Sophia Reid v Edward Oakley
| Jurisdiction | Jamaica |
| Judge | P. Mason J (Ag.) |
| Judgment Date | 06 June 2023 |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO. SU2019CV03708 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Jamaica) |
[2023] JMSC Civ. 97
CLAIM NO. SU2019CV03708
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA
IN THE CIVIL DIVISION
REAL PROPERTY — APPLICATION FOR BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN PROPERTY — EQUITABLE REMEDY — CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST — WHETHER THE CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO A BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
Mr. Josemar Belnavis and Ms. Aaliyah Green, Attorneys-at-Law for the Claimant instructed by Lindsay Law Chambers, Attorneys-at-Law.
Ms. Gillian Mullings and Ms. Abigail Henry, Attorneys-at-Law for the Defendant instructed by Naylor & Mullings, Attorneys-at-Law.
IN CHAMBERS
The Claimant, Sophia Reid, filed a Fixed Date Claim Form and an Amended Fixed Date Claim Form on September 16, 2019, and on the 12 th of July 2022 respectively. In the Amended Fixed Date Claim Form, the Claimant seeks the following orders against the Defendant, Edward Oakley:
-
“ 1. A Declaration that Sophia Reid is the sole legal and beneficial owner of property registered at Volume 1289 Folio 256 of the Register Book of Titles and is entitled to exclusive possession thereof, the Defendant's interest in the said property being extinguished by way of adverse possession and/or section 3 of the Limitation of Actions Act.
-
2. Consequent to a Declaration being made in terms of paragraph one (1) herein, this Honourable Court also makes an Order directing the Registrar of Titles to cancel the Certificate of Title for the property registered at Volume 1289 Folio 256 of the Register Book of Titles bearing the name of the Defendant and to issue a new Certificate of Title in the sole name of the Claimant, as the registered proprietor.
-
3. In the alternative, a Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to a seventy percent (70%) legal and beneficial interest in the property registered at Volume 1289 Folio 256 of the Register Book of Titles by way of constructive trust and/or proprietary estoppel.
-
4. Consequent to A Declaration being made in terms of paragraph three (3) herein, that this Honourable Court make the following Orders and directions:
-
I. The property be valued within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order by a reputable Valuator to be agreed upon by the Claimant and the Defendant. If the parties fail to agree on a valuator, then the Registrar of the Supreme Court is empowered to choose a valuator within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order.
-
II. Costs of the valuation to be borne in portions as ordered by the Court at paragraph 3 above.
-
III. The Claimant be given the first option to purchase the interest of the Defendant, if any, in the property and to make a deposit within 60 days of the agreed valuation. In any event, the Claimant shall exercise her option to purchase the Defendant's interest, if any, within six (6) months of this Order.
-
IV. The Claimant's Attorneys-at-Law are to have Carriage of Sale.
-
V. If the Defendant refuses to sell his interest in the said property, the Claimant be added to the Duplicate Certificate of Title registered at Volume 1289 Folio 256 of the Register Book of Titles with the Defendant as tenants-in-common in unequal shares in the portions ordered by the Court at paragraph 3 (I) above.
-
-
5. The Registrar of the Supreme Court be authorized to sign any and all documents related to the transfer and or sale of the said property and any document necessary for compliance with any of the Orders made herein, if either party refuses or is unable to sign and/or effect same.
-
6. Costs and Attorneys Costs to the Claimant
-
7. Liberty to apply.
-
8. Such further and/or other relief as the Honourable Court deems just.”
On the morning of the trial, Counsel for the Claimant withdrew Order 1 and instead proceed with Order 3 only which dealt with the issue of her entitlement to a share in the property by virtue of constructive trust and/or proprietary estoppel.
The Claimant's evidence is contained in the following affidavits:
-
I. Affidavit of Sophia Reid in Support of Fixed Date Claim Form filed on September 16, 2019.
-
II. Supplemental Affidavit of Sophia Reid in Support of Fixed Date Claim Form filed on October 7, 2022.
-
III. Affidavit of Kemar Carlton Daley in Support of Fixed Date Claim Form filed on October 21, 2022.
-
IV. Affidavit of Sophia Reid in Response to Third Affidavit of Edward Oakley filed on March 29, 2023.
The Claimant's evidence is that she is the former common law spouse of the Defendant. The union produced two children namely Amardo and Romaine Oakley. She stated that herself and the Defendant were common law spouses and were acknowledged by all who knew or were associated with them as such.
The Claimant claims that the relationship between herself and the Defendant began in 1993. At that time, she had already had two children. The Defendant lived with her at her parents' home in Independence City, Portmore in the parish of St. Catherine between 1993-1996.
The Claimant and the Defendant began living at Lot 801 Daytona, Greater Portmore in the parish of St. Catherine being the land comprised in Certificate of Title registered at Volume 1289 Folio 256 in the Register Book of Titles (hereinafter referred to as “the subject property”) in 1996.
The Claimant claims that herself and the Defendant found out about the subject property from a mutual friend. The cost of the property being $495,000.00 at the time. She states that when the property was purchased in 2002, herself and the Defendant agreed that since he was working at the Wyndham Hotel and receiving a monthly salary, making monthly payments to the National Housing Trust (NHT) and she was a Higgler at the time, that he would purchase the property in his name through the NHT and they would be co-owners.
She claims that before the property was purchased in 1996, the Defendant told her that they would both own the property in equal shares and as future co-owners of the subject property, she should contribute Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) to the acquisition of the said property.
She further stated that there was a common understanding between the parties that based on her contribution of the Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), that they would both own the property in equal shares.
She claims that they both lived at the property as if they were husband and wife with their children from 1996 until 2002 when the Defendant vacated the property to live in the United States of America (“USA”).
She states that based on the understanding that she would own the property jointly with the Defendant, she paid the mortgage from 2002 until 2014 when the Defendant blocked her from making the payments after discovering that she had lodged a caveat on the title to the subject property.
She further stated that since the Defendant emigrated to the USA, she has paid all the bills which includes, light, water and property taxes up until the date of the issuance of this claim on the common understanding that the property was beneficially owned by herself and the Defendant.
Since the Defendant emigrated to the USA in 2002, she has undertaken substantial improvements to the property including adding two bedrooms, a living room, bathroom, washroom, veranda and a kitchen. Ms. Reid avers that she solely purchased the materials used for the said improvements as well as the tiling, installation, fittings, and fixtures. She further claims that the Defendant did not object to the said improvements.
She claims that the property is now a three-bedroom, two-bathroom property and that her daughter, Melissa Daley- Gonzalez, as well as her son, Kemar Daley, have since been permitted by her to invest money into the property by improving same and adding an upstairs portion to it. They are currently living at the said property.
She further states that she has been the sole person who acted in the capacity as the owner of the property since the Defendant left Jamaica in 2002.
The Claimant further, in her evidence, stated that after the Defendant moved to the USA, he sent her money through Western Union on several occasions but that those funds were sent primarily to take care of the Defendant's mother who was living with her after the Defendant migrated. She stated also that he would on some rare occasion send funds for the benefit of his son, Romaine Oakley. He would also send other funds which she states would not have been enough to improve the house or to pay the mortgage.
The Defendant's case is contained in the following affidavits:
-
i. Affidavit in Response of Edward Oakley filed on May 27, 2022
-
ii. Affidavit of Edward Oakley filed on November 11, 2022
-
iii. Third Affidavit of Edward Oakley filed on January 16, 2023
The Defendant's evidence is that he had a visiting relationship with the Claimant in the 1990's. As it relates to the deposit, he claims that he received a loan from the Bank of Nova Scotia for $50,000.00 and repaid same on his own. He further stated that the Claimant was not a part of those transactions nor was she ever to be included or assist with any of the obligations that arose from the loans he obtained.
He stated that at all material times, during the purchase of the property and thereafter, the Claimant was unemployed and primarily stayed home to care for her children. He further averred that she was never in a position to assist nor contribute to the purchase of the home or to any financial obligation that was contingent to the acquisition.
He further stated that the Claimant became pregnant with their first child and both parties moved into the subject property in 1995, due to the fact that the Claimant was living in a volatile area, and he wanted to ensure that his child was safe and secure.
He further claims that both himself and the Claimant lived together...
To continue reading
Request your trial