Court declares Curepe woman's 'will' invalid

Justice Robin Mohammed. -

THE High Court has ruled that a purported will of a Curepe woman is invalid and has granted her husband letters of administration over her estate.

Justice Robin Mohammed has also ordered the late woman’s sister to pay $1,063,200 to her brother-in-law, representing the loss of rental income for a property at Bushe Street, Curepe.

The ruling follows a contested probate matter in which the deceased’s sister claimed to be the executrix of her sister’s alleged 2012 will.

However, the judge found that the signature on the will did not match verified samples of the deceased’s signature, as confirmed by a handwriting expert. The sister did not participate in the trial initiated by her brother-in-law.

In his lawsuit, the claimant sought an order to allow him to collect rent from the Curepe property, maintain records of all rent and expenditures.

He also sought a declaration that a will, produced by his sister-in-law after she failed to get his permission to apply for letters of administration for her sister’s estate.

According to the judgment, when the claimant refused, his sister-in-law produced a will allegedly signed by her sister naming her as the will’s executrix.

The claimant alleged that the will had been obtained under suspicious circumstances and possibly involved fraud. He claimed the signature on the will was not that of his late wife and engaged a handwriting expert to provide evidence in support of this claim.

At the undefended trial before Justice Mohammed, three witnesses provided evidence on behalf of the claimant: the claimant himself, the handwriting expert and the claimant’s agent.

The handwriting expert examined multiple authenticated samples of the deceased’s signature and concluded that the signature on the alleged will “probably did not” match the deceased’s known signature. He explained critical differences and hesitation marks in the signature on the will, which he described as a “red flag” indicative of copying or simulation.

“This expert evidence stands uncontradicted and unchallenged by cross-examination. As submitted by the claimant, the will only emerged after the claimant refused to consent to the defendant’s initial application for letters of administration,” the judge said.

In his ruling, the judge held that the defendant failed to discharge her burden of proving the validity of the alleged will, deeming it invalid.

“The court finds it suspicious that the alleged will emerged after over ten years…Generally, a person in possession of a will would have no logical reason to wait over a decade before seeking a grant of probate, which therefore creates suspicion.

“The question must also be asked: why would the defendant, who is named as the sole executor of the alleged will of the deceased, and who is in possession of that will, seek consent from the claimant for her to apply for Letters of Administration of the Estate? Producing a will after the claimant has denied such a request can only raise the inescapable inference of serious

suspicions that such alleged will is more than likely a forged or fraudulent document.

“The court is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the signature on the alleged will is not that of the deceased.

“Consequently, the alleged will shall be declared invalid and of no legal effect,” the judge ruled.