Love & money: choosing your path. Is your love as deep as your pocket?

Love, money & choosing your path: Is your love as deep as your pocket?
Part IX

Just as a Court needs to know the details to make a decision based on the circumstances of a case, in order to understand a Court’s reasoning, you must also know the details. In the case we have been exploring, 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 2^nd wife. 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 husband believed he was entitled to half of the property and the 2^nd wife disagreed.

How the Court resolved the issues (cont’d)

In the parts VII and VIII we realized that the husband’s reliance on his perceived improvements to the property, and his alleged payments of bills were insufficient to justify his claim to 50% ownership in the property.

The draft prenup/post-nup

In Parts V & VI we became aware of the draft agreement that was to be a prenup which based on the husband’s alleged requests should have changed to a postnup but he refused to sign. Did the draft pre-nup have any value? For the Court it did not and could not based on our laws. From looking at ‘how not to fatten fowl for mongoose’ in Part V, we know that the agreement needed to be signed, and the husband needed to get legal advice before signing. The husband’s denial of the contents of the draft agreement made it even more irrelevant.

Pastor to the rescue!

In Part V, we highlighted that the couple’s pastor gave evidence of counselling sessions during which they discussed the division of property and a prenup. From Part VIII, we know a major part of the husband’s case is his claim that there was a mutual intention for him to have ownership in the property.

For the Court, the husband’s initial denial, then admission that there were discussions about a prenup indicated that there was no mutual intention. This affected the husband’s credibility. For the Court, the Pastor’s evidence was not discredited in any way and further affected the husband’s credibility. On the other hand, the pastor’s independent evidence confirmed the 2^nd wife’s evidence.

Other considerations

The Court looked at how the couple generally arranged their affairs to determine if there was an intention to share assets. Based on the evidence the couple kept their finances separate. The husband even refused to say whether he had assets overseas but admitted he gambled 2 to 3 times a week. His gambling was important since this was one of the 2^nd wife’s reasons for not sharing her finances or the property with him. In the end, the Court of Appeal decided the 2^nd wife should retain 100% ownership of the property.

This is the final part in the series but each part had key takeaways such as:

you cannot be married, and legally be another person’s spouse;
the family home is special type of property in law;
your prenup, or post-nup must be in writing, and signed;
non-financial contributions matter.

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.