By KEILE CAMPBELL
Tribune Staff Reporter
THE Privy Council has overturned rulings by the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal of The Bahamas, finding that a legal challenge to a woman’s ownership of a family home was filed too late.
The lower courts had ruled that the 12-year limitation period for recovering the property had not expired because of deliberate concealment, but the Privy Council disagreed, concluding that any concealment was not directly linked to the woman in possession and that the relevant information had been publicly available for decades.
The dispute centred on Lot No 109 in the Boyd Subdivision, originally owned by Pearl Leona Moxey. In her 1983 will, she left the home to her sons, Charles Moxey Sr and Eddison Moxey, as tenants in common.
However, Eddison Moxey, who was also the executor of the estate, never took steps to legally transfer ownership to himself and his brother.
Mr Charles Sr died intestate in 2003, at which point his children, Pearl Moxey and Charles Moxey Jr, became his heirs under Bahamian succession law. That same year, their cousin, Denise Barnes, moved into the home after acquiring a conveyance from Eddison Moxey for $100,000.
Ms Barnes remained in open and exclusive possession of the property from that time onward, living in or leasing it and investing $80,000 in renovations over the years.
According to the Moxey siblings, their mother, Yvette Fleurimond, was told in 2003 that the home had been left to “the sisters” of the family — Barbara Barnes, Keva Johnson, and Talitha Strachan — not to their father.
The Supreme Court later found that this statement was untrue and had been made deliberately to mislead Ms Moxey and Mr Moxey Jr about their inheritance rights.
For more than a decade, the Moxey siblings were unaware that their father had been entitled to a half-share in the property. Only in 2015, after seeing a “For Sale” sign on the home, did they conduct a title search and discover the 1983 will.
They filed a counterclaim on August 10, 2015, arguing that the conveyance to Ms Barnes was invalid and that she had acquired no legal interest in the home. They also asserted that deliberate concealment had prevented them from discovering their rights within the statutory period, meaning the 12-year time limit should not apply.
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Moxey siblings, finding that the estate of Charles Sr still held a one-half interest in the property and that Ms Barnes had to account for rental income earned from the home. It also determined that the 12-year limitation period had not expired because of the misleading statement made in 2003. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision in 2019.
However, the Privy Council overturned these rulings, rejecting the argument that the concealment exception applied in this case. While the court acknowledged that misleading statements had been made, it ruled that concealment must be directly tied to the defendant for it to extend the limitation period. Since Ms Barnes was not responsible for the statements, the concealment exception did not apply, and the counterclaim was filed outside the limitation period.
The Privy Council further found that the will granting Charles Sr an interest in the home had been publicly recorded since 1987, meaning Ms Moxey and Mr Moxey Jr could have discovered it earlier with reasonable diligence. The court also rejected their argument that the limitation period only began in 2015, when they were appointed administrators of their father’s estate. It ruled that limitation laws apply equally to executors and administrators and that delaying the appointment of an administrator cannot be used to circumvent the statute of limitations.
The court reaffirmed that adverse possession does not require an intention to own the property — only an intention to possess it to the exclusion of all others, including the rightful owner. Ms Barnes met this requirement by occupying the home exclusively since 2003, and once the 12-year period expired, her claim to ownership became legally secure.
The ruling reinforces the principle that concealment must be directly tied to the person in possession of the property for it to delay the limitation period. It also confirms that rightful heirs cannot revive a claim simply because they failed to check the public record in time.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.