Weekes Nee White v Weekes

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Court: High Court (Montserrat)
• Judge: Smith, J.
• Judgment Date: 06 April 2001
• Neutral Citation: MS 2001 HC 4
• Docket Number: 51 of 1995
• Date: 06 April 2001

High Court

Smith, J.

51 of 1995

Weekes Nee White

and

Weekes

Appearances:

Mr. Hogarth Sergeant for the plaintiff.

Mr. Karl Markham for the defendant.

Family law - Matrimonial home — Property rights — Plaintiff applied pursuant to sec. 19 of the Married Women's Property Act for a declaration of the interest of the parties in the matrimonial home — Finding that considering the circumstances, it was equitable to determine that the plaintiff was entitled to 5/6 of the property and the defendant to 1/6 — Declaration accordingly — Costs to the plaintiff.

Smith, J.

1 This is an application of the plaintiff by way of summons under section 19 of the Married Women's Property Act; and it is made by the wife now that the marriage between the defendant and her though only celebrated in July 1991 has come to grief. It would appear though that the wedding ceremony which took place on the 20th July, 1991 did not mark the start of the public cohabitation of the parties. The plaintiff and defendant gave some evidence of earlier open concubine and the birth of their daughter in 1986.

2 The plaintiff asked the court to make an order that “the property known as the matrimonial home in Webbs … is owned by the plaintiff absolutely or … as may be just” and to “declare the interest of the defendant if any in the said property.”

3 Both parties swore affidavits and were cross-examined on those affidavits; and on the evidence of each taken separately, the court could be left with the impression that, as far as the plaintiff is concerned, the plaintiff feels she is entitled to the whole property. The defendant's position would be that he is entitled to at least a 50% interest.

4 The land itself was acquired by the plaintiff in September 1988 when she bought the same from the Government of Montserrat for $2000.00. She bought it in her name, Ethlyn White, in her own right and also as trustee for one Xavier White. She was then a spinster not yet having been married to the defendant with whom she was however cohabiting.

5 At the time of the purchase of the land the plaintiff and the defendant were operating a bank account jointly. This account was opened by the two on the 24th July, 1987; and several deposits were made to it. The defendant stated that this account was opened by them both as an earnest of their commitment to each other and to marriage and for the purpose of making “common investments which included …building a dwelling-house together.”

6 Except for saying “I opened a joint account before my marriage to the defendant in which I made deposits and withdrawals” in a second affidavit sworn in “support of documents” and filed after the defendant had referred to the account in his affidavit the plaintiff did not refer to the joint account. Under cross examination however, she was made to deal with the account and admitted again that she opened it in 1987 with the defendant and said she discussed it with the defendant before opening it. She denied that the account had anything to do with the acquisition of the land but admitted withdrawing $2,000.00 from that account in September, 1988. She said that the withdrawal had nothing to do with the purchase of the land; but it is difficult to go along with that contention when the purchase of the land took $2,000.00 and was made in September 1988.

7 The defendant insisted that the $2,000.00 which the plaintiff withdrew from their account in September 1988 was for the purpose of purchasing the land for the two of them in accordance with what they had agreed was the reason...