Is your love as deep as your pocket? Part VIII
The background of this series is based on a 2022 decision from our Court of Appeal. It concerns a husband who believed he was entitled to 50% ownership of what is classified as the family home in law, and the wife’s objection. The family home was owned by the wife before they got married; she was his 2nd wife.
As a single woman, she 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 his 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 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.
In Parts I to VI we unpacked key facts and evidence that the Court considered. In Part VII we started to reveal how the Court weighed the evidence and will continue that today.
How the Court resolved the issues (cont’d)
How did the Court view his alleged contributions based on his evidence? (cont’d)
What about the bills he claimed to pay? In Part III, we realized the husband was only able to provide 8 clear receipts dated 2013, and was unable to state what bills he paid on behalf of their child. The Court concluded that even if the husband did pay all the bills he claimed to have paid, it “was miniscule in the grand scheme of things, and consistent with normal contributions that would be expected of a person to sustain themselves in a household for which they do not carry the heavy burden of maintaining”.
A major part of the husband’s case was his claim that there was a mutual intention for the property to be taken as the family home. For the husband the mutual intention was formed from at least 2003 when the property was purchased since he and the 2nd wife allegedly agreed it would have been a good idea to buy a property for them to eventually live in when he divorced his 1st wife.
For the Court, the husband not being able to provide details regarding the purchase of the property such as whether there was a mortgage, cast doubt on this being true. The husband’s evidence that his name was kept off the title to avoid confusion during the divorce from his 1st wife was not sufficient, and left unresolved an explanation for his lack of contribution to the purchase, and renovation of the property.
The Court did not limit its analysis of whether there was a mutual intention to the husband’s doubtful explanation for his name not being on the title. The Court went further and assessed the nature of their relationship. For the period 2003 to 2008 the Court was unable to find a mutual intention to treat the property as their family home. Why? The husband went overseas from 2003 to 2005. During that time, he reunited with his 1st wife, and had other children from other extra-marital relationships. He moved overseas 2004-2005. When he returned to Jamaica, he only spent some of his time at the property, and the rest at his home that he owned elsewhere.
In Part IV, I asked you if the husband moving into the property in 2008 screamed commitment. For the Court, it did not. He was still married to his 1st wife. He waited for approximately 2 more years before filing for divorce from his 1st wife and eventually got divorced in 2011. He also moved out of the property in 2011, and returned after they got married in March 2012. For the period 2003 to 2011, the Court concluded that the relationship, “despite producing a child, was neither settled nor committed”. Do you agree with the Court?
Next week, the Court’s conclusions regarding the pastor and the prenup will be highlighted.
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.