Rosalind Ophelia Browne Nee Pinder v Reynold Sylvester Browne

• Jurisdiction: St Vincent and the Grenadines
• Judge: Cenac-Dantes, J.
• Judgment Date: 29 May 2025
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2025] ECSC J0529-2
• Year: 2025
• Court: High Court (Saint Vincent)
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. SVGHMT2021/1013

Between:

Rosalind Ophelia Browne nee Pinder

Petitioner

and

Reynold Sylvester Browne

Respondent

[2025] ECSC J0529-2

Before:

The Hon. Mde. Cybelle Cenac-Dantes Judge of the High Court

CLAIM NO. SVGHMT2021/1013

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

(Civil Division)

Appearances:

Zhinga Horne-Edwards counsel for the Petitioner

Paula David counsel for the Respondent

ORAL DECISION

Cenac-Dantes, J.

1 This is my oral decision and I reserve the right to amplify these brief reasons in the event of an appeal.

Introduction

2 The central issue in this case revolves around the matrimonial home, a two-story house at Ratho Mill, constructed on land registered in the petitioner's name for which the respondent claims he paid the full down payment by selling his van and contributing significantly to the home's construction through labour and resources. The petitioner disputes the extent of the respondent's contributions, asserting that her income financed most expenses, including loans and mortgages. Consequently, her claim is for (i) a declaration that she is entitled to a 75% share of the home, or such other share as may be just, (ii) a lump sum settlement in respect of her share, (iii) further or other relief and (iv) costs.

3 “The overriding objective that the court must strive at is fairness. In apportioning the assets, the court must consider the various factors the legislature has asked it to take into account and then arrive at a solution that is, in all the circumstances, fair to the parties”. 1

4 The Matrimonial Causes Act, Chapter 239 of the Laws of St. Vincent and the Grenadines Revised Edition 2009 (the “Act”) section 34 provides that:

It shall be the duty of the court ……… in relation to a party to a marriage ……… to have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the following matters, that is to say –

• (1) the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;

• (2) the financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which each of the parties has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;

• (3) the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage;

• (4) the age of each party to the marriage and the duration of the marriage;

• (5) any physical or mental disability of either of the parties to the marriage;

• (6) the contribution made by each of the parties to the welfare of the family, including any contribution made by looking after the home or caring for the family

• (7) ……..

and so to exercise those powers as to place the parties, so far as it is practicable and, having regard to their conduct, just to do so, in the financial position in which they would have been if the marriage had not broken down and each had properly discharged his or her financial obligations and responsibilities towards the other.

Factual Background

5 The Affidavit of Rosalind Browne, the petitioner, 58 years old outlines the financial and personal circumstances surrounding the dissolution of her marriage with Reynold Sylvester Browne, the respondent.

6 Rosalind and Reynold were married on March 31, 1996, and remained legally married for 26 years. By the admission of the petitioner the parties had been in a relationship for approximately 10 years prior to their marriage. The marriage was dissolved by decree nisi on March 4, 2022, on the ground that the parties had lived separate and apart for at least 2 years. In total, the parties were together for approximately 34 years.

7 The couple share one son, Rosario, aged 19, who has graduated from college and the petitioner represents that he intends to pursue university education. The petitioner states that she has been solely responsible for his maintenance since the divorce proceedings began and in fact, during the entirety of his life has been the one primarily responsible for all his needs, save for sporadic assistance from the respondent. This is not disputed by the respondent, who states at paragraph 11 of his affidavit, that for most of the marriage the petitioner took care of Rosario. His oral evidence also does not contradict this. The son is currently employed under the government's trainee SET program and he has no set plans for attending university.

8 The petitioner deposes that she works as a civil servant but was recently transferred to the Lands and Surveys Department as Acting Assistant Secretary to the Chief Land Surveyor, earning the same monthly salary of $3,832.00 with an additional acting allowance of $801.00. She also collects $1,100.00 in rent from the upper floor of the former matrimonial home.

9 The petitioner further deposes that she owned the land at Villa A, which was exchanged for the current plot at Ratho Mill where the home is built. Both Villa A and Ratho Mill were registered in her name only. She states that she financed the construction through multiple mortgage loans, all serviced by her salary. The respondent, she states, contributed labour and materials on an ad hoc basis.

10 She states that she is burdened by significant financial responsibilities, including monthly mortgage payments of $2,284.00, utility bills, and expenses related to her son. The home remains uninsured due to her inability to afford the lump-sum premium.

11 Currently, she and Rosario reside temporarily with a family friend, rent-free, due to increasing acrimony with the respondent, while continuing to pay utilities and maintain the former matrimonial home.

12 The petitioner seeks a court order for the sale and distribution of proceeds from the matrimonial home, proposing a 75/25 division in her favour, given her substantial financial contributions. She requests a further deduction from the respondent's share to account for unpaid mortgage contributions since the divorce proceedings began. The respondent opposes this and requests an equal division of the asset.

13 Her affidavit provides financial documents, including salary slips, mortgage agreements, and valuation reports, to support her claim.

14 Resolution of this matter will depend on the court's determination of the parties intention, and each party's financial contributions and responsibilities during the marriage, in light of the considerations to be taken into account under the Act.

The Evidence Summary

15 Throughout her affidavits, the Petitioner sought to make a case that the Respondent's contributions towards the welfare of the family, and in particular, his contributions in respect of the construction of the matrimonial home, “were small and made on an ad hoc basis”. She said, and the Respondent admitted, that it is she who has paid the bulk of the mortgage. Where the parties disagree relates to the Petitioner's contention that the construction of the matrimonial home was financed primarily by mortgage loans. The Petitioner alleged that the construction of the lower storey of the matrimonial home was financed by a mortgage loan of $80,000.00 which “was, by far, the major source of financing of the construction of the former matrimonial home”. At paragraphs 12 and 13 of her Affidavit of Means the Petitioner said that a second mortgage loan of $25,000.00 financed the purchase of “the bulk of the materials used to construct the upper floor, such as lumber and galvanized sheeting. The cement from which the blocks were made was also purchased with the proceeds of the further mortgage loan”.

16 The Respondent gave evidence that it was largely through his efforts that the matrimonial home was constructed. At paragraph 14 of his Affidavit of Means the Respondent said that by the time the parties got the $80,000.00 loan, “the downstairs was almost complete”. In support of his contention, the Respondent produced documents related to the construction of the matrimonial home. Most notably, the Respondent produced a report prepared by Mr. Sebastian Alexander, which showed that prior to the grant of the $80,000.00 loan, the matrimonial home was in an advanced state of construction. At paragraphs 15 and 16 of his Affidavit of Means the Respondent pointed out that the Application for Mortgage Finance Form which he and the Petitioner signed on 22nd September 1997 indicated that $28,476.60 of the $80,000.00 loan went towards consolidating a former loan for the purchase of land at Villa A, a consumer loan of $7,471.20 and paying off the Petitioner's loan at GECCU. It was only the balance after those loans were accounted for that was made available to the parties for the construction of the matrimonial home.

17 At paragraph 21 of his Affidavit of Means the Respondent said, “I paid for most of the labour and materials that went into constructing the upstairs from my pocket”. He noted that “the upstairs is bigger than the downstairs” and reflected, therefore, that it could not have cost less to construct the upper storey than it did to construct the lower storey. At paragraph 24 of his Affidavit of Means the Respondent referred to another Inspection and Valuation Report prepared by Mr. Sebastian Alexander almost two years before the transaction of $25,000.00 was approved, which showed that the upper storey was almost complete by the date of that report. At paragraph 25 he referred to a letter from the Bank of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines which confirmed his evidence that the $25,000.00 transaction was not a loan, but only an upstamping of the mortgage to consolidate existing loans.

Standard of Proof

18 It is for the petitioner to prove, on a balance of probabilities that she is entitled to a greater share of the matrimonial home based on the facts and evidence presented. Having read the affidavit of means of the petitioner and her response to the affidavit of the respondent, and having listened to her oral evidence under cross-examination I am of the view that the petitioner has failed to...