Nevilline Froome v Nevilline Froome

JurisdictionJamaica
JudgeThompson-James J
Judgment Date02 August 2018
Neutral Citation[2018] JMSC Civ 110
CourtSupreme Court (Jamaica)
Docket NumberCLAIM NO. 2016HCV03901
Date02 August 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

IN THE CIVIL DIVISION

CLAIM NO. 2016HCV03901

Between
Nevilline Froome
Claimant
and
Orville Froome
Defendant
IN CHAMBERS

Angela Cousins Robinson instructed by Robinson Gentles & Co. for the Claimant

Mr. Gordon Steer and Mrs. Kay-Anne Parke instructed by Chambers Bunny & Steer for the Defendant

Family Law — Division of Property — Matrimonial Property —Family Home — Other Property — Property (Rights of Spouses) Act — Sections 4, 6, 14 and 15

Thompson-James J
INTRODUCTION
1

This is a claim for the division of three (3) properties brought by the claimant, Nevilline Froome, against the defendant, Orville Froome. The parties were married December 4, 2004. There are two (2) children of the marriage. A petition for dissolution of marriage was filed by the defendant August 16, 2016.

2

September 20, 2016, the claimant filed a Fixed Date Claim Form seeking maintenance and division of properties. By way of Amended Fixed Date Claim Form filed December 1,2016, the claimant seeks the following orders:

  • 1. That the defendant Orville Froome contributes the sum of One Hundred and Twenty Thousand Dollars ($120,000.00) per month for the maintenance of our two minor children….

  • 2. That the said defendant contributes to half of the medical expenses, full educational expenses, and half dental expenses and optical expenses incurred by the said children.

  • 3. A declaration that the claimant is entitled to fifty percent (50%) share and interest in the matrimonial home known as Apartment #63B, Strata #322, 96B Old Hope Road, Kingston 6 in the parish St. Andrew.

  • 4. A declaration that the claimant is entitled to fifty percent (50%) share and interest in all that parcel of land situate at 12 Janet Crescent, Edgewater, Portmore in the parish of Saint Catherine being the Land registered at Volume 1080 Folio 571 of the Register Book of Titles.

  • 5. A declaration that the claimant is entitled to eighty percent (80%) share and interest in all that parcel of land situate at Fyall Estate Four Paths n the parish of Clarendon and being the Land registered at Volume 1446 Folio 200 of the Register Book of Titles.

  • 6. That a competent valuator be appointed by the parties to value the said properties and the costs of the valuation be borne equally by the parties.

  • 7. That the Registrar of the Supreme Court be empowered to sign all Instruments of Transfer in the event that the defendant neglects or refuses to sign.

  • 8. Any other order that this Honourable Court deems just in the circumstances.

3

At the time of trial issues relating to maintenance were already settled. Therefore, the division of the properties at (i) 12 Janet Crescent, (ii) 63B Old Hope Road, and (iii) Fyall Estate remained to be determined. The properties at 12 Janet Crescent and 63B Old Hope Road are registered in the defendant's name, whilst the Fyall property is registered in the names of both parties.

THE CLAIMANT'S EVIDENCE
4

The claimant's evidence is that the parties met in 1995 when they were both students at Glenmuir High School in Clarendon and began dating. The relationship broke up in or around 1997 or 1998. The defendant went to train as a soldier. They met up again in 2000 and she would visit him at Up Park Camp. At that time she was working in Clarendon as a receptionist, but moved to a job in Kingston at the Mines and Geology Division of the Ministry of Works in 2001, where she currently works. They continued dating.

5

It is her evidence that, while the two were dating, in or around 2003, the defendant purchased the Old Hope Road Apartment using his National Housing Trust (NHT) benefits and a loan from the Victoria Mutual Building Society (VMBS). She gave the defendant $150,000.00 towards the closing costs. Money she had received as retroactive payment for a post upgrade at her workplace. The defendant told her that since she was not a contributor to the NHT at the time her name could not go on the title, but he would add her name when they got married. The apartment was rented out at after it was purchased, whilst they lived at rented premises at Hamilton Drive. She deposited the retroactive payment received from Mines and Geology in her JDF Credit Union account. They lived at the apartment for eight years as their principal place of residence, and only lived at Janet Crescent for about two and a half years.

6

The couple got married in 2004. Their first child was born in August 2005. That same year, they moved into the apartment at Old Hope Road.

7

She states that in September 2005, she commenced an undergraduate degree programme in chemistry and management. She had to put her studies on hold so she could devote herself to the child as she was mostly alone and had to manage everything by herself resulting in a difficulty in managing her studies.

8

She intended to resume her studies when their daughter was one year and six months old, but was unable to, as the defendant's sister, who was in her first year of university abroad, had a child. The defendant decided to assist her with the child. The child, Jaden, was taken to them at one month old after her husband asked her to care for him. She agreed to do so. She struggled with baby Jaden and her own daughter who was about two years old at the time. When Jaden came to live with them her husband was on a military course in the United States for six months. She also struggled with the children, groceries, gas cylinder and laundry up and down the stairs at the apartment, as it had no elevator. When her husband returned, she continued to struggle with the two children, as he was stationed at camp.

9

She asked her husband to get a helper. They got a helper, but Jaden was sent to live with his grandmother in 2008, as she was again pregnant and could no longer manage on her own. This child was born in March 2009.

10

During the time that she put her studies on hold, the defendant completed online degrees in Law and Security and Risk Management. He was able to do this while she was busy working and caring for the children.

11

In or about 2014, the parties discussed moving back to live in Clarendon after he retired and decided to buy a piece of land there to build on. They subsequently purchased the Fyall property as joint tenants, using her NHT benefits and a deposit provided by the defendant. The mortgage is paid from her salary each month.

12

Around the same time, owing to discussions by the parties surrounding the increasing unsuitability of the apartment, the defendant looked for a three bedroom house, and acquired a loan from the Jamaica National Building Society (JNBS) to purchase same. The defendant told her that it did not matter that her name was not put on the title, as, if anything happened to him, she would get the property for herself and the kids. When she called the NHT to enquire if her name could be put on the title, she was advised that she would lose her build on own land benefits. They moved into this house in Portmore November 2014.

13

Although falling apart before, the marriage started to deteriorate moreso in 2015. Things came to a head in May of 2015, when the parties had a disagreement. She alleges that the defendant was physically abusive and threatened her on more than one occasion. He asked her to leave and refused to allow her to move into the apartment with the kids. He also stated he would rather sell the apartment or drag it out through the courts than allow her to get it.

14

In November 2015, the defendant froze the accounts she used to care for the children and took away the car she used for transporting the children in December when he returned from Canada. She moved out of the house in May of 2016, and made a report to the police and at Up Park Camp regarding threats she alleges the defendant made against her.

15

The claimant states that she earns a net salary of $43,000.00 per month. During the marriage she would transfer $20,000 from her pay to his account. She was unable to do this in November 2015. The defendant makes in excess of $300,000.00 per month. She has been struggling with taking care of the children as well as adequate accommodation since the separation.

16

In cross-examination, in relation to the claimant's assertion that she contributed to the closing costs of the apartment, it was revealed that the claimant did not join the JDF Credit Union, until after the parties were married. The property was purchased before they were married. The claimant stated that she started a business course online but did not complete it because she still had to struggle with the children. At no time did she give up her job during the marriage. She also admitted that her husband did employ a helper, but stated at trial that the helper was only there for about three (3) or four (4) months in 2008 when Jaden was staying with them. They had no helper when she was pregnant with the second child.

17

In re-examination, she stated that the money was actually taken from the UWI Credit Union. When asked by Mr. Steer if she is claiming 50% of Old Hope Road because she lived there with the defendant, the claimant responded ‘yes, because it was the matrimonial home for eight (8) years’. She agreed that it was her husband alone who found the money to purchase the Portmore property, and he took the Portmore house and Old Hope Road apartment in his name alone. She also agreed that her husband was the one who paid the household expenses and saw to it that the mortgage on both properties was paid, and had also contributed when her father was sick.

THE DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
18

The defendant's evidence is that the claimant did not make any contribution towards the Old Hope Road property as she contends. He borrowed most of the money from NHT and VMBS, leaving a shortfall of $427,365.48 on the purchase price and other administrative fees. He did not say, however, how...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Madge Robinson v Carol St. Aubyn Robinson
    • Jamaica
    • Supreme Court (Jamaica)
    • February 2, 2023
    ...definition cited by Justice Sykes (as he then was) in Peaches Stewart v Rupert Stewart (Supra) and supported in Froome v Froome [2018] JMSC Civ 110, where the learned judge stated that, there can only be one family home, as is evident from the definition, and the fact that the definition is......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT