Is your love as deep as your pocket? Part II
Last week’s article started to shed some light on Jamaica’s default 50/50 equal share rule regarding a married, or cohabiting couple’s family home. The family home basically being, the house owned by one or both spouses, that is used habitually, or from time to time as their only, or main family residence. When a couple decides to officially go their separate ways, their love has usually long dissolved into nothingness. The division of the family home often becomes a major issue. One spouse might think 50% is the least she or he should get. The other spouse might find a 50/50 division repulsive.
In part 1, I mentioned two scenarios. Scenario 1 concerns a newlywed who refuses to add her husband’s name to the title for her house, and the husband refuses to move in and live with her until his name is added. In scenario 2, the wife owned the family home long before the marriage, and the husband asked the Court to declare him a 50% owner of the family home. The wife did not consider the husband’s request reasonable, or just, so she challenged the 50/50 equal share rule. Our Court of Appeal agreed that the wife should retain 100% of the ownership.
Challenging the 50/50 equal share rule (cont’d)
The wife in scenario 2 relied on two of Jamaica’s legal bases for challenging the rule.
Basis #1: She owned the house at the time of marriage
The husband placed a lot of emphasis on the background of their relationship, and the Court took the time to understand the history of their relationship. This was important since the husband claimed he and the wife agreed, from 2003, that it was a good idea for the wife to purchase a property that would be their family home. So why wasn’t his name added to the title? The Court had to go further into their history. The spouses met in the 1980s and became friends. The husband married another lady from 1984 to October 2011.
The spouses eventually found themselves in an extra marital romantic relationship which gave birth to a child in 1999. In 2003, the husband’s 1st wife decided to move out of the home she shared with the husband, having allegedly first separated from him in 1998, and reunited with him before the birth of the child in 1999. The husband claimed that his name was not added to the title of house the 2nd wife bought in 2003, to avoid confusion while getting divorced from the 1st wife. What are your thoughts on the husband’s explanation?
The 2nd wife did in fact buy the family home in 2003, for $17,000,000.00, and spent an extra $13,000,000.00 for renovations which were completed before 2008. The husband admitted that he had not contributed any at all to those costs. In fact, the husband left Jamaica in 2003 and only returned in 2005. It was alleged that during 2003 to 2005, the husband had reunited with his 1st wife but had other children from other extra martial relationships during that time. Based on the husband’s evidence at trial he was not aware of the $13.5 million mortgage or any details regarding the purchase of the property. He did however state that he knew her to be a wealthy woman.
The husband eventually moved into the property in 2008, while still married to the 1st wife. This is important, and raised a key legal issue.
How does the 2nd wife explain the purchase of the home?
She says she bought the property in 2003 to provide a home for herself, her mother, and the child born in 1999. It was after her mother’s passing in 2007 that the husband moved in.
At this point, whose explanation seems more believable? The husband’s or the 2nd wife’s?
As you might have realized, this case required a lot of unpacking. In the next article, we will continue to explore the circumstances and the legal issues. Hopefully you will be able to keep a copy of this article for reference as the circumstances I have outlined are important.
Until Next time, stay safe.
Disclaimer by the author: Nothing in this article is to be taken as legal advice. You should consult an attorney regarding your specific case. All liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this article are hereby expressly disclaimed.