Nigel Joslyn v Edward Joslyn

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES SVGHCV2010/0252 BETWEEN: NIGEL JOSLYN CLAIMANT of McCarthy -AND- EDWARD JOSLYN DEFENDANT of 8806 Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11236/1211 Appearances: Mr Andreas Coombs holding for Mr Carlyle Dougan Q.C. for the Claimant, Mr Sten Sargeant for the Defendant. 2015: May 20 Jul. 13 JUDGMENT BACKGROUND

[1]Henry, J.: This case involves a dispute for ownership of land between Nigel Joslyn and Edward Joslyn, nephew and uncle respectively. From the pleadings and affidavits filed in this matter, the parties accept that the disputed land, situated at McCarthy is registered in the name of Ruth Constance deceased, who was Nigel Joslyn’s grandmother and Edward Joslyn’s mother. Edward Joslyn is the Administrator of Ruth Constance’s estate having been granted Letters of Administration on August 12th 2010. Nigel Joslyn brought this action in July 2010 and seeks declarations that he has for several years been in exclusive, uninterrupted and undisturbed possession of the disputed land and that Edward Joslyn is thereby estopped from challenging or denying his rights to it. He also seeks an injunction restraining Edward Joslyn from entering or interfering with the disputed land or his possession and use of it.

[2]Edward Joslyn refutes Nigel’s Joslyn’s claims and has counterclaimed for an injunction to restrain him from entering the disputed lands. He seeks a declaration that Nigel Joslyn is estopped from initiating any further litigation against him in respect of Ruth Constance’s estate. When the matter was set down for status hearing in May, the parties were invited to make oral submissions on the effect of sections 31 and 47 of the Administration of Estates Act (“the Act”) on Nigel’s Joslyn’s claim to adverse possession. Nigel Joslyn submitted that his claim is not affected by section 31 because he is making that claim in his own right and not as a beneficiary of Ruth Constance’s estate. Edward Joslyn argued that pursuant to section 31 of the Act, from the date of Ruth Constance’s death, her estate was vested in the Honourable Chief Justice and held subject to a statutory trust. He submitted further that after Letters of Administration are extracted, Edward Joslyn holds the disputed land on a statutory trust for sale in accordance with section 47 of the Act.

ISSUE

[3]The sole issue to be determined is whether Nigel Joslyn’s or Edward Joslyn’s respective pleadings disclose a legal basis on which to maintain an action for adverse possession or injunction? ANALYSIS Does Nigel Joslyn’s or Edward Joslyn’s statement of case respectively disclose a legal basis on which maintain an action for adverse possession or injunction?

[4]The Act declares who is authorized to deal with an estate’s property before it is completely distributed. It is provides that an intestate’s estate remains vested in the Honourable Chief Justice until Letters of Administration are extracted; and during that time it is deemed to be presumptively held on a trust for sale for the benefit of the beneficiaries. Once appointed, an administrator holds the property on statutory trust for sale. A beneficiary who before Letters of Administration are extracted, occupies property which forms part of an intestate’s estate, is deemed to hold it on a constructive trust for the other beneficiaries. It follows therefore that co-beneficiaries’ interests cannot be extinguished through adverse possession by another beneficiary. Mr Nigel Joslyn concedes that a co-beneficiary is unable to acquire an interest by adverse possession in such circumstances. He argues that he did not become a co-beneficiary in Ruth Constance’s estate until his mother’s demise. He contends that he therefore could and did acquire title to the subject land by adverse possession.

[5]Mr Nigel Joslyn’s mother Gwendolyn Joslyn and Edward Joslyn are brother and sister. Ruth Constance was their mother. They are accordingly entitled to proportionate shares in their mother’s estate under the Act. It appears from the record that Gwendolyn Joslyn died in 1996. Mr Nigel Joslyn filed this claim 14 years later on July 16, 2010. By that time, Mr Nigel Joslyn and his siblings became entitled to Gwendolyn Joslyn’s share of Ruth Constance’s estate. They had become beneficiaries of Ruth Constance’s estate on Gwendolyn’s death.

[6]As beneficiaries, they are restricted from alienating any portion of the estate through adverse possession. Nigel Joslyn is thereby precluded from asserting any right, title or interest in the subject land by adverse possession. Furthermore, Nigel Joslyn’s previous application in 2009, for a declaration of possessory title was dismissed because the learned judge found that “he was not in exclusive possession of the land for 12 years”. He and Edward Joslyn were the parties in that matter and his claim to adverse possession was the sole issue. The principle of res judicata prohibits Nigel Joslyn from re-litigating that issue. He is seeking to do so in this suit and that is not permissible. For all of these reasons, I find that Nigel Joslyn’s statement of case does not disclose a legal basis on which maintain an action for adverse possession or injunction.

[7]Mr Edward Joslyn was sued in his personal capacity. He has since obtained Letters of Administration in Ruth Constance’s estate. No order has been made substituting or adding him as a party in his representative capacity. His claim for an injunction, as administrator of his mother’s estate is not sustainable. I accordingly find that his statement of case does not disclose a legal basis on which to support such a claim.

[8]Nigel Joslyn’s persistence in pursuing a claim for a declaration of adverse possession in light of the earlier decision on the identical issue is to be frowned upon. It does not appear that he has appealed that decision but nonetheless he evinces an intention to circumvent the order of the court. This is to be discouraged in the strongest terms. This is an appropriate case in which to restrain him from filing any further claims against Mr Edward Joslyn, dealing with this subject matter.

ORDERS

[9]It is accordingly declared and ordered: Nigel Joslyn’s statement of case does not disclose a legal basis on which maintain an action for adverse possession or an injunction. It struck out and is dismissed. Edward Joslyn’s statement of case does not disclose a legal basis on which maintain an action for an injunction. It struck out and is dismissed. Nigel Joslyn is restrained from filing any claim in the High Court against Edward Joslyn seeking a declaration that he acquired an interest by adverse possession in land situated at Cartes, Mc Carthy described and delineated in Survey Plan G2685. Nigel Joslyn shall pay Edward Joslyn prescribed costs of $5,250.00 pursuant to CPR 65.5 (1) and (2). ….………………………………… Esco L. Henry HIGH COURT JUDGE