Important Win For George C Missick Who Gets Judgment Against Estate Overturned

Our firm has won an appeal against a court order that would have prevented a deceased estate from defending a high-value claim. In an important win for George C MIssick, a partner at ParrisWhittaker, and our client, he successfully challenged a summary judgment where almost $392,000 is at stake.

Where a civil claim is brought against an estate (or anyone else), either party to the claim can ask the court for summary judgment in their favour in certain circumstances.

When considering whether to allow an application, the judge must consider whether the other party has at least an arguable case, which means full investigation of the evidence is required. That exercise did not happen in this case.

What’s the background?

Cliff Sampath died suddenly in February 2019 without a will in place. At the time of his death, Mr Sampath was living with his long-term partner, with whom he has a 15-year-old daughter. She is the sole beneficiary of the estate.

In April 2019, shortly after the funeral, the deceased’s father and sister brought a claim against the estate for repayment of significant sums they alleged were loans which have been outstanding for more than 13 years.  No demands had ever been made for repayment.

Our clients (the estate administrators) resisted the claim on the basis that the amounts given were either a gift (or had in fact been repaid).

In May 2022, the court awarded summary judgment against the estate in the total sum of US$391,832.53 (plus post-judgment interest at the statutory rate of 6%). If the order were allowed to stand, the daughter’s inheritance would have been significantly depleted.

Success

The Court of Appeal of the Turks and Caicos Islands allowed our appeal against that ruling.

Crucially, we argued that there was insufficient evidence or no evidence to prove there was a loan justifying summary judgment, despite requests to the claimants’ witnesses to produce supporting evidence.

There was not even any documentary evidence to support their claim that the deceased had loaned them money; nor was there evidence as to the reason or purposes of the transactions. Yet as the claimants, it was for them to prove the monies advanced by the deceased amounted to loans and not, for instance gifts or cash for investment purposes.

Furthermore, our clients’ reliance on what is known as the Presumption of Advancement between father and son had not been considered by the judge. This is a presumption in law that transfers of money or assets from parent to child are presumed to be a gift of ‘advancement’, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

The appeal judges also found that the judge had failed to properly come to the conclusion that our clients’ defence did have a reasonable prospect of success. The summary judgment application should have been dismissed.

The case will now go to a full hearing, unless it can be settled beforehand.

How can we help?

The contested probate team at ParrisWhittaker are experienced in successfully supporting and representing clients involved in what can be distressing disputes following a relative’s death. For specialist advice, contact George C Missick at info@parriswhittaker.com