NASSAU-An Appeal Court says there’s no evidence that Sheryl Ferguson unduly influenced her mother to sign over her home.
Ferguson successfully appealed against a 2019 Supreme Court decision that declared the 2010 conveyance null and void.
Ferguson is locked in a bitter court battle with her brother Roosevelt Dawkins over who’s entitled to their late mother’s home in Bel Air Estates.
Their mother Albertha Dawkins conveyed the home to Ferguson in June 2010, just one month after she left it to her son in a will.
Mr. Dawkins didn’t learn about the conveyance until his mother died on February 24, 2012 at 81.
As a result, Mr. Dawkins commenced a court action, alleging that his sister exerted undue influence over their mother when she signed over the house.
He asserted that his mother was not of sound mind and that she did not have independent legal advice.
Supreme Court Justice Ian Winder ruled in Mr. Dawkins’ favour last year and declared the conveyance executed by Attorney Milton Cox null and void.
Justice Winder ruled Mrs Dawkins was of sound mind when she executed the conveyance.
Despite this, Justice Winder ruled that Mrs Dawkins depended on her daughter, whom she gave power of attorney over her affairs.
The judge said Ferguson took advantage of this reliance when her mother gave away her home.
Justice Winder found the transaction “suspicious” since Mrs Dawkins had nowhere else to live and did not retain a life or beneficial interest in the home.
And, Justice Winder said that Cox did not advise Mrs. Dawkins about the consequences.
However, the Court of Appeal said Justice Winder got it all wrong.
Justice of Appeal Milton Evans said, “There is no evidence that the appellant utilized the power of attorney for her own benefit. She was in no different position than the respondent when the deceased executed the will in her favour.”
Additionally, Justice Evans said the finding that Mrs. Dawkins didn’t have independent advice was not supported by the evidence.
He said, “The evidence is that the deceased attended her own attorney and gave him instructions. It was in fact the appellant who did not have the benefit of independent advice.”
The Court of Appeal ordered Mr. Dawkins to pay his sister’s legal fees for the trial and appeal.
