Tagged: REVOCATION

Mrs. Sando Pauline G. Holder vs Reginald M. Holder Sr., Richard F. Holder, Lagnfelt Holder and James Charles (08/28/2026) 0

2026 Opinions / Justice Wolokollie / Recent Decisions

28 Aug, 2026

Mrs. Sando Pauline G. Holder vs Reginald M. Holder Sr., Richard F. Holder, Lagnfelt Holder and James Charles (08/28/2026)

This case ensued from a controversy over the administration of the intestate estate of Ethel Holder Bethune. From a review of the records, Ethel Holder Bethune died on April 26, 2010, following which the Probate Court for Montserrado County, appointed her nephew, S. Raymond Holder, on July 12, 2010, to administer the property of the deceased. Upon the death of S. Raymond Holder, the Probate Court, upon being petitioned, granted Letters of Administration De Bonis Non on February 16, 2015, to Reginald M. Holder, Sr., Richard F. Holder and Sando Gray Holder, for the continued management of the intestate estate

REGINALD HOLDER et. al. vs. Mrs. Sando Pauline G. Holder (12/19/2024) 0

2024 Opinions / Justice Wolokollie / Recent Decisions

19 Dec, 2024

REGINALD HOLDER et. al. vs. Mrs. Sando Pauline G. Holder (12/19/2024)

The records in this case reveal that the movants/appellees, Reginald M. Holder, Sr., Richard F. Holder, Lagnfelt Holder and James Charles, were respondents in a petition for revocation of extended letters of administration and a petition for proper accounting filed in the Monthly and Probate Court for Montserrado County by the respondents/appellants/petitioner, Mrs. Sando Pauline G. Holder and Anna Holder of the USA.

On April 22, 2024, the Judge presiding over the case by assignment, His Honor U-Jay W. H. S. Bright, handed down a final ruling, adjudging the respondents, movants now before us, not liable and ordering that the

Ralph Wilson v. Lucinda Finda (12/19/2024) 0

2024 Opinions / Justice Wolokollie / Recent Decisions

19 Dec, 2024

Ralph Wilson v. Lucinda Finda (12/19/2024)

This appeal emanates from a ruling on a motion to dismiss filed by the appellant on August 5, 2015, against a petition for revocation of letters of administration filed by the appellee, Lucinda Finda Blasser, to declare void ad initio letters of administration issued to the appellant, Ralph Wilson, on October 18, 2013.
Having spent time going through the painstaking task of reviewing the disorganized records of the file forwarded to this Court from the Probate Court of Montserrado County, we see from the records that Lucinda Finda Blasser and Cleopatra Tannous, daughter and sister of the deceased Mary Wilson

Louise C. Ngangana and Mansfield Wrotto vs. His Honor Judge Scheapolar R. Dunbar, and Evelyn Brown Moulton (06/14/2024) 0

2024 Opinions / Justice Wolokollie / Recent Decisions

14 Jun, 2024

Louise C. Ngangana and Mansfield Wrotto vs. His Honor Judge Scheapolar R. Dunbar, and Evelyn Brown Moulton (06/14/2024)

he facts as narrated by the Majority are that the late Joseph Karbar Levee Moulton married the appellee, Evelyn Brown Moulton, on February 25, 1989, in Monrovia Liberia; that on October 4, 2004, the deceased filed an action of divorce against the appellee for incompatibility of temper before the Civil Law Court, Sixth Judicial Circuit for Montserrado County. However, he did not pursue his divorce action and the case remained pending in the Civil Law Court up until his death in 2020. It is alleged that, after filing the divorce action against the appellee in the Civil Law Court, the

J.D. Wesley et al vs. His Honor Yamie Gbaisay et al (08/11/2023) 0

2023 Opinions / Justice Wolokollie / Recent Decisions

11 Aug, 2023

J.D. Wesley et al vs. His Honor Yamie Gbaisay et al (08/11/2023)

Rule IV, Part 12 of the Revised Rules of the Supreme Court prescribes the office of bill information as follows:

“(a). A bill of information will lie to prevent a Judge or any Judicial Officer who attempts to execute the mandate of the Supreme Court in an improper manner from doing so with the Judgment and/or Mandate of the Supreme Court.

(b). A Bill of Information will also lie to prevent any one whomsoever from interfering with the Judgment and/or Mandate of the Supreme Court.

(c). Any Counsellor who files a Bill of Information before this Court assigning reasons therefor other than the reasons expressly prescribed by these Rules shall be penalized by the imposition of a fine, suspension or disbarment.”

The Supreme Court has held in a long chain of Opinions that for a bill of information to be granted, the matter forming the basis of the information must have been pending before the Supreme Court or decided by it; that

Related

Recent Comments

More