Man wins 10-year battle to inherit family estate after appeal court ruling

A St Andrew man who was shut out of his uncle’s estate is now back in line to inherit after the Court of Appeal ruled that the will excluding him was a forgery, ending a legal battle that lasted over a decade.

The court ruled that the purported 2006 will of Calvin Bartholomew Williams was not genuine, overturning a Supreme Court decision that had previously accepted the document as legitimate. The challenged instructed the exclusion of the appellant, Winston Keen Sr, from inheriting five properties and two overseas bank accounts.

In a judgment delivered by Justices Nicole Simmons, Frank Williams and Marcia Dunbar-Green, the appellate panel found that the trial judge had misapplied the burden of proof and had improperly dismissed expert evidence pointing to inconsistencies in Williams’ signature. These errors, the court held, undermined the trial judge’s conclusion that the will had been validly executed.

The dispute originated with a claim by Keen Sr, who maintained that the will did not reflect the true wishes of Williams, who died on October 2, 2010. The document named Fernando Dyte as sole executor and principal beneficiary. The only other beneficiary, Williams’ sister, Medina Williams, had predeceased him, leaving Dyte entitled to the entire estate. Dyte later died in 2012, leaving minor children. The administrator general was subsequently appointed to represent Dyte’s estate.

Central to the appeal was the testimony of handwriting expert Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) Paul Dixon. After comparing the signature on the will with Williams’ signatures on earlier mortgage and land-transfer documents, Dixon concluded that the will’s signature had been forged. He relied on a digital microscope, a video spectral comparator, and detailed comparisons of pressure patterns, stroke formation, and letter structure.

Simmons, writing for the court, held that the trial judge erred in dismissing Dixon’s testimony on the basis that he had not adequately explained his methodology.

“The methodology and criteria on which ASP Dixon made his findings were clearly stated. ASP Dixon pointed to the differences between the known signatures and those on the purported will,” the judge held, noting that the learned judge “appears to have overlooked and/or not considered the section of the expert’s report that dealt with the methodology”.

The Court of Appeal also ruled that the trial judge was wrong to believe he could not conduct his own comparison of signatures. Established case law permits such an assessment.

The appellate court found that once the presumption of due execution was challenged by anomalies in the signature and other suspicious circumstances, the burden shifted to the respondent – the administrator general – to prove that Williams knew and approved the will’s contents. No such evidence was presented.

“ The learned judge failed to appreciate that the burden of proof had shifted,” Simmons wrote, adding that this was a material error warranting appellate intervention.

NEXT OF KIN

Keen Sr argued that he was the deceased’s sole surviving next of kin on his mother’s side and that Williams, with whom he shared a close relationship, had previously promised him one of the Lawrence Avenue homes. The will’s sweeping bequest of real estate and bank accounts to Dyte, who relatives said had only recently become acquainted with Williams, further raised concerns.

The Court of Appeal noted that these circumstances, combined with testimony that Williams always signed using a distinctive ‘B’ absent from the contested will, should have alerted the trial judge to the possibility of forgery. After reviewing the expert evidence and witness testimony, the appellate panel concluded on a balance of probabilities that Williams’ signature on the 2006 will had, indeed, been forged.

“ In this court’s view, there was enough evidence … to find that the signature of the deceased was a forgery,” the judgment stated.

The court ordered that the will be declared null and void and that Williams be deemed to have died intestate.

During the appeal, Keen Sr’s attorney, Patrick Foster, King’s Counsel, argued that the Supreme Court judge had wrongly dismissed critical evidence. He maintained that the combination of expert testimony and witness accounts was sufficient to rebut the presumption of due execution. Once suspicion arose, Foster said, the burden rested with the party relying on the will to prove that Williams understood and approved it.

In response, Georgia Gibson Henlin, KC, representing the administrator general, contended that the trial judge had correctly applied the law. She argued that the will met all legal requirements and that the expert evidence was insufficient to support a finding of forgery.

Foster, assisted by Mark Paul Cowan and instructed by Nunes, Scholefield, DeLeon & Co, appeared for Keen Sr. Gibson Henlin and Stephanie Williams represented the administrator general.

tanehsa.mundle@gleanerjm.com