By JADE RUSSELL
Tribune Staff Reporter
jrussell@tribunemedia.net
A WIDOW’s claim over a Lancaster Road home will proceed to trial after the Supreme Court rejected an attempt to strike out the case, finding unresolved disputes over whether she abandoned the property and whether her claim was filed in time.
Supreme Court Justice Camille Darville Gomez ruled on April 22, 2026, that the case brought by Joyce Bannister-Cole against her stepdaughter Torah Cole raises substantive issues that must be tested at trial. The judge found the matter was not hopeless or an abuse of process and said there are clear disputes of fact requiring a full hearing.
The dispute centres on the home Mrs Bannister-Cole shared with her late husband, Harold Cole. She is seeking a right to occupy or benefit from the matrimonial property under the Inheritance Act, independent of her husband’s will, which left his estate to his children.
Mrs Bannister-Cole filed proceedings in November 2023 against Ms Cole, who is executrix of the estate.
She said she married Mr Cole on December 31, 2005, and lived in the home until his death on April 28, 2019. In an affidavit, she acknowledged travelling to Canada in 2019 and 2020 after his death, leaving behind personal belongings in the house.
She said that after her first trip, Ms Cole provided her with new keys following a change of locks, and maintained she never indicated an intention to leave The Bahamas permanently.
Between June and July 2022, she travelled again to Canada after COVID-19 restrictions were eased, a visit she said was extended after she contracted COVID-19 twice, delaying her return.
Mrs Bannister-Cole said she became suspicious around November 2022 that her late husband’s children were attempting to sell the home without informing her and returned to The Bahamas.
Ms Cole, however, said her stepmother was out of the country from July 2020 to April 2023. She said that before the home was sold, an estate sale was held during which Mrs Bannister-Cole’s belongings were sold, with proceeds given to a niece to pass on to her.
She said she was unaware whether her stepmother received the funds and denied that she was evicted from the property. She also claimed her stepmother made no financial contributions to the home while living there.
Ms Cole said her stepmother returned to the country a few days after the home was sold and that her brother reached out to offer proceeds, but she did not respond.
Court documents show Mr Cole’s 2018 will left his estate to his children. Mrs Bannister-Cole alleged that Ms Cole influenced her father to alter an earlier will, resulting in her becoming the sole executrix, and described strained interactions between them.
In a second affidavit, Mrs Bannister-Cole claimed her husband had discussed paying $100,000 in relation to her interest in the property, but no agreement was reached before he became ill.
She maintained she has an entitlement arising from the matrimonial home despite it being sold without her knowledge.
“I never abandoned the place that I called home. The defendant owed me the respect of the wife of her late father to honour him by not mistreating me,” she said. “She simply steamrolled over my rights as the surviving spouse.”
She also alleged that a caregiver hired after Mr Cole suffered a stroke raised concerns about Ms Cole’s behaviour, claiming the caregiver reported hearing threats that she would “push” her stepmother down the stairs and send her home in a wheelchair.
Ms Cole denied making any such threats and rejected claims about her stepmother’s role during Mr Cole’s illness. She also said her father never discussed purchasing her stepmother’s life interest.
The matter will proceed to trial, with no order as to costs.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.