11/22/2010
START DATE
END DATE
12/1/2010
Ronald Frederick Terceira v. Harold Michael Terceira et al.
COURT:
LAW:
JUDGE(S):
CLAIMANT'S LAWYER:
DEFENDANT'S LAWYER:
Supreme Court of Bermuda
Property Law, Inheritance Dispute, Proprietary Estoppel
Hon. Justice Kawaley
Mr. Alan Dunch (Mello Jones & Martin)
Mr. David Kessaram & Ms. Louise Charleson (Cox Hallett Wilkinson)
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The Plaintiff, Ronald Terceira, claimed ownership of a commercial property (5 Marsh Lane, Devonshire) through proprietary estoppel. He argued that his father promised him ownership in return for financing and constructing the building. The Defendants, his six siblings, contended that the property was part of their late father?s estate and should be divided equally. They also counterclaimed for compensation from the Plaintiff for occupying the property without paying rent.
SUMMARY:
Ownership of a commercial building erected on family property entitlement under proprietary estoppel and/or constructive trust credibility of the plaintiff s claim of a promise made by his deceased father and counterclaims for compensation.
OUTCOMES:
Plaintiff awarded an equitable interest in the property but required to compensate the estate; Defendants' counterclaim partially upheld.
RULED IN FAVOUR OF:
Ronald Frederick Terceira (Plaintiff) partially.
PLAINTIFF/CLAIMANT
DEFENDANT:
DURATION (DAYS):
ISSUES:
RELEVANCE:
RULING:
RULING TYPE:
CASES CITED:
Join our pro membership and get all the details at your finger tips
Want to see full case details, including key arguments and claims? [Join Pro Membership] to unlock exclusive insights.
Discover the legal strategies and defenses used in this case. [Join Pro Membership] for full access.
How long did this legal battle last, and what key events happened? [Join Pro Membership] to find out.
Uncover the critical legal principles debated in this case. [Join Pro Membership] for in-depth analysis.
See why this case matters in Banking, Mortgages, and Financial Services. [Join Pro Membership] to explore its impact.
Find out the final judgment and its legal implications. [Join Pro Membership] to access the ruling.
Understand how this judicial ruling sets a precedent in law. [Join Pro Membership] for expert breakdowns.
See how past legal precedents influenced this case. [Join Pro Membership] to unlock the list.
Download Case Summary:
Explore:
EPHESIANS 6:16
PT Satria Tirtatama Energindo v. East Asia Company Limited and Bali Energy Limited
2016
RE: C (VARIATION OF ACCESS ORDER)
2015
In the Matter of IPOC Capital Partners Limited and others
2007
Hindsight law can make mistakes. Consider checking original case studies
Ronald Frederick Terceira v. Harold Michael Terceira et al.
The Plaintiff, Ronald Terceira, claimed ownership of a commercial property (5 Marsh Lane, Devonshire) through proprietary estoppel. He argued that his father promised him ownership in return for financing and constructing the building. The Defendants, his six siblings, contended that the property was part of their late father?s estate and should be divided equally. They also counterclaimed for compensation from the Plaintiff for occupying the property without paying rent.