Jackson (Keith Ian) v Ruby Ann Jackson

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: BROOKS, J.
• Judgment Date: 07 January 2010
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2010] 1 JJC 0702
• Date: 07 January 2010
• Court: Supreme Court (Jamaica)
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. F.D.J. 015 OF 1999

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

IN CIVIL DIVISION

CLAIM NO. F.D.J. 015 OF 1999

IN CHAMBERS

BETWEEN

KEITH IAN JACKSON

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

AND

RUBY ANN JACKSON

RESPONDENT/APPLICANT

Husband and Wife — Ascertaining interest of the parties in former matrimonial home — Intention at the time of acquisition — Wife not contributing to the cost of acquisition — Whether agreement made concerning the beneficial interest

MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY - Husband and wife - Ascertaining interest of the parties in former matrimonial home - Intention at time of acquisition - Wife not contributing to cost of acquisition - Whether agreement made concerning the beneficial interest

BROOKS, J

1 No. 10 Maeven Avenue in Saint Andrew, was the matrimonial home of Mr. Keith Ian Jackson and the then Mrs. Ruby Ann Jackson. Mrs. Jackson has since remarried and for convenience, I shall refer to the parties hereafter as "the husband" and "the wife".

2 Although they occupied the property prior to 1988, the husband acquired the title to the property in that year, in his name only. The wife was a housewife and made no direct contribution to the cost of acquisition. Their marriage later foundered. When the husband petitioned for divorce, the wife applied for ancillary relief claiming, among other things, a declaration that she has a beneficial interest in the property. The husband denies that she has any such interest. The court's task is to determine whether their joint search for a matrimonial home before, and the wife's efforts after, the husband acquired title, support her claim that they had agreed that they would own the property equally.

3 The Acquisition of the Property

4 There is no dispute concerning the fact that the wife did not contribute directly to the cost of the acquisition. The circumstances of the acquisition were, however, contested. The wife deposed that the property was purchased for $235,000.00. She says that the couple were, at the time searching for a suitable property to be their family home. The property was, at the time, owned by Arklan Ltd. The subscribing shareholders of the company were the husband and his brother Alan. After Alan emigrated the property was transferred to the husband. The certificate of title shows that this was for a consideration of $225,000.00. The husband secured mortgage financing in the sum of $200,000.00.

5 The husband states that the property was an investment by his family, namely his father, his brother and himself. He says that all were shareholders of Arklan Ltd. at the time of the transfer to him. He, however, provided no supporting documentation for this statement. His statement that his father was a shareholder from the inception of the company was contradicted by the Articles of Association which were exhibited. On the husband's account, the property was not sold to him. According to him, his business needed funds and his father and brother agreed to transfer the title to him in order to secure mortgage financing. On his account, the property was then "worth a lot more than [the transfer price of $225,000.00] and [that his] brother and [his] father still had an interest in it" after the transfer. He testified that he never gave the wife the impression that she held an interest in the property.

6 Contribution after the purchase

7 The wife says that her contribution after the purchase of the property was by way of taking care of her family and the household, purchasing several items of furniture (by way of hire-purchase contracts) and effecting significant improvements to the property.

8 She says that she financed these ventures from a sewing business which she conducted from home and from a formal business enterprise which she had set up and operated elsewhere. All this she did, she says, because the husband assured her that the property belonged to them both and that her name would eventually be placed on the registered title therefor. She accepted, however, that the husband paid the mortgage instalments and financed the bulk of the family's outgoings.

9 Assessing the evidence

10 Cross-examination proved that neither party's evidence was credible in all respects. The husband's account that his father and brother maintained an interest in the property was not credible. This...