Woman loses house fight after evicting sister-in-law

A woman, who evicted her sick sister-in-law from a property a day after her husband died, claiming that she was the sole owner and later rejecting a $30-million offer, was left disappointed after the court awarded full ownership to the widow.

The Supreme Court found that although the sister, Margot Francis, had a 50 per cent stake in the property, she had been dispossessed by her brother Lancelot Clarke and his wife, Georgia Campbell-Clarke, who had been occupying the Molynes Road, St Andrew, premises for more than 20 years. The property was originally owned by the siblings’ mother, who transferred the title to Francis and her aunt.

“From 2003, the date of entry into possession of the first claimant up to the date of the death of Mr Clarke in 2021, this court finds that the defendant failed to exercise any acts of ownership over the property,” Justice Sonya Wint-Blair said in the judgment, which was handed down last month.

“This court finds that Mr Clarke had dispossessed the defendant as the title holder, and her paper title to the property has been extinguished by operation of law. I find that Mr Clarke was entitled to the entire legal and equitable interest in the subject property by adverse possession,” she added.

Francis, the defendant in a claim brought by the widow in her capacity as administrator of her husband’s estate, initially presented herself as the sole owner of the property and had kept her mother’s will from her brother, in which it was stated that he was a beneficiary of the property.

“Mr Clarke died not knowing the contents of his mother’s will. Mr Clarke and the first claimant first got a copy of the title to the property in or around 2004-2005 and saw that it was registered to the defendant and Ms Chevannes, absolutely,” the judgment stated while disclosing that it was among the mother’s wishes in the will for Clarke to have a 50 per cent interest in the land.

However, in 2022, Francis found herself at the centre of a legal battle after her attorney served Campbell-Clarke with two notices to quit.

According to the widow, she did not think that the defendant would be so cruel and dishonest as to ask her to leave the property within 24 hours of her husband’s death, knowing that she had lived there for the past two decades as well as that she had agreed to help them get the property registered in their joint names.

SHOCKING NEWS

The widow was informed by her sister-in-law, a day after her husband’s death on October 8, 2021, that she was taking steps to sell the property.

This came as a shock to Campbell-Clarke, who had just undergone major throat surgery and was in the midst of grieving but who had always felt that the home was a shared asset of her and her husband’s and had invested heavily financially.

Besides the notices that were served in December 2021 and July 2022, police were also sent to the home, and realtors also showed up at the property, taking pictures and “disturbing the widow’s peace and privacy”.

The widow’s son, who was overseas and could not return to care for his mother, had contacted Francis and offered to buy the house for $30 million, $1 million higher than the asking price, but was rejected even after he had obtained approval for the loan from Victoria Mutual Building Society.

However, Francis accepted an offer for $27 million from a couple and sent the notices for sale to Campbell-Clarke, who, in return, got an injunction to stop the sale before bringing the claim for 100 per cent interest in the property.

The widow, in her evidence, testified that she had lived at the three-bedroom and two-bathroom premises since 2003 when she moved there with her son and her belongings and took on the role of “breadwinner and homemaker”.

She said she was told from the outset that the house belonged to her husband, and so over the years, spent a lot of funds in renovating and fixing the premises, which she encouraged her husband to rent after adding two bathrooms and a bedroom.

Campbell-Clarke, a hairdresser, said although her husband worked as an accountant, he did not have a steady job, so most of her money and funds from her son, who had eventually moved overseas, were used in the renovations.

“Based on the receipts that she has been able to find, she prepared a table of her capital expenditure on the property that shows a total of $1,435,297.303, which she testified represents less than one-half of her capital expenditure on the property over the years, including the contributions from her son,” the judgment said.

UNDERSTANDING WITH THE DECEASED

However, Francis, in her amended defence and counterclaim, contended that her brother had lived at the property since 2001 with the knowledge that they were its beneficial owners and occupied the premises with his wife, who was a licensee.

She claimed that she was aware of and agreed to the rentals and visited the subject property almost every Saturday.

Francis also claimed that she had an understanding with her brother that she would pay property taxes and that he would take care of maintenance, repairs, and upkeep and subsequently paid taxes, insurance, and mortgage. Accordingly, Francis said she never gave up her interest in the property.

But the judge said the evidence pointed to Francis unsuccessfully attempting to assert several positions, the first categorising her brother as a licensee in that it was she who permitted him to reside at the property.

“This could not be true as her instructions to Darby Darby & Associates state that she was a purchaser of the property, which is inconsistent with her witness statement and amended defence which state that her brother occupied as a beneficial co-owner.

“The defendant did not permit her brother to occupy the property, he was not a licensee, and he had always occupied the property as an undisputed fact. She could not have revoked a licence she did not grant, nor could she have served him with a notice to quit nor recover possession from him as her tenant,” the judge said

The judge also indicated that the inference could be made that if Francis had owned the property, then there would have been no need for her to serve a notice to quit Campbell-Clarke as a tenant.

“The notice to quit accords with the view held by the defendant that she permitted her brother to live on the land and the first claimant was her licensee as well. The reason for the defendant’s falsehood becomes clear when viewed in this context.

“The conclusion to be drawn from all this evidence of false statements and inconsistent positions on the part of the defendant is that she had moved from wanting an equal entitlement to representing falsely that she was solely entitled to the property, and her actions are demonstrative of this. However, she has been found to have been dispossessed by Mr Clarke and Mrs Clarke,” Wint Blair said.

Attorneys Mark-Paul Cowan and Nathan Dawkins of Nunes Scholefield, Deleon & Co appeared for Campbell-Clarke while attorneys Andre Earle, KC, and Melissa Mayne Earle and Wilson law firm appeared for Francis.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com