If you have been reading since Part 1, welcome back. If you are new to the series thanks for reading.  We have been identifying some of the key circumstances in a judgment from our Court of Appeal, in which a husband believed he was entitled to 50% ownership of a property that his 2^nd wife bought before they got married. The husband based his entitlement on his view that the property was their family home; a special type of property in law.

The wife bought the property in 2003 for $17,000,000.00, and spent a further $13,000,000.00 on renovations which were completed before 2008. The husband admitted that he did not contribute any at all to those costs. He insisted that the 2^nd wife bought the property because they both agreed it was a good idea to do so, and would make it their family home when he divorced his 1^st wife whom he married in 1984. The husband 1^st moved into the property in 2008 while still married to his 1^st wife. The 2^nd wife denied having any agreement with the husband to purchase the property, and said she bought the property in 2003 to provide a home for herself, her mother, and the child born in 1999, whose father is the husband. She also said, the husband only moved in after her mother passed in 2007.

The 2^nd wife opposed the husband’s claim to 50% ownership by relying on two of the legal bases to do so.

Basis #1: She owned the house at the time of marriage (Cont’d)

From prenup to postnup

The husband eventually admitted during the case, that there were discussions during pre-marital counselling with their pastor regarding the division of property. The wife, and pastor gave evidence of a prenup having been drafted, but that in the end it was agreed by all three that the prenup would be signed after they got married when the changes requested by the husband were made. This would make it a postnup. Would you have waited until after you got married?

The husband denied having knowledge of any such draft prenup, or agreement for there to be a postnup. The effect of what was to be the postnup, should have been that the husband would not have claimed any share in the property, since the Cherry Hill property was to be the family home.

What was the Cherry Hill property?

This property was owned by the husband, and his 1^st wife. The husband, and his 1^st wife also owned a school together.

After the husband, and the 2^nd wife got married in March 2012, the 2^nd wife bought the 1^st wife’s 50% share in the Cherry Hill property in July 2012.

Why did the 2^nd wife buy Cherry Hill?

According to the husband, the school he owns with the 1^st wife was in financial trouble, and needed funds. He added that the plan was for the 2^nd wife to eventually sell her 50% in Cherry Hill to him. He would then turn Cherry Hill into a multi-family complex. Afterwards, he said Cherry Hill was to be a “family settings” which included the 2^nd wife and their child.

The Pastor & the Postnup

The Pastor gave evidence that the husband’s refusal to sign the postnup caused marital problems for which he offered counselling.

By March 2013, the 2^nd wife asked the husband to leave the property because he allegedly became abusive towards her. The 2^nd wife gave him 6 months to leave as he requested. Cherry Hill was sold to another person by April 2013. The husband left their marital bed by August 2013. He allegedly refused to leave at the end of the six months until “he got what his lawyer told him he was entitled to”. Based on the alleged abuse, the 2^nd wife eventually obtained a court order barring the husband from entering the property. The husband left the property by November 2013.

Who do you believe regarding the plan for Cherry Hill? The Court had to answer that question, and weighed the evidence of the Pastor, the 2^nd wife, and the husband in light of his inconsistencies.

Next week’s article will highlight the other basis the 2^nd wife relied to challenge the husband’s claim to 50% of the property she bought alone.

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.