Juliana Louis Williams Nee Gustave Petitioner v Garnet Michael Williams Respondent [ECSC]
| Jurisdiction | St Vincent and the Grenadines |
| Judge | JOSEPH, Monica J. (Acting) |
| Judgment Date | 25 March 2009 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2009] ECSC J0325-3 |
| Date | 25 March 2009 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Vincent) |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO. 53 OF 2005 |
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
HIGH COURT CIVIL
CLAIM NO. 53 OF 2005
In the Matter of the Petition of Juliana Louis Williams Nee Gustave
Mr. Joseph Delves for Petitioner
Mr. Duane Daniel for Respondent
Petitioner Juliana Williams nee Gustave and Respondent Garnet Williams were married on 7th July 1999 at the Registry, Kingstown, St. Vincent and the Grenadines. After the marriage they lived in rented accommodation while the matrimonial home which is located at Paget Farm, Bequia, on land Lot 143 (plan Gr 534) measuring 10,361 sq. ft. was being constructed. The land was vested in their joint names by Deed of Conveyance No. 61/2000, which shows a consideration of $25,902.00.
The petitioner, a housewife, filed a petition for divorce on 12th May 2005 and a decree absolute was granted on 30th December 2005. A Notice of application for ancillary relief was filed by the Petitioner on 2nd August 2006 followed by an affidavit of means on 3rd June 2008 and another affidavit on 29th October 2008.
The Respondent, a Ship Captain, filed an affidavit of means on 30th October 2008 and another affidavit on 11th February 2009. An affidavit of Gangeridice Willliams nee Ramsukh, the respondent's first wife who filed an 'Affidavit in support of respondent' on 4th February 2009, was withdrawn by Counsel for the respondent during the hearing on 11th February 2009.
(a) in the petition, an order that the Respondent transfer to her all his share, claim or interest in the matrimonial home: (b) in a notice of application for ancillary relief filed on 2nd August 2006, a property adjustment order in relation to the matrimonial property and a lump sum payment as the Court deems fit.
The Respondent claims that the matrimonial home belongs to him, with an interest by his first wife by a previous marriage, and invites the Court to quantify the petitioner's minimal interest in it, if at all.
In her affidavit filed on 3rd June 2008 the petitioner stated that she worked as a Field Officer in St. Lucia. The matrimonial home is the only asset she has which on 22nd November 2005 was valued at $244,751.00. In an affidavit filed on 29th October 2008 appears a valuation of $318,901.00.
Before her marriage she was employed at Corpus Christi Girls Vocational Private School. She works part time as a field officer with the Statistical Office in St. Lucia. She stated that, on marriage, the respondent did not want her to work.
Her oral evidence was that when she met the respondent he told her that he was divorced for six years: that there had been an out of court settlement between himselfand his first wife and that the property acquired during that marriage belonged to him. She did not know that his first wife had an interest in the matrimonial home. She said:
"Not fair to say I didn't make any financial contribution to building of the house. In my affidavits I said what financial contribution I made. I made financial contribution from my account. At time of marriage I had more money.. I had at time of marriage $45,000.00. Before marriage he said he did not have any money."
In her affidavit filed on 29th October 2008 she asserted she had savings in three accounts: about $34,000.00 in one, $7,000.00 in another and about $4,000.00 in a third. In her oral evidence the petitioner mentioned an additional sum of $45,000.00 saved, with which she intended to buy her own property.
I do not accept those figures. She was able to produce one passbook therefore she should have produced other passbooks in support of those claims. The passbook she produced showed an opening balance on 7th July 1997 of $29,199.75. I accept her statement at the hearing that she had $8,000.00 in the credit union as she must have had funds in the credit union to be in a position to borrow the substantial sum that she borrowed.
She said she was unable to state what her figure contribution to the matrimonial is, but on several occasions when he was at sea, using her money, she bought steel, sand, blocks or anything needed to continue building the house. In 2000 the respondent took a mortgage loan of $65,000.00 from Caribbean Bank to finish the matrimonial home.
In 1997 the respondent spoke about buying land in St. Lucia. In 1999 the respondent asked her to borrow $55,000.00 to buy land in St. Lucia. She obtained a loan in her name from the St. Lucia Teachers Credit Union. The arrangement was he would deposit $20,000.00 with the Credit Union and repay the loan by making monthly payments. He deposited only $10,000.00 and she deposited the other $10,000.00 which she said came from her account. She exhibited her pass book No. 7515497.
I have not seen the figure $10,000.00 as a withdrawal in the pass book. I have seen two withdrawals: one on 24th March 1999 for $5000.00, the other on 29th March 1999 for $6000.00. As she said that it was in 1999 the respondent asked her to obtain the loan. I infer that $10,000.00 sum is included in those amounts.
Her oral evidence was that he made repayments to the credit union for ten months but only on two or three occasions he paid the full sum of $955.00. Mr. Daniel for the respondent suggested to her, and she agreed, that the respondent would have put $18,000.00 into the property over the ten months. She sold the land.
The petitioner produced a statement from an Attorney at Law in St. Lucia which shows there was s Deed of Sale Juliana Gustave to Marie Josephine Clarke for a parcel of land for $52,464.00 and a Radiation of Hypothec in favour of Saint Lucia Teachers Credit Cooperative Limited securing $55,000.00 in addition to disbursements.
Her oral evidence was that after repaying the loan from the credit union she had $12,000.00. She paid lawyer's fees of $3,464.00 taking the balance ($8,000.00) to Bequia and informing the respondent of what she was doing. She kept the money as he did not control the money. She paid for groceries that he acknowledged he owed and paid his phone bill $1,100.00. She paid $5,000.00 towards the mortgage of $65,000.00 for the matrimonial home.
Her monthly expenses: Rent $275.00: Food, toiletries $450.00: Medical $250.00: Electricity $60.00: Transportation $100.00, a total of $1,135.00.
She stated that when the respondent ceased working with Roger Fuller the latter gave him (not lent) $30,000.00. She is not aware that any part of that money had been returned to him.
The respondent's affidavit filed on 30th October 2008.
"By virtue of Crown Grant number 61 of 2000,I purchased the said land which formed the subject matter of the matrimonial home. I used funds which was aresult of the sale of the property that belonged to my ex-wife, Gangadai Williams. We, Gangadai and I realised $130,000.00 for the sale of the property. The proceeds of that sale, of which Gangadai still has an interest was used on loan and towards the purchase of the present property in dispute."
He borrowed $65,000.00 from RBTT. Bank communication dated 10th February 2009 showed that on 6th November 2000 that sum was borrowed to complete building of a dwelling house and there was a balance of $28,771.54).
Respondent's affidavit filed 11th February 2009 exhibits documentation from Caribbean Banking Corporation which showed an Account No. 0207075773 with an opening balance on 4th October 1999 of $115,808.50 (some three months after their marriage). There were withdrawals from that date until July 2001 when there was a balance of $21.55.
He said he borrowed (was not a gift) $30,000.00 from a former employer, Roger Fuller a year or two after the land in St. Lucia was bought. According to him, this money was paid in three installments. He took one installment ($10,000.00) and the petitioner took two installments ($20,000.00). $25,000.00 remains owing on that loan. He made the last payment about two years ago as Fuller understands his financial position and does not pressure him, he said.
I accept that Roger Fuller gave the respondent $30,000.00 when his employment with Fuller ceased, but I do not accept that it was a loan. If it were a loan why is it the respondent did not obtain a document to that effect from Roger Fuller's office in St. Lucia for presentation to the Court?
In his oral evidence he stated that the petitioner purchased land in St. Lucia and she was to pay $10,000.00. towards that purchase. He did not know if she had paid that sum but he gave her $10,000.00 which she took to St. Lucia.
He said that the petitioner told him that she borrowed $30,000.00 odd to buy the land in St. Lucia. In addition to giving her $10,000.00 he made repayments for nine or ten months. After nine months 'the loan was stopped' For a time he was not working and she said that she would have to sell the land as she was unemployed and had made no loan payments.
When she sold the land she told him she got $9,000.00 and he questioned this as she had obtained a loan of some $30,000.00 in addition to $10,000.00 that they both had put towards the land. He said that it is not correct to say that she used the proceeds of the sale of land in St. Lucia towards the matrimonial home.
When the matrimonial home was being constructed he was away just for two or three days and she paid workmen from money in a joint account to which she had access which money came from the sale of the first house. He said that he hired workmen and he helped to make balustrades so she did not have to buy them.
The respondent said that the money in that joint account came from the proceeds of sale of the first house he had with his...
To continue reading
Request your trial