Hunte v Hunte

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Court: High Court (Barbados)
• Judge: Williams, J.
• Judgment Date: 19 July 1983
• Neutral Citation: BB 1983 HC 52
• Docket Number: No. 224D of 1980
• Date: 19 July 1983

High Court. (Family Division)

Williams, J.

No. 224D of 1980

Hunte

and

Hunte

Appearances:

Mr. C.C. Alleyne for the wife/applicant.

Miss V. Blenman of Messrs. Smith & Smith for the husband/respondent.

Family law - Husband and wife — Matrimonial property

Williams, J.

1 This is an application by the wife in respect of the former matrimonial home at Friendship, St. Andrew and the furniture and effects therein. She seeks an order that they are the joint property of her husband and herself. She seeks in the alternative an order altering their interests so as to vest in her one half share of the home and the furniture and effects.

2 The parties were married on the 17th of April, 1960. They had 5 children, Donna born in 1959, Cheryl in 1960, Gregory in July 1961, Faye in 1963 and Pedro in 1965. The applicant filed her petition for divorce in September 1980 and the decree nisi was pronounced on the 9th of February, 1981. The applicant left the matrimonial home in September 1980 and went to live with her mother where she still resides. Gregory, Faye and Pedro, now aged 18, live with the respondent in the former matrimonial home.

3 After the marriage in 1960 the applicant and the respondent lived and cohabited at Spooners Hill, St. Michael; then at Shorey Village, Belleplaine, East Coast Road and finally at Friendship, St. Andrew.

4 It was in 1970 that the matrimonial home at Friendship was purchased. Between 1970 and 1973 two bedrooms were added as well as a second sitting room and a second toilet and bath.

5 The applicant's evidence is that she contributed to the cost of purchasing and extending the matrimonial home from funds which she earned as a seamstress; and that she and the respondent acquired the household furniture and effects for their joint use in the matrimonial home.

6 The evidence of the respondent is in total contradiction to hers. He is a senior tax inspector in the public service. His evidence is –

• (a) that he paid $18,000 for the matrimonial home;

• (b) that its purchase was financed with a loan of $14,000 from the Public Officers' Housing Loan Fund and $4,600 from Barclays Bank International;

• (c) that these loans were repaid by deductions from his salary;

• (d) that he also borrowed $1,000 from Mr. Fleming of Anguilla repayment of which has not yet been made;

• (e) that in or about the year 1974 when the matrimonial home was being renovated he borrowed $8,000 from Barclays Bank International, $600 from the applicant's sister and $400 from Mr. Edwards;

• (f) that these last mentioned loans were repaid by him;

• (g) that the applicant did not in any way help with the running of the house and any money earned by her was used solely for her own benefit;

• (h) that on several occasions he had to borrow money on his insurance policies to help to make ends meet;

• (i) that the furniture and effects in the matrimonial home were bought by him or with money supplied by him; and

• (j) that the children reside with him in the matrimonial home and are maintained by him.

7 The applicant's evidence before me revealed how difficult things used to be for them. She said — “I put all my earnings into the house. I would buy things for the kids to take to school. Would cut and contrive. I never bought clothes for myself. My sister used to give me clothes. I started keeping dutch parties and dances at the house.”

8 The respondent on the other hand said — “Only within the last 3 years that my wife got paid as a seamstress. My wife did not contribute any cash as such. As a wife she would cook, she would wash, she would sweep and all those things. Actually giving money weekly or monthly that was never the case….. She would make the occasional dress. About 1965. For herself and the children. Never had a list of clients.”

9 My finding on the evidence as a whole is that the respondent paid for the matrimonial home and its extension and renovation. The legal title is vested in him and it belongs to him. I find with respect to the furniture and effects in the home that they were bought for the most part with money provided by him. I would on the evidence estimate 90% of the money spent on providing them would have been his.

10 I turn to the application to alter their interests in the home and its furniture and effects. The relevant parts of her affidavit are — “8. That during the subsistence of our marriage I contributed toward the running expenses of the matrimonial home, was responsible for the running of the home and performed the duties of a homemaker. 9. That I brought up, looked after and made purchases on behalf...