Sean Miguel Ricardo Alleyne v Katrina Sabrina Alleyne

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Judge: Alleyne, J.
• Judgment Date: 04 April 2025
• Neutral Citation: BB 2025 HC 16
• Court: High Court (Barbados)
• Year: 2025
• Docket Number: FL0447 of 2016

Sean Miguel Ricardo Alleyne

and

Katrina Sabrina Alleyne

Alleyne, J.

FL0447 of 2016

High Court

Appearances:

Ms. Veronica M. McFarlane for the Applicant/Husband.

Mr. Arthur Holder S.C. for the Respondent/Wife.

DECISION

INTRODUCTION

Alleyne, J.

1 These proceedings relate to a property at lot 355, Emerald Park West, St. Philip which the parties occupy (the matrimonial home). They are divorced. Nonetheless, I will refer to them as “the Husband” and “the Wife”, respectively.

2 The Wife does not contest the Husband's application for an order that the matrimonial home is jointly owned, nor does she object to the transfer of her interest to him. The lingering issue is whether the Court should accede to his application to vest a 90% share in him and 10% in her, something with which she disagrees.

THE STATUTORY PROVISONS

3 These matters invoke consideration of sections 56 and 57 of the Family Law Act, Cap 214 (FLA). Section 56(1) allows the Court to declare the title or rights, if any, that the parties have in respect of the matrimonial home. This determination is made according to ordinary rules of law and equity. [See Proverbs v. Proverbs (2002) 61 WIR 91 (CA) [93]; and Anthony Dickey, Family Law (6th edn, Lawbook Co. 2007) para. 39.30 writing in respect of the Family Law Act, 1975 (Cth) s. 78(1) of Australia on which s. 56 of the FLA is based]

4 Section 57(1) empowers the Court to make such order as it thinks fit, altering the parties' existing interests. Section 57(2) precludes the Court from making an alteration order unless satisfied that it is just and equitable to make the order in all the circumstances. Section 57(3) mandates it to take account of the following in considering what order to make:

• (a) the financial contribution made directly or indirectly by or on behalf of a party … to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of the property, or otherwise in relation to the property;

• (b) the contribution made directly or indirectly by a party …, including any contribution made in the capacity of homemaker or parent, to the welfare of the family which constitutes

  • (i) the parties to the marriage …; and

  • (ii) where applicable, any child of that marriage

  • …;

• (c) the effect of any proposed order upon the earning capacity of either party;

• (d) the matters referred to in section 53(2) in so far as they are relevant; and

• (e) any other order that has been made under this Act in respect of a party.

5 The list of matters referred to in section 53(2) is the same one that courts are required by section 53(1) to consider in determining levels of maintenance. In property alteration proceedings, section 57(3)(d) requires that the factors be considered to the extent that they are relevant. Limiting it to what may apply to section 57 proceedings, the list reads:

• (a) the age and state of health of each of the parties;

• (b) the income, property and financial resources of each of the parties and the physical and mental capacity of each of them for appropriate gainful employment;

• (c) whether either party has the care or control of a child of the marriage or union other than a marriage, who has not attained the age of 18 years;

• (d) the financial needs and obligations of the parties;

• (e) the responsibilities of either party to support any other person;

• (f) the eligibility of either party for a pension, allowance, or benefit under any Act or rule, or under any superannuation fund or scheme, or the rate of any such pension, allowance or benefit being paid to either party;

• (g) where the parties have separated or the marriage has been dissolved, a standard of living that in all the circumstances is reasonable;

• …

• (j) the duration of the marriage…

• (k) the need to protect the position of a woman who wishes only to continue her role as a wife and mother;

• …

• (n) any fact or circumstance that, in the opinion of the court, the justice of the case requires to be taken into account.

THE HEARING

6 At the hearing, the Court had before it six affidavits filed by the Husband and one from the Wife along with each party's statement of financial circumstances. Both gave oral evidence, and the Court received submissions from Ms. Veronica McFarlane who represented the Husband, and the Wife's counsel Mr. Arthur Holder S.C.

7 Below, I review the evidence under various heads. However, I have considered all the evidence and the demeanour of the parties on the witness stand. I make two general observations: (i) the Husband tended to understate the Wife's contributions; and (ii) both parties were inconsistent. Often, though not always, I preferred the Wife's evidence.

THE AGREED FACTS

8 Some facts are not in dispute. The parties were married on 26 November 2006 after living together for some years. They separated in 2015 and were divorced on 23 December 2016. However, they continue to share the matrimonial home. Before moving into it, they lived first at the Husband's stepfather and later at the Wife's grandmother.

9 The Wife is a self-employed beautician. Initially, she operated her business from her grandmother's house. Subsequently, she did so from a purpose-built salon which was later converted into a shop and added to the matrimonial home. The parties operated the shop jointly for a while. Later, the Wife ran it alone.

10 The matrimonial home was acquired in 2008 with loans totalling $283,000.00. The debt is secured by a mortgage over the matrimonial home; and the parties are required to pay $2,100.00 monthly towards repayment of principal and interest. After the purchase, a garage, a guard wall and a fence were built; and later, the shop and a deck were added.

THE PERIOD OF COHABITATION

11 There is some uncertainty as to the period of pre-marital cohabitation. The Husband estimated it to be “about 6 years”. He said that they lived at his stepfather for “about 4 years”, and at the Wife's grandmother for “another 4 years” before moving into the matrimonial home. To Mr. Holder S.C., he said that they moved “around 2009 or 2011”. To the Court, he said 2011.

12 The Wife was more self-assured about the relocation date. She said that they moved in December 2008. She did not challenge the Husband's evidence as to the period they spent at his stepfather. I accept that to be about four years. She said that “prior to moving to [the matrimonial home]”, the parties lived at her grandmother “for five years before the marriage”.

13 That reference to the marriage rather than the move to the matrimonial home must have been an error. The Wife was twenty-four years old when the parties married. It is highly unlikely that they would have been living together as man and wife for nine years before then. The Husband puts the period as “about 6 years”. I find accordingly.

THE SALON

14 The parties dispute who bore the cost of constructing the dedicated structure for the salon. The Husband said that he did. He gave no details as to the amount expended. The Wife stated that it was a joint effort, adding:

I was working in the house doing hair and nails and the money I was working for went toward buying material for the salon and my grandmother also helped. I would say my contribution was about $3500.00 … I would say that Mr. Alleyne's contribution was about the same. It is not true that his contribution was closer to $9,000.00. I was making at least $1000.00 per week from in the front house.

15 That evidence was detailed and forthrightly given. I saw no reason to disbelieve it. I accept every assertion of fact in the Wife's account.

THE ADDITIONS TO THE MATRIMONIAL HOME

16 There is also dispute over the additions to the matrimonial home. The Husband deposed that he spent around $12,500.00 on the shop. The Wife's challenge was baseless and speculative. She deposed that the figure “is too high given that the costs of readjustment and labour of the shop are estimated at $4,300.00.”

17 In respect of the deck, the Husband deposed that the parties borrowed $6,500.00 and he injected $8000.00. He stated that he alone repaid the loan. The Wife denied that he spent any additional money on the project.

18 Under cross-examination, the Wife added that “some money would have gone from the shop into the deck”. She stated that they started to repay the loan, but the Husband paid most of it. These assertions came late in the day; and were not put to the Husband. I reject them. I accept the Husband's evidence in respect of the shop and the deck.

19 This brings me to the garage, the fence and the guard wall. The Husband claimed sole responsibility for the garage and the guard wall. The Wife deposed that the guard wall was a wedding gift; and that that the parties paid for the garage and fence. The Husband dismissed that evidence as a misrepresentation, deposing that “[s]he had no means and when she did earn it was definitely not spent on the house”.

20 The Wife's unchallenged evidence, which I accept, is that these additions were made before the parties moved into the matrimonial home. That was at a time when she was earning money from her salon.

21 In fact, the Wife was able to contribute to the construction of the new home for the salon. Her uncontradicted evidence which I accept is that she deposited savings of $7500.00 to secure the mortgage. The Husband admits that she assisted in repaying the mortgage in the early years.

22 This exposes the sandy foundation of the Husband's case that the Wife did not contribute. It is highly implausible that she would not have assisted, given that she had means and had just joined with the Husband to acquire the matrimonial home.

23 I also accept the Wife's unchallenged evidence that the benefactor of the guard wall has resided in the matrimonial home, on the Husband's initiative, from the time the parties moved in. She said that he also built the garage but the parties paid him for that. Mind-bogglingly, neither party...