A battle over the estate of a woman who died in 2018 returned to the Supreme Court this week as her stepson sought additional time to appeal a default judgment.

The dispute concerned the estate of Tia Dangler Moir, a US citizen who died in Bermuda in October 2018 at the age of 89.

The court previously heard that in a will dated June 28, 2012, Mrs Moir bequeathed all of her tangible property to her sons, David and Ronald Moir.

However, in August 2014, Mrs Moir conveyed interest in her “substantial shoreside Bermuda home” to Mark Andrew, the son of her late second husband, for $1 while retaining a life interest in the residence.

The court heard that from late 2012, Mr Andrew and his wife, Marsha Andrew, had lived in the home and acted as Mrs Moir’s full-time caregivers, for which they were remunerated by Mrs Moir and her family.

After her death, her sons, as executors of her estate, launched a legal action to have the conveyance set aside on the grounds that the Andrews had exerted undue influence over Mrs Moir.

They further complained that paintings, sculptures and other valuables could not be located, while others that the family had intended to ship “disappeared” before reaching the US.

In October 2020, the Supreme Court granted the Moir brothers a default judgment in their favour after the Andrews failed to file a defence within two weeks of the plaintiff’s statement of claim.

However, the Andrews subsequently sought to overturn the default judgment, with Mr Andrew stating that he was not familiar with court processes and, while his lawyers may have told him that he needed to file a defence, he had been going through a very stressful period.

Mr Andrew further argued that there was no evidence that he or his wife had stolen the missing items or that they belonged to Mrs Moir’s estate, seeking an opportunity to defend the case.

In a 2022 ruling, the Supreme Court refused to overturn the judgment, stating that Mr Andrew was represented by competent counsel and found the reasons provided lacked credibility.

At a hearing yesterday, the court heard that in 2023 the Andrews had sought leave from the Supreme Court to extend time to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal.

They further applied for a costs order connected to the legal action to be stayed until the conclusion of any appeal.

Phil Perinchief, for the applicants, said that the delay in filing for an extension of time came about because his clients were seeking legal counsel who could handle the case.

He further stated that the grounds of appeal were strong in the case, stating that they would argue the judge had improperly placed the evidential burden on his clients, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

Other grounds included that counsel for the Moirs failed to notify his clients’s counsel that they would be seeking a default judgment contrary to the Barrister’s Code of Conduct.

Mr Perinchief further argued that it made sense to stay the costs order until the case had fully concluded.

He said: “We know that the costs follow the event. We are saying that at this interlocutory stage, let’s reserve costs.”

Paul Harshaw, for the Moirs, responded that application to extend time to appeal the decision needed to be sent to the Court of Appeal, not the Supreme Court.

He said: “If the Supreme Court has no power to extend time to ask leave to appeal, which it does not, then our time here today is completely wasted.”

Mr Harshaw argued that even if the court did have jurisdiction, the draft grounds of appeal lacked the detail needed to show the arguments had merit and challenged the reasons behind the delay in seeking leave to appeal.

He told the court that while Mr Andrew claimed in an affidavit that his former counsel failed to notify him about the time limit to launch an appeal, that counsel responded in his own affidavit that he was at no point instructed to pursue an appeal.

Mr Harshaw also resisted the application to reserve costs in the matter, stating that the case effectively concluded when the Supreme Court refused to overturn the default judgment.

Chief Justice Larry Mussenden reserved his judgment on the applications.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers