Tales from the COURTS – The Tangled Web of Probate Applications Part XIX

Letter from the Registrar of the Supreme Court sent to the Bar Association (BA) regarding a change to the system of processing probate applications - Click Image

Letter from the Registrar of the Supreme Court sent to the Bar Association (BA) regarding a change to the system of processing probate applications – Click Image

The Registrar opines that in light of the decision in CV 427/2012 entitled Edmund King & Cecil Smith v Marva Clarke the system of processing probate applications is to be changed and that counsel dealing with such applications must now pay for the advertising of the probate application and provide proof of such application, before the Registry will accept the filing of the application.

How, we ask, is this possible? Further, under what law and/or authority can the Registrar make such a demand? BU invites the Registrar to enlighten us to the legal precedents governing her decision. An application only exists after it has been accepted and filed by the Registry and a number issued (as in CV 427/2012). Therefore, while it may be sound common sense to require that AFTER FILING attorneys must advertise the matter at their/their clients’ expense, basically what the Registrar is saying is that the Registry is not accepting applications period. Because you cannot advertise UNTIL the application has been FILED!

BU’s interpretation: You have to advertise that an application for probate in an estate has been filed, BUT YOU CANNOT FILE IT UNTIL IT IS ADVERTISED.

Under what law does the Registrar have the right to refuse a filing in what is, after all, a court proceeding? Has the CJ been asleep during this debacle, or is he merely too busy on the cocktail circuit and delivering senseless speeches in New York just to show the legal luminaries there that he is now of their calibre and not, as they almost certainly believed, a minor legal functionary who would never rise above that level?

While it is quite clear that the acting registrar holds no truck with nepotism, a quick brush-up on law and, more importantly common sense (which is supposed to be a cornerstone of the law might not come amiss. The acting registrar is given a little leeway by BU due to the fact that she is acting and is new to the job. But BU’s patience as far as the judicial system is concerned has a very short expiry date indeed. So, Madam Acting Registrar, consider yourself put on notice.

Also, Madam Acting Registrar, as you must be well aware, there are quite a few licensed legal practitioners who, following the Constitution, are not members of the BA. Have you chosen to send a copy of your unfortunate, challengeable and unenforceable edict to them? Have you advertised said edict, at least in the Official Gazette? Or are you going to wait until one of them sues you like they did Marva Clarke?

The process of probate has been increasingly prolonged from 2 to 3 months to 1 to 2 years. So forget about a swift and decisive closure (probate-wise) after the death of a loved one with the sometimes (and common) inter-family bad feeling that comes once the contents of the will are revealed. It seems that the Registry is determined to prolong this pain as well as retard/frustrate the healing process.

BU notes with interest that the citation of the case has at its defendant Marva Clarke and so we must assume that Marva Clarke was sued personally, as well as in her capacity as registrar. It is then no leap to assume that it is likely that costs may have been awarded against Ms Clarke personally. Is it that, Madam Acting Registrar, that given you pause and has encouraged your edict?

It is discouraging to see that, instead of doing their jobs properly in the first place, the justice system’s practice of “caveat rumpus” is still firmly in situ, to the detriment of the people whose tax dollars pay their salaries.

Tags: , , , , ,

49 Comments on “Tales from the COURTS – The Tangled Web of Probate Applications Part XIX”

  1. Amused November 10, 2013 at 8:16 AM #

    @ David. I saw that letter. Couldn’t believe it. Advertise that you have filed before you can file???!!! False advertsing maybe? And a range of other things. All of which re going to be robustly pointed out and complained about by members of the Bar, including those who are not members of the BA.

    Might it not just have made sense to accept filing with the provision that it must be advertised within, say, 7 or 14 days after filing with proof sent to the Registry that it has been advertised??????? That way, simple and no fuss and Registry compliant with the Order and not, once again, made to look like a bunch of incompetent asses, which, of course, they are.

    The cross connections in this one did not escape me either, David. However, they are, to my mind, irrelevant to the issue of this unbelievably silly and legally unenforceable edict. And as Registrar, this lady may be called upon to replace an absent high court judge? Oh well, it only serves to demonstrate the level and standards of the courts.

    Like

  2. PLANTATION DEEDS FROM 1926 TO 2013 , MASSIVE FRAUD ,LAND TAX BILLS AND NO DEEDS OF BARBADOS, BLPand DLP=Massive Fruad November 10, 2013 at 9:02 AM #

    Marva Clarke and et al ?? Wow, WOW, wow, and just think of of all other work and papers that we have not seen and hidden or gone missing , In the POT smoke High of getting high at the High Court,, We need drug testing? We need to check her birth papers ,Trump need to look in to that ,, Only a Spy of another country can behave in this manner.
    And you now know how things are it did not stop there????? think

    Like

  3. Amused November 10, 2013 at 10:02 AM #

    @Deeds. Give it a rest; do I beg yuh. Reflect instead on the silence (so far) of the legal eagles. A bit like with the CoP.

    Like

  4. robert ross November 10, 2013 at 10:11 AM #

    Yes, it sounds illogical doesn’t it. Yet Rule 7 is clear enough and supports, in the final stanza, what the Registrar is saying but with this proviso:-

    The Registrar’s letter talks of the “processing” of applications and so Rule 7 might be interpreted so as to make a distinction between ‘filing’ (in the sense of ‘receiving’) and ‘processing’.. In other words, an application, whilst it cannot be refused de facto, will only conditionally be accepted but will not be processed so that it cannot be said it has de jure been “filed”. The de jure filing and processing only comes in due time after the advertisement.

    The moral is get on with it. Don’t drag your feet. Alternatively, I suppose, the form of an advertisement might be changed to refer to an ‘intention to make application’. At root, it seems that Registry has been ignoring Rule 7 – doubtless with good cause – and now feels it can’t any longer. I don’t think that’s a good reason for BU to issue what I take to be rather silly threats. Sounds too much like Well Well.

    Like

  5. David November 10, 2013 at 10:19 AM #

    @Ross

    What should we do, wait on another Marva Clarke era to take root?

    Perhaps we should wait on the moribund BA.

    Like

  6. robert ross November 10, 2013 at 10:21 AM #

    Now David….patience, patience.

    Like

  7. helpless November 10, 2013 at 3:59 PM #

    To crown it all the Rules say that the Registrar should facilitate the grant of probate and administration. Is her “rule” Facilitating????

    Like

  8. PLANTATION DEEDS FROM 1926 TO 2013 , MASSIVE FRAUD ,LAND TAX BILLS AND NO DEEDS OF BARBADOS, BLPand DLP=Massive Fruad November 10, 2013 at 6:06 PM #

    Amused | November 10, 2013 at 10:02 AM |

    @Deeds. Give it a rest; do I beg yuh. Reflect instead on the silence (so far) of the legal eagles. A bit like with the CoP.@

    People will for get , It can not rest until it is done. If i t was you will you let it rest
    ,It cost everyone on BU , Bajians and their families everyday for the past 27 years, The pain of games on the people must end,
    If none of this bothers you or cost you and your then fine, Everyone on earth dont enough you eat , So must we turn our backs on them for our gut is full.

    robert rodd@.patience, patience. is the time we spend for some one to follow the law of the land that need to apply to All, We can never wait on crooks to do the right thing, ,,

    remember we dealt with Marva Clarke for the returns and the bomb call on July 4th 2013, Which the News did not cover but covered UP ,,

    We might give it a rest for a week , the week that DAVID on BU shut down this site ,,

    Like

  9. BAFBFP November 10, 2013 at 7:19 PM #

    “BU’s patience as far as the judicial system is concerned has a very short expiry date indeed. So, Madam Acting Registrar, consider yourself put on notice …”

    But David wah brand ah weapons you packin’ …?🙂

    Like

  10. David November 10, 2013 at 7:25 PM #

    @Baffy

    You maybe surprised how these wannabees treasure their reputations. A blog or two about their indiscretions are propagated for all to Google. Are you not tired waiting on the BA and their incestuous bullshit?

    Like

  11. robert ross November 11, 2013 at 12:39 AM #

    BAF

    Now in another place we were doing ART and living out bohemian dreams. Where were YOU?

    Deeds

    My use of the word ‘Patience’ stems from David’s suggestion in another post that he has limitless patience with all of us and urging us to show the same “perfection” with each other. I tried to suggest that that was total bullshit. He returns to the concept in this post but in a different context.

    David

    Are you a “wannabee” or a ‘willnevabe’? And in respect of what? And why?

    Amused

    Well, you got a response. Surprised you’ve not rushed into print.

    Seems to me that the Registrar should be asked for clarification.

    Like

  12. David November 11, 2013 at 4:50 AM #

    @Ross

    Yes she should be asked for clarification, let us see what gives this week.

    Like

  13. Amused November 11, 2013 at 5:18 AM #

    @David | November 11, 2013 at 4:50 AM | Agree. let us see what the BA responds this week ahead of its meeting with the acting registrar and the outcome of that meeting. or are they waiting for the same lawyer to sue the registrar again? in the circumstances, unlikely to happen. I am impressed with your evident insider information from within the BA.

    Like

  14. PLANTATION DEEDS FROM 1926 TO 2013 , MASSIVE FRAUD ,LAND TAX BILLS AND NO DEEDS OF BARBADOS, BLPand DLP=Massive Fruad November 11, 2013 at 7:32 AM #

    Well probate was filed for Violet Beckles , We are glad this came after and not because of.? Lets see how long they hold this one up.
    Filed in court August 22nd 2013

    Like

  15. Amused November 11, 2013 at 2:22 PM #

    @@Ross. You urged me to respond to you and I could have done so just on the basis of law. However, I first wanted to review and examine the judgement referred to by the Acting Registrar and I have now provided BU with a copy of that judgement so that it can update and post it in this matter.

    On the basis of law and once you have read the judgement, I believe that, with respect, you will agree that you have not fully understood the statutory construction and interpretation. In my respectful view, the Registrar cannot make any rules without statutory authority. And she does not have this authority and this requirement of law has subsisted in one form or another since 1957. Today, it is to be found in the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.

    I refer you to Section 81 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act Cap. 117A of the Laws of Barbados wherein is set out the terms and conditions for the Rules Committee. Section 82 of that Act discusses the practice and procedures of the High Court in non-contentious probate matters. The Registrar cannot usurp this. Also it requires that rules made by the Rules Committee (as the only authority to make these rules) shall be published in the Official Gazette. So how can rules be made without statutory authority by the Registrar and be made operative without publication in the Official Gazette?

    And this is what the judgement states! Clearly and unequivocally and that judgement of Madam Justice Goodridge states.

    On the matter of probate advertising, as you should certainly know, it is required that applications for probate be advertised in the Official Gazette and TWICE in daily newspapers. Is it not curious that under the administration of our last CJ, BOTH daily newspaper adverts were in the Nation and the Advocate did not get a look in? Now, I wonder why?

    Prior to the tenure of the last CJ, there was one column in which all probate matters were advertised at a cost of about $30 per application. Then, with the advent of the last CJ, this requirement suddenly took the form of a major ad costing in the region of $400 – $500, all of which went into the sole coffers of the Nation to the tune of some $0.5 million a year. Seems that the Advocate was left out in the cold. Or is that not considered to be a daily paper?

    The prejudice of this practice to poor Bajans is incalculable. It is all very well to say that it can be reclaimed from the estate of the deceased. BUT if applicants do not have the money to pay in the first place and given the tardiness and delinquency in obtaining probate, what would you have them do?

    Well, I will tell you what has been happening with these poor Bajans, denied their legal rights so as to put money into the coffers of the Nation. The more responsible of the much-reviled lawyers have been paying these filing and advertising fees out of their own pockets for years, in the full knowledge that it might take as long as 2 years, before they are able to see their money back.

    I hold that the letter of the Acting Registrar is unsustainable in law and, from the point of view of probate in the estates of deceased people, unconscionable and highly unfair to their families.

    Accordingly, the attack by BU is, in my view, warranted and as a concerned citizen and obviously a member of the legal profession, I am encouraged to hope that you will now join me now in condemning it.

    Like

  16. Amused November 11, 2013 at 2:27 PM #

    @ In my final paragraph bove, I say ” Accordingly, the attack by BU is, in my view, warranted and as a concerned citizen and obviously a member of the legal profession, I am encouraged to hope that you will now join me now in condemning it.”

    I wish to make it clear that I hope you will join me in condemning the letter of the Registrar to the BA and supporting BU’s position.

    Like

  17. robert ross November 11, 2013 at 5:54 PM #

    Amused

    I can’t join you in anything until
    (a) I have seen the judgment too, and
    (b) received clarification as suggested above.

    Much of what you write above is all very grand, as everything you write is, but I’m not clear how it impacts upon the clear meaning of Rule 7 upon which the Registrar relies. The question for me is how you get round it.

    Sorry

    Like

  18. David November 11, 2013 at 6:12 PM #

    Judgement updated to the blog:

    http://bajan.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/king-v-clarke.pdf

    Like

  19. Amused November 11, 2013 at 8:09 PM #

    @Ross. It was not I who used terms like “de jure” and the like. I try, and sometimes fail, to express myself so that non-legal people can understand. The mystification of something as integral to our every-day life is, to me, merely another way of power broking and I eschewed it long ago. In fact, “in my salad days when I was green in judgement.” It is why long ago I agreed with BU’s call to have basic law taught in schools. Like first aid and cooking. Most of the BU family can read and reason, so to them I submit my case for judgement, rather like a jury. “He talk real pretty, but I en understan whu he say,” does not assist the course of justice, in my respectful view.

    Having read the case and knowing the participants, I believe that the man-in-the-street owes a great debt to counsel and applicants who brought this important test case, as if ends the Nation monopoly that has been leeching half a million dollars a year minimum from the pockets of survivors and the estates of deceased persons. They have also stood up for legal rights. This was not a case about money, but about integrity. We know who they are and that they could easily have paid the $400+. But they didn’t and in not so doing, they served notice for the rights under the law of all. This makes the petulant and illegal response of the Registrar the more unacceptable. In fact, Dame Rumour has it, within the legal world, that the Registry refused to issue the letters testamentary post judgement, unless a certified copy of the judgement was sent them and that counsel advised them, quoting the rules and placing the registrar on notice that if the letters were not issued within 24 hours, a certificate of committal would be applied for on a certificate of urgency and an arrest would follow for contempt of court. Rumour further has is that the letters were immediately forthcoming.

    BUT, is it not revealing that the Bahamas costs only 14 CENTS for advertising? Is this maybe one of the reasons why the Bahamas off-shore market is in good shape and increasing, while that of Barbados is deceased?

    There is no place in law for petulance, particularly in the courts and support organisations that the taxpayer pays for. It is a trait that must be firmly stamped out. Otherwise, we will continue to be the judicial laughing stock of the world. And let there be no doubt that this is exactly what we are today – a judicial laughing stock.

    Kudos to Madam Justice Goodridge. Hats off, my lady.

    Like

  20. robert ross November 11, 2013 at 9:32 PM #

    I have had a quick look at the decision. Frankly, I find it full of non sequiturs.

    BUT I do agree with the decision that the Registrar has no power to refuse a grant until such time as advertising fees are paid. The Rules impose a duty to advertise. The issue is who places the advertisement and who bares the cost. The obvious answer is the applicant/estate, that is to say the party who has the duty to advertise. That conclusion is not affected by the decision that the Registrar has no power to recoup costs. The letter from the Registrar (ag) simply gives expression to that reality – a case really of ‘you asked for it, you got it’. I still think she must address the meaning and intent of the letter. But I will look at it again. I want to watch Bill.

    Oh one thing…dear Amused do stop saying our courts are the laughing stock of the world. It is just hyperbole and, in a less sophisticated form, might have come out of ac’s blessed mouth. It is not a substitute for argument.

    Like

  21. Amused November 12, 2013 at 11:28 AM #

    @Ross. You know I used to think that ac had lost the plot. However, I started to read her posts for content, rather than style. And she makes sense the majority of the time once you ignore the over-emotive bits. Her heart is in the right place and that, to me, counts more than all else. So I agree with Pat. Lef she lone. BTW, when you referred to “bare the costs”, was that a typo, or were you doing a Baffy?

    Anyway, and trust me for this, the Barbados judicial system IS an international laughing stock which is most adversely affecting our foreign investments. In no way do I understate this situation and the WORST thing we can do is to try to cover up and pretend it isn’t so. Because if we do not admit it, then the perception is that the people who should have the professional competence to know the situation and therefore the knowledge and, hopefully, the will, to do something about it, do not exist or are too cowardly.

    Like

  22. ac November 12, 2013 at 11:51 AM #

    it only took a jamaicain girl from the inner city to confirm that “our justice system is the laughing stiock of the World. Of course Ross you would not see things that way since you hang your juicidial Robes on the status Quo.

    Like

  23. robert ross November 12, 2013 at 7:53 PM #

    AC

    You are very sad person. When in another place I tried to identify problems in the system and suggest solutions all you did was jibe in your usual incoherent brainless fashion. Your understanding of legal matters is roughly in line with your standard of literacy. Sad to say you think in slogans and, apparently, have a very poorly developed frontal lobe. NOW – close your mouth and try prayer. It won’t help but it will give you something better to do.

    Like

  24. robert ross November 12, 2013 at 7:59 PM #

    Amused

    I’m very sorry. I don’t trust people who say “trust me”. As for ‘baring’ – no it was an indication that the older I get the worse my spelling becomes without serious thought. But – have we now finished with the substance?

    Like

  25. ac November 12, 2013 at 8:35 PM #

    @ROSS ………..this solgan is just for YOU …..i have forced myself to contradict myself in order to avoid YOU……………later when my frontal lobal lobe reconnects to your behind i will with some hesitation engaaged you. GOD help US all

    Like

  26. ac November 12, 2013 at 8:54 PM #

    But again ROSS how can u NOT see that Barbados judicial system is the laughing stock . Even YOU had to fight tooth and nail effortlessly inseeing RAUL garcia released from incarceration Now would YOU describe a system that would keep a person behind bars after time served as being competant.Would that not be enough to make one laugh or did you make a mockery of the sytem in your efforts in seeing him release which too would make anyone one laugh. Um i think my front lobal has connected to your anantomy.

    Like

  27. Bush Tea November 12, 2013 at 10:10 PM #

    @ ac
    “…later when my frontal lobal lobe reconnects to your behind i will with some hesitation engaaged you. GOD help US all”
    ***********
    Bushie AGAIN advises you to HUSH.

    What exactly is your face going to be doing connected to Ross’s pooch? …and you will “engage him with hesitation” ?
    Do you even understand what you are proposing? Why did you not ask Ross what a ‘frontal lobe’ was BEFORE you started writing blissfully about yours…?
    Steupssss God help us ALL – with you remaining UNbanned…

    HUSH NUH!!!

    Like

  28. ac November 12, 2013 at 10:42 PM #

    Bush TEA why don,t you mid your OWN business u got to stick ur nose up in every body butt. fuh god sake go pull some bush do.

    Like

  29. Georgie Porgie November 12, 2013 at 10:43 PM #

    bt
    it seems ac wants to approximate her labiae orae to the adipose tissue overlaying his gluteus maximi

    Like

  30. robert ross November 12, 2013 at 11:05 PM #

    AC

    Though I believe you are actually a hydra-headed creature, the other side of someone’s coin, – I will just say this:

    The Myrie case was not about the judicial system. The Garcia case was not about the judicial system. Both were actually about the mean spirited attempts of the Government you support to ride roughshod over its international obligations. In Garcia it was a stalwart member of our judiciary who had the guts to stand up to an abuse of power and declare ‘let the slave go free’.

    And while we’re on the subject of the mean-spirited Government you support, will you please indicate when its favourite son, the Chief Justice, will deliver the CA’s judgment in the ‘gun’ case? It’s been 18 months since it was promised. Now that IS a disgrace.

    Like

  31. ac November 13, 2013 at 5:43 AM #

    @very descriptive except on the otherside of the coin it is you. be that as it may. i do belive that in both cases or laws were challenged by both parties b myrie and garcia. i also belive that in any country the judicary is the most important branch of govt and it is through our judicial system were our laws are defined and enacted so even though you might be partially right in blaming govt. the bottomline goes back to how the laws are Intreprted and administered by the courts

    Like

  32. David November 13, 2013 at 6:09 AM #

    The Myrie matter was NEVER brought to our Courts, it was tried in the original jurisdiction i.e. the CCJ.

    In the case of Garcia there was ambiguity in this matter and it was taken to the Courts which it is as it should be. The only challenge is the length of time it took which is endemic to our judicial system.

    Like

  33. Not impressed . November 13, 2013 at 6:46 AM #

    @ AC
    Dont be intimidated by ross ; he is nothing more than a mixed up man . One minute he is a member of the DLP the next he is contesting a seat as an independent . He is also a very confused lawyer as his writings and exchanges with AMUSED should indicate . Find out from him if he is still bitter about his failure to get the Ambassador post in China .

    Like

  34. robert ross November 13, 2013 at 7:14 AM #

    Not Impressed

    You are on the wrong planet. Sorry fella.

    Like

  35. robert ross November 13, 2013 at 7:24 AM #

    ps

    “as his exchanges with Amused should indicate”

    Don’t overplay your hand sunshine.

    Like

  36. millertheanunnaki November 13, 2013 at 7:32 AM #

    @ Not impressed . | November 13, 2013 at 6:46 AM |
    “Find out from him if he is still bitter about his failure to get the Ambassador post in China..”

    BAFBFP should have been offered the Ambassadorship to China.
    He has the “right” credentials. Such a position would immediately transmogrify the man from being a radical outlier to a confirmed man of the establishment.

    Like

  37. ac November 13, 2013 at 3:17 PM #

    even though Myrie case was not tried in the courts of Barbados my point being that our legal representatives were unaware and in some respect(unprepared) about the Caricom laws which barbados had sgined to in respect to Free movement. whether is was a matter of govt not disclosing such or the lawyers not doing their homework is debatable. the long and short is, that it was a bad refection on our judicial sytem. MYFINAL CLOSING REMARKS.

    Like

  38. David November 13, 2013 at 3:27 PM #

    @ac

    Your inability to understand basic points and unwillingness to debate the issues in a mature manner will continue to be your challenge. Those cheering you on are manipulating you for narrow interest as well, thought you may want to be clued into this fact.

    Like

  39. David November 13, 2013 at 3:35 PM #

    BTW ac, go back to the original comment you made on the matter, you referenced the Courts and law and nothing to do with leg reps.

    Like

  40. ac November 13, 2013 at 4:17 PM #

    @ David what inability to understand basic point. No it isYOU that wants to set the goal post and manipulate ones thinking. THe issue is the judicial sytem .the gvt hired representatives of our judicial system and it does not matter where the case wastried.what matters isthat the case was tried within the lkegal frame work and guidlines of our legal system .You can have the last Word

    Like

  41. David November 13, 2013 at 4:38 PM #

    @ac

    Why don’t you revisit your original comment on this matter?

    To repeat your comment.

    Fox News is a 24 hour network.

    Like

  42. Lani May 7, 2014 at 4:01 PM #

    QUOTE “An application only exists after it has been accepted and filed by the Registry and a number issued (as in CV 427/2012). Therefore, while it may be sound common sense to require that AFTER FILING attorneys must advertise the matter at their/their clients’ expense, basically what the Registrar is saying is that the Registry is not accepting applications period. Because you cannot advertise UNTIL the application has been FILED!”

    This is not quite accurate, Rule 7 of the Non Contentious provides that public notice of an application shall be given and from the date of the second notice 14 days shall elapse before the application is submitted to Court.

    So it was always necessary to advertise before a number was assigned to the file and the procedures for the application began.

    Please correct this error.

    Like

  43. Adrian Hinds September 1, 2015 at 3:18 PM #

    Probate of Will and winding up of estate: I recently had the opportunity to experience first hand how this process work in Barbados, and it was a very good one in contrast to what I read here at the beginning of process which started in July 2014. It took just over a year for letters testamentary to be issued by the courts, and it only took that long for this particular will because the decease death certificate said they were married when in fact they were widowed; that bit of misinformation had to be research and the truth ascertain which cause the process to be extended – still a year isn’t bad when contrast to the two to three years some commentators here said was the average turn around for these applications – which might still be true for a significant number persons; this lone positive experience notwithstanding.

    The first thing I did was to educate myself on the process. lots of articles on the web dealing with this process in Barbados. I settled on one written by “Clarke-Gittens-Farmer” attorney’s at law (http://www.barbadospropertylist.com/transfer-of-real-estate-in-barbados/). It was easy to follow; it help me tremendously in understanding the actual will in context to the unique family structure of those involved, and it was the basis of the first of many written communications to the Lawyer ( recommended to us by a family friend) that we contracted to advise us and to work on it. They were no surprises or differences between what I read and what I was advised by the Lawyer, in fact another lawyer whom I happen to know; pretty much corroborated the info from the web and the advise from the contracted lawyer.

    The Barbados process and lawyers in general have been given a bad rap but I am reporting – my own personal experience with both has been easy to understand, and very professional.

    Like

  44. Bush Tea September 1, 2015 at 4:01 PM #

    Wait Adrian… what become of you boss? Good to hear yuh…
    Sorry about your loss… but shiite man, wuh you must know that your name proceeds you ….

    Skippa…even if you went to Froon or his speaker… you would have received Rolls Royce service.
    Who the hell would risk messing with your deeds…?🙂

    Like

  45. Hants September 1, 2015 at 4:24 PM #

    @ Adrian Hinds,

    sorry for your loss.

    You should buy that Lawyer a $2000 US bottle of Mount Gay when it becomes available.

    You got exceptional service.

    Like

  46. Dompey September 1, 2015 at 5:12 PM #

    Adrian Hinds

    I really do not wish to hijack your conversation, but my wife’s mother died expectedly several years ago and my wife was appointed the Fiduciary over her mother’s estate. So I have pretty good idea as to what you’re talking about to some extent becaus my wife and I had to trooped through the probate court process which was a learning experienced because we didn’t hire a lawyer given the fact that her estate was quite small. We got through the entire process on the legal advice of the employers at the probate court which was also challenging down to the finalization of her estate.

    Like

  47. David September 1, 2015 at 5:12 PM #

    Sorry to read of your loss Adrian. You are correct some individuals are able to be satisfied by the system.

    Like

  48. Adrian Hinds September 3, 2015 at 9:38 PM #

    BushTea I’m well sir! You right tuh mek mock sport at me. Anyway thanks for all your kinds words; the decease was actually someone on my wife’s side of the family who will-ed everything to her and i was asked to communicate with the Barbados Lawyer since I have an “affinity” for things of a legal nature.🙂 I find the process very fascinating so if anyone wants a layperson’s opinion on how to approach such matters let me know. I would even recommend three lawyers that can either write your will or advise you on the probate process. Reading this website would be the best thing you could do. (http://www.barbadospropertylist.com/transfer-of-real-estate-in-barbados/)

    Like

  49. Mobert October 28, 2015 at 4:53 AM #

    What is mind boggling is the length of time lawyers and executors sit on property that has no lien, the will or laws on the disposal of property are clear and it has been years that the property remains unsold, no funds disbursed to the beneficiaries.

    Why is this allowed?

    I recommend that the law be changed so that executors be answerable to the court, such that if assets of a deceased are not distributed within two years of death, the executor and THE APPLICABLE LAWYER appear before the court to explain why and give an account of the estate.

    And no adjournments or such rubbish should be allowed. If they cannot give an adequate account and reasons, a court appointed state executor should be appointed who is paid a set fee (say 1% of the net estate funds), to settle the estate.

    It is quite unacceptable, the current status.

    And folks complain about the court, but how about the lawyers who delay and delay and delay and delay?

    Stupse.

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: