2 weeks ago
1
Justice Frank Seepersad. - A bitter family dispute over the ownership and sale of a fishing vessel has ended with the High Court dismissing a son’s claim against his mother.
On January 26, Justice Frank Seepersad dismissed Robert Auerbach Jr’s claim to ownership of the vessel Dilligaf, ruling that he failed to prove any legal or beneficial entitlement to the boat.
In delivering his decision, the judge found that the claimant’s case rested largely on allegations rather than documentary proof, and that the evidence supported the defence’s position that the vessel belonged to his deceased father’s company and, after his death, to his widow, Margaret Auerbach.
Robert alleged that his father intended the vessel to be his and claimed that his mother attempted to sell all the assets connected to the boat and retain the proceeds. He further alleged that she sought to dispose of other family assets despite never having worked, and that he had been prevented from accessing the family property.
He told the court that fisheries registration documents proved his ownership of the vessel and relied on conversations with his father dating back to 2008, which he said showed an intention to acquire the boat for him, partly in satisfaction of work allegedly done for a company known as Morisco Services Ltd.
Robert also claimed that his mother took personal documents belonging to him, including his passport, insurance clearance and the vessel’s registration papers, and that the entire file of documents relating to the boat had gone missing. While he acknowledged that he had not yet taken legal action in relation to those allegations, he said he intended to do so but was being prevented from entering the property.
Margaret Auerbach, however, firmly denied her son’s claims and maintained that she was the lawful owner of the vessel.
She said ownership flowed from her late husband’s will, her role as executor of his estate, and her position as a director of Dilligaf Inc. She explained that she and her husband were directors of the company, which owned the vessel, although no shares were ever issued to either of them.
She testified that as the surviving director, ownership and control of the vessel vested in her, and noted that as she was still alive, the estate had not yet devolved to her children.
The court was shown two inventories submitted during the probate process, neither of which listed shares in Dilligaf Inc. or the vessel itself as estate assets. In emotional testimony, Margaret spoke about the period following her husband’s death.
She said her son had little involvement in the purchase of the vessel, which was acquired on December 1, 2009.
“Do you know what it is to be a widow?” she asked under cross-examination by her son’s attorney, Stephen Singh. “My husband had just died.”
She told the court that she eventually decided to dispose of the boat as it had become a source of distress and conflict. She alleged that her son had been abusive and described the vessel as “a thorn in her side.”
Margaret said the boat was sold to her daughter’s partner and insisted that she had never gifted it to her son, but merely lent it to him. She also claimed the vessel was damaged while in his possession and maintained that her husband never intended to leave it to their son.
In his ruling, Justice Seepersad found no credible evidence that the deceased intended to gift the vessel to his son, nor any documentary proof supporting Robert’s claim of ownership.
The court accepted Margaret Auerbach’s evidence that the vessel belonged to Dilligaf Inc. and that she, as director and executor, was entitled to deal with it. The judge found that the claimant’s evidence fell well short of the required standard.
He noted that while the claimant bore the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities, his narrative relied heavily on his relationship with his deceased father and was unsupported by documents.
“Notably, the claimant provided absolutely no documentary evidence in support of any contention or explanation as to what involvement, if any, he had with Morisco Services Ltd, what work was done, or the value of that work,” the judge said.
Justice Seepersad expressed scepticism about the claimant’s account, observing that at the material time he was a student and it was “highly unlikely” he had the financial means or time to generate work of such value that a US$163,000 vessel would be treated as part payment.
The court found that documentary evidence showed the vessel was purchased in December 2009 using funds from accounts controlled by Robert George Auerbach and his wife.
Examining the company’s incorporation documents, the judge noted that while the deceased and his wife were appointed directors, no shares were ever issued, and the claimant was neither a shareholder nor a director.
On a balance of probabilities, the judge said that if the deceased intended to gift the vessel to his son, one would have expected the claimant to have been given an interest or authority within the company. Instead, control of the company and its assets remained exclusively with the deceased and his wife.
“Notably, the claimant provided absolutely no documentary evidence in support of any contention or explanation as to what involvement, if any, he had with Morisco Services Ltd, what work was done, or the value of that work,” the judge said.
“The documentary evidence suggests that the vessel, when acquired, was acquired not in the name of the claimant, but in the name of a company, and the authority in that company was not given to the claimant, but was retained by the deceased and his wife.
“If the claimant's evidence is accurate, and his relationship with his mother is almost non-existent since he was about 18 years old, then, on a balance of probabilities, it is highly unlikely that his father, with whom he suggests he had a close relationship and bond, having promised him this vessel, would then place the vessels in the hand of an incorporated company, where the claimant's nemesis, his mother, would be one of the two directors and persons who are authorised to issue the shares in the said corporation.
“So the mere fact that the company was set up in the manner in which it was suggests that there was no clear and manifest intent by the deceased to gift this vessel to the claimant.
“Now, the evidence also suggests that subsequent to the death of the deceased, there was a further breakdown in the relationship between this mother and son that has resulted in a multiplicity of legal and criminal matters, some of which or one of which also involved the institution of injunctive proceedings where the defendant had to obtain orders from the court for the defendant, the claimant to stay away from her.”
Justice Seepersad also considered evidence of the strained relationship between mother and son, including injunctive relief obtained by the defendant to keep her son away from her. He said this undermined the claimant’s assertion that his father would have placed the vessel in a company where his estranged wife had equal control if the intention was to gift the boat to the claimant.
Quoting Shakespeare’s King Lear, the judge remarked on the pain of familial betrayal, noting: “How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is to have a thankless child.”
Having seen and heard both witnesses, Justice Seepersad found that Margaret Auberach was “a far more credible and reliable witness” and that she engendered in the court “the feeling that she was a witness of truth.”
“In fact, she engendered in the court the feeling that she was a witness of truth. In the circumstances, therefore, it was understandable shortly after the death of her husband,
the trauma that is associated with untimely death and then a deterioration in familial relationships, which evidently was occurring in 2014, because it subsequently resulted in the filing of proceedings where an injunctive order was obtained
While accepting that Robert and his father may have shared a close relationship and that he accompanied his father on a voyage from St Lucia after the vessel was acquired, the judge said this did not amount to proof of ownership.
“Whether the claimant sailed back with the vessel in December 2009 or early 2010,
clearly the claimant and his father had a good relationship, and the fact that he would have accompanied his father on the sail from St Lucia does not mean that it was intended that the vessel was his.
“For all the reasons outlined, if it was the intent to gift the vessel, the documentary evidence would have reflected that intention,” Justice Seepersad said.
The court found that Robert had failed to discharge the burden of proof and also noted that any claim may properly have been brought against the company in whose name the vessel was vested, but that company was not a party to the proceedings.
The claim was dismissed, and Robert was ordered to pay his mother’s costs on the prescribed basis.
Margaret Auerbach was represented by Om Lalla.
English (US) ·