Is your love as deep as your pocket? Part VII
In 2003, a single woman bought property for $17,000,000.00, and spent a further $13,000,000.00 on renovations which were completed before 2008. She got married and her husband admitted that he did not contribute any at all to those costs. She was his 2nd wife. He insisted that the 2nd 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 1st wife whom he married in 1984.
The husband 1st moved into the property in 2008 while still married to his 1st wife. The 2nd 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 2nd wife opposed the husband’s claim to 50% ownership by relying on two of the legal bases to do so. In Parts I to VI, we looked at one of the bases; the fact that the property was owned before marriage.
Basis #2: Duration of the marriage
The husband married the 2nd wife in March 2012. One of the issues was the length of the marriage. For the husband it lasted 17 months, and for the 2nd wife 13 months. However, they both agreed that the marriage broke down in March 2013, and the husband left the marital bed in August 2013. Whether it was 13 months, or 17 months it was agreed that the marriage was of a short duration. Generally, a marriage that lasts under 5 years is considered a short marriage in Jamaica.
But he moved in from 2008
In Part II this fact was highlighted as raising a key legal issue. The issue being the fact that, the husband was still married to his 1st wife when he moved in, and this prevented him from legally being a spouse. He finally divorced his 1st wife in 2011, but he also moved out of the property in 2011.
How the Court resolved the issues
Being of a short duration is not enough, and as usual the Court looks at all the circumstances. In previous articles we explored the husband’s contributions; financial and non-financial. The Court did the same to determine whether those contributions would weigh equally with the fact that the house was owned before the marriage.
The fact of the property being owned before marriage is not sufficient on its own to conclude that the husband was not entitled to a share of the property. The wife owning the property before the marriage functioned as a starting point. The Court had to look at the entire circumstances to determine whether there was enough evidence to justify the variation of the 50/50 equal share rule, and award the 2nd wife complete ownership.
How did the Court view his alleged contributions based on his evidence?
The husband relied on contributions in the form of what he considered improvements to the property as proof of a mutual intention for him to acquire ownership. Upon examination, these alleged improvements were permanent but cosmetic.
As mentioned in Part III, these improvements raised a legal principle. Generally, a person who voluntarily spends money on improving the property of another cannot claim an interest in that property or compensation for the sums spent. The husband having admitted that the cosmetic improvements were voluntary and for his benefit, his reliance on them failed.
In Part III we explored whether the husband “essentially ran the house” and asked whether that was supported by the evidence. The Court said “there was no evidence to support such an assertion”.
In our next article, we will continue to highlight the Court’s reasoning behind its decision.
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.