Lynch Nee Hill v Lynch

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Court: High Court (Montserrat)
• Judge: Saunders, J.
• Judgment Date: 14 August 2000
• Neutral Citation: MS 2000 HC 3
• Docket Number: No. 4 of 2000
• Date: 14 August 2000

Lynch Nee Hill

and

Lynch

Saunders, J.

No. 4 of 2000

High Court

Family law - Divorce — Property rights — Plaintiff claimed share in dwelling house which stood in sole name of defendant — Nature and extent of plaintiff's contribution to construction of premises — Court order that plaintiff entitled to a half share of dwelling house.

1 Saunders, J. This matter was heard and decided by me on July 12th, 2000. These are the reasons for the decision that I then gave.

2 In February, 2000, Mrs. Lynch filed a summons pursuant to the Married Women's Property Act, Chapter 302 of the Laws of Montserrat. She claimed therein a share in a dwelling house that stood in the sole name of Mr. Lynch.

3 Both sides relied on affidavits that had been filed by each of them. These affidavits were, at the hearing, supplemented by viva voce evidence that included a full cross-examination. Neither side called any witnesses.

4 As between the two spouses, I preferred the evidence of Mrs. Lynch who impressed me as a truthful witness. Mr. Lynch did not appear to be as forthcoming as she was. Later in this judgment, I will give instances where I found his testimony to be suspect

5 The evidence was that Mr. Lynch commenced building his house in Olveston some time in 1991. Construction proceeded slowly. It was to be a large house.

Mr. Lynch, a building contractor, was erecting it himself. He was reluctant to enter into any substantial mortgage loans to assist in its financing. By 1995, according to Mrs. Lynch, there was only “a foundation and some low walls that had been partially built There was no roof.” In his affidavit, Mr. Lynch deposed that presently, the house is only 60% complete.

6 The parties apparently knew each other for a long time but in about 1995 they became intimately related. Mr. Lynch was at the time carrying on a relationship with another woman.

7 The following year, Mrs. Lynch was persuaded by Mr. Lynch to sell a house in Antigua in which she had a half share interest The house was sold for ECC$250,000.00. With her share of the proceeds, Mrs. Lynch began looking for land in Antigua upon which to build. Her affidavit evidence was that Mr. Lynch discouraged her from purchasing such land and instead asked her to assist him in the construction of his house.

8 Mr. Lynch did not deny that between April and October, 1996, Mrs. Lynch gave him, either directly or indirectly, at least ECC$110,000.00 in several different installments. Some of the money was given in cash. Some was given by cheques drawn on the Royal Bank of Canada. Some of it was given by banker's drafts.

9 In his evidence, Mr. Lynch unconvincingly went out of his way to make it appear that much of this money was spent on any manner of pursuits other than on the house itself. Thus, according to him, some $35,000 was used up on “expensive tools”. The cash sums of $5,000 were spent on repairing and insuring a Honda Civic motor car. He traveled to England twice, on each occasion with a small entourage. He gave his mother a small sum of the money. He used the money to travel to Antigua ……It must have dawned on him in cross-examination that, even if I believed all of that, there would still be a large amount of money remaining for which he could give no explanation other than the fact that it must have been spent by him on the house. When pressed, he therefore grudgingly conceded, “I wouldn't say that none of the money was used to construct the house.”

10 The parties to this action were married to each other on the 24th day of October, 1996. They went to England to live. The marriage was a short one. Within a year, Mr. Lynch had returned to his paramour in Montserrat. Mrs. Lynch was understandably distraught. She wrote to him a letter of complaint, accusation and recrimination. She was bitter and sarcastic about his infidelity. She told him...