffering from diabetes, as a result of which he lost a toe. Then comes a revealing disclosure:

“When I said I was deserted by him, I mean he went abroad leaving his house unprotected, even the garage gate — there was only a stone behind it. That was not sufficient reason to leave in 1964 and never return.”

8 It appears from her own deposition that the deceased was attempting to entice her back to the matrimonial home. At paragraphs 26 and her affidavit she deposes to the fact that the deceased sent “her copies of newspaper clippings (exhibited to her affidavit) containing reports to the effect that widows who had been separated from their husbands were unsuccessful in their claims to share in their husband's estates. These clippings were sent in 1967 and 1968, between four and five years, after her separation from the deceased.

9 By an affidavit sworn an the 20th...