An elderly couple fear they will become homeless if they lose a last-ditch attempt to challenge massive legal bills incurred after the wife lost a civil court case.

Elaine and Clancy Charles have lived in their Warwick condominium for 30 years but may soon have to sell it to enable Mrs Charles to pay debts totalling more than $750,000.

The retired social worker owes the money to lawyers Delroy Duncan and Paul Harshaw after losing a Supreme Court bid more than a decade ago to overturn two wills drawn up for her late father.

Mr Duncan and Mr Harshaw represented the executors and trustees of the wills.

The Charleses are awaiting a ruling from Chief Justice Larry Mussenden after a hearing in July during which their lawyer, Phil Perinchief, claimed the costs awarded to Mr Harshaw should be declared “null and void” because the latter’s client, Clarence James, a former deputy premier, died a decade ago.

Mr Perinchief also argued that Mr Charles had an interest in the condo, although he is not on the deeds. The husband said in a sworn affidavit that the property was “under existential threat of being sold and, as a result, my matrimonial or marital interest is … in real and imminent jeopardy of being lost altogether forever more”.

Mr Harshaw told the judge, according to skeleton submissions seen by The Royal Gazette, that the Charleses failed to prove there was “some legal defect” disqualifying him from appearing in the proceedings.

He argued the chain of executorship was not broken by the death of an executor and a trust did not fail for want of a trustee.

Mr Harshaw also told the hearing there was no reported case in Bermuda where any matrimonial or marital interest in real property had been recognised.

Mrs Charles told the Gazette it was “frightening” to “face homelessness” aged 79.

“I, as a seasoned social worker for over 40 years, have succumbed to severe depression, suicidal ideation and anxiety only overcome because of my strong Christian faith and a kind and loving husband who has literally carried me through this never-ending nightmare,” she said.

“No one should lose everything they own to seek justice from the court, particularly in probate matters.”

She said she suffered a panic attack and passed out in court after representing herself at an earlier hearing in February, as she was “so overcome with fear and anxiety”.

She admitted she regretted contesting the wills.

Mr Charles, 75, said he joined the legal proceedings as a “person interested” because he believed he had a “legitimate interest” in the townhouse he and his wife have shared since 1996.

“You just can't take me out of my home, a home I've occupied, a home I've paid for,” he said.

He added: “Let's say the judgment went against us, I should have some entitlement, so if the home is sold for $500,000, I should get at least $250,000.

“At least if I get my portion, at least we can make an effort to find somewhere where we can at least try to have a roof overhead.

“My portion, at least, should be reserved, preserved.”

The litigation dates back to 2007 and the death of Mrs Charles’s 93-year-old father, John Howard Fubler Taylor.

He made a will in June 1999 in which he left “Fubler Villa” on Cedar Avenue, in Hamilton, to the Masonic Abercorn Lodge, where he was a member.

Dr James, a fellow Abercorn member, and Mrs Charles’s brother, Albert Taylor, were named executors of the will.

Mr Taylor made a second will in July 2002, aged 88, this time leaving “Fubler Villa” to Albert Taylor for life, with the remainder interest to the two sons of his niece.

Mrs Charles believed her father was not of sound mind when the wills were drawn up and asked the Supreme Court to rule that they were invalid — but she lost the case in 2014.

In 2018, she had to sell a cottage left to her by her mother to pay off some of the costs awarded against her.

Albert Taylor died last year.

Mrs Charles told the Gazette there was a court-ordered stay on the sale of her condo while she pursued a Bar Council complaint, lodged in May 2016, against her lawyer, Rick Woolridge.

She complained there was never a disciplinary tribunal or a finding before Mr Woolridge died in 2023.

The executors successfully petitioned to have the stay on the sale of the condo lifted.

Mrs Charles applied in March for a further stay to be granted until the “validity of the lawfulness of all bills of costs” awarded against her was determined.

She told the Gazette she owed Mr Harshaw $387,000 and Mr Duncan $369,000.

Mr Harshaw told the court in July, according to the skeleton submissions, that the plaintiffs had no right to ask the court to inquire into events that took place a decade ago, unless they were alleging some wrongdoing.

He said no matter how sympathetic the court might feel towards the Charleses, that could not help the couple in preventing the sale of the condo.

Mr Justice Mussenden reserved judgment to a later date.

Mr Harshaw told the Gazette in an e-mail he had no instructions to speak about the litigation, but noted that the “death of a judgment creditor does not extinguish the judgment debt”.

He added: “Where a judgment creditor passes away with the debt still owing, the judgment debt accrues to the estate of the judgment creditor and the judgment debtor owes the judgment debt to the estate of the judgment creditor.”

• 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