Richard Dean Martin and Others v Stuart Lee Myers and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 July 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] EWHC 1947 (Ch) |
| Date | 22 July 2004 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HC 03 00091 |
[2004] EWHC 1947 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Mr Nicholas Strauss QC (Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)
Case No: HC 03 00091
Mr Rex Howling (instructed by Bakewell) for the claimants
Mr G M Jarand (instructed by The Smith Partnership) for the defendants
Hearing dates: 18 —19 May 2004
APPROVED JUDGMENT
Mr Strauss QC:
In this action the claimants seek an order for the administration of the real and personal estate of Edward Myers and Frances Amy Maud Myers together with all necessary and proper accounts, directions and enquiries.
Edward Myers was born on 13 January 1904 and died on 25 April 1977, aged 73. Amy Myers was born on 27 January 1914 and died on 30 April 2001, aged 87.
They had seven children:
Sandra Foster, who was born 5 December 1936 and died on 28 April 1998.
Terence Myers, born on 10 June 1938.
Philip Myers, who was born on 24 June 1939 and died on 18 July 2002, and whose sons are the defendants in this action.
Margaret Martin, who was born on 4 October 1941 and died on 22 September 2003, originally the first claimant.
Joyce Bull, born on 24 June 1943, the second claimant.
Cheryl Lambert, born on 20 June 1946, the third claimant.
Mary Stevenson, born on 16 July 1947, the fourth claimant.
On 28 September 1953, Edward Myers bought a house at 101, Uttoxeter New Road, Derby, which at the date of his death in 1977 was worth £7,500. After his death, Amy Myers remained in the house until about 18 months before she died, when she went to live with the second claimant, Joyce Bull. She left the house in her will to her second son, Philip Myers. After her death, he obtained a grant of probate over her estate, and subsequently letters of administration over his father's estate. On 28 February 2002 he sold the property for £70,000. As stated above, he died on 18 July 2002, and his sons, the personal representatives of his estate, are the defendants in this action.
The dispute in this case arises because the claimants, the four daughters who were still living at the date of Amy Myers's death, allege that their parents were never married. They contend that Amy Myers did not inherit the property on Edward Myers's death intestate in 1977 and that it was not hers to leave; therefore the seven children were entitled to equal shares in their father's estate. Terence Smith, the older son, who lives in Australia, has played no part in this dispute.
There are two issues between the parties:
(a) Were Edward and Amy Myers married? The defendants rely on the presumption of marriage arising from cohabitation and contend that the claimants have been unable to adduce the clear and convincing evidence necessary to rebut it.
(b) If they were not married, did Amy Myers nonetheless become the owner of the property by her exclusive possession of it for a period exceeding 12 years (in fact some 24 years). This in turn depends upon whether she was a constructive trustee of the property for her children; if so, the effect of section 21(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980 is that she could not acquire a possessory title to the property.
The claimants' evidence consisted of the written statement of the first claimant, Margaret Martin, made at a time when she knew she was suffering from incurable cancer, and witness statements supplemented by oral evidence in chief and on cross-examination from the other three claimants. I found them to be straightforward and truthful witnesses. The defendants' evidence consisted of their witness statements, again subject to cross-examination. I found them to be equally straightforward and truthful, but through no fault of their own their evidence was of limited value; they had very little personal knowledge of the relevant facts concerning their grandparents. There was also a written statement from Beryl Myers, the divorced wife of Philip Myers, but for reasons explained below, and again through no fault of hers, it was of little relevance.
According to the claimants' evidence, Edward and Amy Myers met at Derby railway station, or at a hotel near it, in about 1935. Amy Myers had moved to Derby relatively recently, and worked there as a chambermaid. Edward Myers came from Cumbria, but moved to Derby after meeting her. He seems to have had very little time for his own family, and his own children never became acquainted with any of his siblings.
The picture which emerges from the evidence is of a close-knit and loving family. They lived at 101 Uttoxeter Road, which was initially rented, from about 1938 onwards. The claimants' evidence is that their parents told them that they were very hard up in the early days and they never became well off. They did not enjoy a proper holiday until the 1970s. What usually happened was that Mr Myers would take them camping in Somerset, while Mrs Myers stayed at home to have a rest. After Mr Myers's death on 25 April 1977, the surviving children combined to look after their mother in various different ways. Terence invited her to many holidays in Australia; Philip, who was a builder, did substantial work on the house; all the daughters looked after her both financially and in many practical ways, increasingly so in the last years of her life when she was disabled.
According to the claimants, their mother was always extremely vague on the question of her marriage. From time to time they would ask her when her wedding anniversary was and she would evade the question by saying that she was too busy or she would change the subject; sometimes if pressed she would give a date, but she gave different dates. She used to say that they had been "together" for 40 years, but never said in terms that they were married. This is where the evidence of Beryl Myers comes in. She says in her statement that on one occasion her mother-in-law said that her wedding anniversary was on the same day as her (Beryl's) birthday. But according to Joyce Bull, other dates were given, including one within a couple of days of Beryl Myers's birthday. Mrs Myers's vagueness on this topic became something of a joke between Mary Stevenson and Philip Myers, who used to say "the old lady was never married".
In July 1988, Joyce Bull suffered a tragedy when her son died suddenly. She gave evidence about an incident which occurred in about January 1989 —the date is fixed in her mind because it was shortly after the husband of the fourth claimant, Cheryl Lambert, suffered an accident and was in hospital —when she was talking to her mother about her loss, and said that she was particularly sad that he had never been married. Her mother replied that she too had never married. Joyce asked her why not, and she said that there had never been money enough to do it; it all went to feeding and bringing up the children. Joyce immediately afterwards told her sisters, and the fact that their parents had never been married immediately became common knowledge amongst the siblings; Philip said words to the effect that they should wait until the "old lady" died and then sort things out. None of the claimants ever raised the subject again with Mrs Myers; nor is there any evidence that either of her sons raised it with her.
Amy Myers continued to live in the house, becoming increasingly dependent on the help of her daughters, until a year or two before she died she moved in with Joyce Bull. She died on 30 April 2001. She had made a will on 6 October 1989, appointing Philip Myers to be the sole executor of the will or if he could not or would not act, then Sandra Foster (who in the event pre-deceased her). She left £4,000 to Terence, adding that since he had always said that he did not want anything, it should be divided equally between his children. She bequeathed £3,000 to each of her daughters who were living at the time of her death, together with £500 for Margaret for a stone for her late husband's grave. Finally, she left the house to Philip Myers subject to his bearing any inheritance tax and subject to all the other bequests in the will being satisfied first.
The will contains the sentence "The reason for my wishes are because I know my son Philip Myers has left his wife and two sons well provided for" and there is also a contemporaneous note reading:
"To all my children I want you to know that my wishes were hard to decide upon because none of you wanted to let me talk about it, you all wanted me to sell the house and spend it. Well I have lived in this house too long and I am sure I would not have settled anywhere else.
Do not think this is a special favour to Philip because he too wanted me to sell the house and spend it and have a good time, but he is the only one that would afford to do it up which would cost a great deal of money and hard work to put it right, then he could make the house nice and it could possibly still be kept in the family.
I hope you will find the money useful and whatever you, my daughters, might do with it, I hope it gives you pleasure.
Just remember me."
According to the claimants, shortly after their mother's death, they took legal advice and registered a caveat against the estate. There was then a meeting on 8 June 2001, attended by three of the sisters and Philip Myers, at which he asked them to remove the caveat, promising that he would act fairly and give everybody a one-seventh share of the estate. On that basis, the caveat was removed and Philip Myers obtained a grant of probate on 3 August 2001, and letters of administration over his father's estate on 3 December 2001. As I have already mentioned, the house was sold in February 2002, and there is a letter from licensed conveyancers acting on his behalf...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kassinda Williams (Substituted in place of Elste Elaine Williams) v Stephen Williams
...the Grenadines, Revised Edition 2009. 22 ANUHCVAP2006/0025. 23 In accordance with section 23 of the Limitation Act. 24 Martin v Myers [2004] EWHC 1947 (Ch). 25 Halsbury's Laws of England Volume 103 (2016), para. 1267 (Lexis Nexis online 26 SVGHACV2012/0018. 27 Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of ......
-
Kassinda Williams v Stephen Williams and Gellizeau King
...and be extinguished 12 years after the accrual date, in accordance with sections 17 and 20 of the Limitation Act [ Martin v. Myers [2004] EWHC 1947 (Ch)]. EXPRESS OR CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTEE — ELSTE WILLIAMS 103 By occupying the disputed property after Florence Nanton's death, Elste Williams b......