Williams v Williams

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Court: High Court (Montserrat)
• Judge: Matthew, J.
• Judgment Date: 30 November 2001
• Neutral Citation: MS 2001 HC 9
• Docket Number: Civil Suit No. 30 of 2001
• Date: 30 November 2001

High Court

Matthew, J. (Ag.)

Civil Suit No. 30 of 2001

Williams

and

Williams

Appearances:

Mr. G. Kirnon for the claimant.

Mr. H. Sergeant for the defendant.

Family law - Property settlement — Claimant sought declaration pursuant to Married Women's Property Act, Cap. 302 that property, the legal title to which was vested in the defendant, was owned by the parties in equal shares or such shares as the court considered just — Whether there was a common intention that the claimant was to receive a share in the house — No intention found — claimant not entitled to any share of property — Parties making a clean break — Order that defendant pay to claimant the sum of $110,000.00 for contributions she made to the welfare of the family — No order as to costs.

1 Matthew, J. (AG.): On September 12, 2001 the claimant filed an Originating Summons under Chapter 302 of the Married Womens Property Act, asking for an order inter alia that the property registered at Block 12/4 Parcel 387 Beachettes Registration Section, the legal title of which is vested in the defendant, is owned jointly by herself and the defendant in equal shares or in such other shares as the Court considers just.

2 An affidavit of Shirley Williams in support of the summons was filed on September 12, 2001.

3 In her affidavit Shirley Williams stated that she and the defendant were married on November 30, 1985 and they have two children ages 16 and 12.

4 She said that after the marriage the Parties lived in rented premises at Bakers Hill but after a few years they became desirous of owning their own house and so they decided to build on land owned by the defendant at Bakers Hill.

5 The claimant stated that the defendant is a generator technician employed by the Montserrat Electricity Service and she is a registered nurse at the Glendon Hospital and was promoted in 1997 to the position of staff nurse.

6 She stated that the defendant and herself agreed that the defendant would service the loan while she would be primarily responsible for the up-keep of the house in which they lived and the upkeep and welfare of the children.

7 She stated the loan received by the defendant to construct the house was not sufficient and she assisted the defendant from time to time in purchasing building materials from her own resources to an approximate sum of $9,500.00 over the two years during which the house was constructed.

8 She stated that during the period of construction, she cooked food and provided drinks from time to time to the defendant and the workmen who assisted the defendant.

9 She said she contributed to the purchase and maintenance of a motor vehicle, which provided the defendant and the workmen with transport during construction.

10 She stated that her contributions to the house, both direct and indirect, were made as part of a common intention that she and the defendant were to build a house in which they were to reside with their children.

11 I cannot help observing that this last paragraph is an attempt to give evidence relating to an issue which the court must find on the totality of the evidence.

12 The defendant filed an affidavit in opposition on October 12, 2001.

13 He said that after the marriage he discussed the prospects of building a home on lands given to him by his mother and the claimant was not happy with the idea and tried to persuade him to build on a parcel of land which her parents had given to her at St. John's.

14 It is pertinent to note that in her affidavit the claimant stated that after she left the matrimonial home in 1991, she resolved to build a modest home with the assistance of her family and a small loan. She did not state the location.

15 The evidence reveals construction of the home began in 1987 according to one Party and 1988 according to the other Party but that completion was about the end of November 1991 and in February 1992 the claimant left the matrimonial home.

16 There is no evidence that a decree nisi has been made or that there has been any petition for divorce.

17 The defendant stated that the claimant gave him no encouragement or assistance to build the house but instead went to purchase a car without his knowledge and made it clear that she wanted nothing to do with the building of the house.

18 He stated that at no time did the claimant and himself ever discuss or decide to obtain a loan from the Montserrat Building Society.

19 He said that he spent about $20,000.00 of his own money before he was able to obtain the loan from the Montserrat Building Society.

20 He stated that the claimant never inquired or offered any assistance throughout the entire construction and he denied that she ever assisted him in purchasing building materials amounting to $9,000.00.

21 He also denied that she ever assisted with preparation of meals for workmen during the construction of the house and in fact on completion of the house she was so hostile to him that when he was traveling to St. Maarten to purchase furniture for the house she said that she wished the plane would crash with him.

22 Besides the affidavit evidence the Parties also gave oral evidence on the date of hearing, November 15, 2001.

23 At the end of the oral testimony both sides made submissions.

24 Learned counsel for the...