UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES ST AUGUSTINE CAMPUS FACULTY OF

LAW

FAMILY LAW 1 (LAW 3210)

WORKSHEET 5

REDISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY ON THE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE AND

COHABITATION

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
At the end of this worksheet you should be able to:
- Explain why redistributing property upon cessation of a marriage or a union other
than marriage is often necessary.
- Give examples of jurisdictions within the Commonwealth Caribbean that have
statutory powers of redistribution and of those that are still governed by the
equivalent of the Married Women Property Act 1882 UK (MWPA) and do not have
statutory powers of redistribution
- Explain key principles relating to the regimes in Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago
and Barbados (referencing applicable judicial decisions) as regards redistribution
of property in relation to the following o Whether the redistribution is based on
fixed entitlement or discretion o Whether the statutory instrument governing the
redistribution applies to de jure spouses or facto spouses or both
o What conditions an applicant must meet, if any, to qualified to benefit
under the scheme
o Whether there are time limits within which an application must be brought
o What factors the Court takes into account in redistributing property
(referencing judicial decisions) considering:
 Clean break
 Non-financial contributions
 Retrospective or prospective approach to factors  The relevance of
conduct

- Discuss what an applicant must show to establish the existence of a common

intention construction trust in relation to property.
51 Course Outline and Worksheets prepared by Afiya France
LEGISLATION
Anguilla - Matrimonial Proceedings and Property
Ordinance 1990
Antigua and Barbuda - Divorce Act 1997-10
Bahamas - Matrimonial Causes Act Cap. 111
Barbados - Family Law Act, Cap. 214
Belize - Supreme Court of Judicature Act Cap. 91 ss 128-1
Ammd Act 2001-8
British Virgin Islands - Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act
1995
Dominica - Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Dominica) Act
Cap 4:02,
Grenada - West Indies Associated Supreme Court
(Grenada) Act Cap. 336,
Guyana - Matrimonial Causes Act, Cap 45:02
Guyana - Married Persons (Property)(Amendment) Act
1990, Cap 45:04
Jamaica - Property (Rights of Spouses) Act 2004
Jamaica - Matrimonial Causes Act 1989
Montserrat - Matrimonial Causes Act, Cap 50
St. Lucia - Divorce Act 1973, Civil Code Arts. 82 et. seq.
St. Vincent & G - Matrimonial Causes Act, Cap. 176
St. Vincent & G - Matrimonial Homes Act, Cap. 177
Trinidad and Tobago - Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act,
Cap. 45:51
Trinidad and Tobago - Cohabitational Relationships Act 1998

READINGS
- Karen Nunez-Tesheira, Commonwealth Caribbean Family Law: Ch 10, 11.
- Jonathan Herring, Family Law Chaps 4, 5
- Tracy Robinson, “ New Directions in Family Law Reform in the Caribbean” (2000)
10 Carib LR 101
- Tracy Robinson, “The Application of the Common Intention Constructive Trust in
Family Property Disputes in the Commonwealth Caribbean: Geddes v Stoeckert”
Caribbean law Bulletin 45
- Tracy Robinson, “Family Property Regimes in the Caribbean” (2001) 11 Caribbean
Law Review 295
52 Course Outline and Worksheets prepared by Afiya France
 - Simon Gardener, “Rethinking Family Property” 109 LQR 2631

INTRODUCTION
In a day of inflation, in most cases persons on intimate unions can only acquire
property/assets using their joint assets. Or, even if both parties cannot make monetary
contribution to the purchase price of property, often one party makes non-monetary
contributions to the relationship that enables the financial contributor party to purchase
property for the family enjoyment.

Upon dissolution of the marriage or relationship, there is often dispute about how the
property, which once was shared, should now be divided. In this worksheet we will
consider the various approaches used throughout the Commonwealth Caribbean for
redistributing family property.

SKETCH OF THE VARIOUS STATUTORY APPROACHES TO PROPERTY

REDISTRIBUTION USED ACROSS THE COMMONWEALTH CARIBBEAN
(Reproduced from the work of Tracy Robinson, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Mona
Campus)

Property adjustment for married

& heterosexual unmarried
(T&T, Barbados, Belize, Jca,
Guyana)
Statutory powers of
redistribution

Property adjustment for married

(eg SVG, Gren, Dom, Ang, BVI)

Relationship Breakdown

Declaration of ownership &

modern maintenance provisions
(eg A&B, St K-N)

No statutory powers of
redistribution

Declaration of ownership & fault

based alimony & settlement of
wife's property (eg Montserrat)

53 Course Outline and Worksheets prepared by Afiya France

NO STATUTORY POWERS OF REDISTRIBUTION
Jurisdictions with no statutory powers of redistribution are still governed by the
equivalent of the old UK Married Women and Property Act 1882. Under this statutory
approach the court is not empowered to vary or redistribute the existing property rights
of parties. The court is only empowered to declare existing property rights. Thus, if
parties to an intimate relationship wish, at the cessation of such relationship to obtain a
court order redistributing property rights, such parties must rely on Common Intention
Constructive Trust principles (discussed below).

- Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777

- Davis v Davis v Davis [1969] 14 WIR 141 CA
- Pinnock v Pinnock JM 1999 CA 16

STATUTORY POWERS OF REDISTRIBUTION

As shown in the sketch above, jurisdictions with statutory powers of redistribution can
be further sub-divided into those that allow property adjustment for married and
unmarried unions and those that allow property adjustment for only married unions.

In this course we will focus on 3 jurisdictions that allow for property adjustment for both
married and unmarried couples upon relationship breakdown: Jamaica, Barbados and
Trinidad and Tobago

JAMAICA
Relevant legislation: The Jamaica Property (Rights of Spouses) Act 2004 (JPRSA)

Founded on the notion that marriage is a partnership of equals, there is an element of

fixed entitlement within a discretionary regime. The court has power to divide, using its
discretion to achieve fairness, the property of the parties. But each party is entitled to
onehalf share of the family home upon breakdown of the relationship unless it is
unreasonable or unjust to divide the home in this way.

Spouse includes a “single man and single woman”

- Sec 3 JPRSA
- Nelson v Brown JM 2009 SC 78
- Murray v Neita JM 2006 SC 82

What is the Family Home

- Shirley-Stewart v Stewart JM 2007 SC 112

54 Course Outline and Worksheets prepared by Afiya France

 - Graham v Graham JM 2008 SC 36 - Sec 2 JPRSA

Division of property other than the Family Home

- Sec 13, 14 JPRSA

Factors to be taken into account in altering Property Interests other than the Family
Home - 14 (2), (3), (4) JPRSA
-
14 (2) The factors referred to in subsection (1) are-
(a) The contribution, financial or otherwise, directly or indirectly made by or on behalf of
a spouse to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of any property, whether or
not such property has, since the making of the financial contribution, ceased to be
property of the spouses or either of them;
(b) That there is no family home;
(c) The duration of the marriage or the period of cohabitation;
(d) That there is an agreement with respect to the ownership and division of property;
(e) Such other fact or circumstance which, in the opinion of the Court, the justice of the
case requires to be taken into account.

(3) In subsection (2) (a), "contribution" means-

(a) The acquisition or creation of property including the payment of money for that
purpose;
(b) The care of any relevant child or any aged or infirm, relative or dependant of a spouse;
(c) The giving up of a higher standard of living than would otherwise have been available;
(d) The giving of assistance or support by one spouse to the other, whether or not of a
material kind, including the giving of assistance or support which-
(i) enables the other spouse to acquire qualifications; or
(ii) aids the other spouse in the carrying on of that spouse's occupation or
business; (e) The management of the household and the performance of household
duties;
(f) The payment of money to maintain or increase the value of the property or any part
thereof
(g) The performance of work or services in respect of the property or part thereof; (h)
The provision of money, including the earning of in- come for the purposes of the marriage
or cohabitation;
(i) The effect of any proposed order upon the earning capacity of either spouse.

(4) For the avoidance of doubt, there shall be no presumption that a monetary contribution is
of greater value than a non-monetary contribution.

55 Course Outline and Worksheets prepared by Afiya France

Division of Family Home
- sec 6 JPRSA
- sec 7 JPRSA
- March- Brown v Brown JM 2008 SC 94
- Graham v Graham JM 2008 SC 36
- Lambie v Lambie JM 2008 SC 91

Time for bringing the application- one year

- Sec 13 JPRSA

BARBADOS
Relevant legislation: The Barbados Family Law Act Cap 214 (BFLA)

The Court has full discretion in altering property interests of married and unmarried
cohabitants. The division must be “fair just and equitable”

Applies both to parties united by marriage and a “Union other than Marriage”
- Sec 39 BFLA
- Alleyne v Dorant BB 1986 HC 69
- Sheppard v Taylor BB 1987 HC 35
- Weekes v Price BB 1989 HC 3
- Hutson v Poleon BB 1983 HC 16
- Kinch v Clarke BB 1986 HC 18
- Cf Selby v Smith BB 2010 HC 13

Power of Court to alter Property Interests

- Sec 57 BFLA

Factors to be taken into account by Court in altering Property Interests -

Sec 57(3), 53(2) BFLA
57(3) In considering what order should be made under this section, the Court should take into
account the following:
(a) the financial contribution made directly or indirectly by or on behalf of a party or a child to the
acquisition, conservation or improvement of the property, or otherwise in relation to the property;
(b) the contribution made directly or indirectly to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of
the property by either party, including any contribution made in the capacity of homemaker or
parent;"
56 Course Outline and Worksheets prepared by Afiya France
(c) the effect of any proposed order upon the earning capacity of either party
(d) the matters referred to in section 53(2) so far as they are relevant
(e) any other order that has been made under this act in respect of either party.

53(2) The matters to be taken into account for the purposes of this section are as follows:
(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
marriage, who has not attained the age of 18;
(d) the financial needs and obligations of each 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;
(h) the extent to which the payment of maintenance to the party whose maintenance is under
consideration would increase the earning capacity of that party by enabling that party to
undertake a course of education or training or to establish himself or herself in a business
or otherwise to obtain an adequate income;
(i) the extent to which the party whose maintenance is under consideration has contributed to
the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of the other party;
(j) the duration of the marriage or union other than marriage, and the extent to which it has
affected the earning capacity of the party whose maintenance is under consideration;
(k) the need to protect the position of a woman who wishes only to continue her role as a wife
and mother;
(l) if the party whose maintenance in under consideration is cohabiting with another person,
the financial circumstances relating to cohabitation;
(m) the terms of any order made or proposed to be made under section 57 in relation to the
property of the parties; and
(n) any fact or circumstance that, in the opinion of the court, the justice of the case requires to
be taken into account.

Methodology – three way process

- Proverbs v Proverbs [2006] 61 WIR 91
- Noel v Noel BB 2004 CA 26
- Cox v Cox [2007] 71 WIR 53
57 Course Outline and Worksheets prepared by Afiya France
Ancillary powers of the Court (lump-sum, periodic payments, alter deed etc) -
Sec 58, 59 BFLA

Court should try to effect a clean break

- Sec 60 BFLA
- Carter v Carter BB 2003 HC 3

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

Relevant legislation:
De jure spouses- Trinidad and Tobago Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act CAP
45:51 (TTMPPA)
De facto spouses- The Trinidad and Tobago Cohabitation Relationships Act 1998 Cap 45:55
(TTCRA)

De Jure Spouses
- Chang-Kit v Chang-Kit TT 2008 HC 87
- Belgrove v Belgrove TT 2007 HC 32
- Abraham v Abraham TT 2002 CA 82

Power of Court to redistribute property

- Sec 26 TTMPPA

Factors to be taken into account by Court in altering Property Interests

- Sec 27(1) TTMPPA
27(1) In deciding whether to exercise its powers under section 24 or 26 in relation to a
party to the marriage and, if so, in what manner, the Court shall have regard to all the
circumstances of the case including the following matters:
(g) the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the
parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
(h) the financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which each of the parties to the
marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
(i) the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage;
(j) the age of each party to the marriage and the duration of the marriage;
(k) any physical or mental disability of either of the parties to the marriage;
(l) contributions made by each of the parties to the welfare of the family, including any
contribution made by looking after the home or caring for the family;
(g) any order made under section 53;

58 Course Outline and Worksheets prepared by Afiya France

 (h) in the case of proceedings for divorce or nullity of marriage, the value to either of the
parties to the marriage of any benefit (for example, a pension) which, by reason of the
dissolution or annulment of the marriage, that party will lose the chance of acquiring,

and so to exercise those powers as to place the parties, so far as it is practicable and, having
regard to their conduct, just to do so, in the financial position in which they would have been if the
marriage had not broken down and each had properly discharged his or her financial obligations
and responsibilities towards the other De Facto Spouses
- Delzine v Stowe TT 2002 HC 111
- Albert v Mohammed TT 2004 HC 96
- Mohammed v Albert TT 2006 CA 27
- Stewart v Theodore TT 2005 HC 9
- Blacks v Douglas TT 2006 HC 88
- Milette v Gervais TT 2006 HC 30
- Evans v Keller TT 2007 HC 34
- Huchinson v Gaskin TT 2007 HC 218
- Thomas v Rogers TT 2008 HC 128
- La Borde v Gilbert TT 2005 HC 87

Pre-requisites to applying for a Property Adjustment order

- Blacks v Douglas TT 2006 HC 88

- See sec 7 TTCRA

The Court shall not make an order under section 6 unless it is satisfied that—
(d) The applicant lived in a cohabitational relationship with the respondent for a period of
not less than five years; or
(e) The applicant has a child arising out of the cohabitational relationship; or
(f) The applicant has made substantial contributions of the kind referred to in section 10,
And that failure to make the order would result in grave injustice to the applicant.

Factors Court must have regard to in making a Property Adjustment Order

- Sec 10 TTCRA
10.(1) On an application for an adjustment order, the High Court may make any such order
as is just and equitable, having regard to—
(a) the financial contributions made directly or indirectly by or on behalf of the cohabitants
to the acquisition or improvement of the property and the financial resources of the
partners; and
(b) any other contributions, including any contribution made in the capacity of homemaker
or parent, made by either of the cohabitants to the welfare of the family constituted by
them;
59 Course Outline and Worksheets prepared by Afiya France
 (c) the right, title, interest or claim of a legal spouse in the property

“Just and equitable” references the context in which the contributions are made
- Evans v Keller TT 2007 HC 43
- Mohammed v Albert TT 2006 CA 27
- Delzine v Stowe TT 2002 HC 111
- Stewart v Theodore TT 2005 HC 9

Homemaker contributions are not inferior

- Hutchinson v Gaskin TT 2007 HC 219
- Mohammed v Albert TT 2006 CA 27
- Blacks v Douglas TT 2006 HC 88
- Stewart v Theodore TT 2005 HC 9

Orders that can be made

- Sec 21 TTCRA

Clean Break
- Sec 9 TTCRA
- Blacks v Douglas

Conduct relevant only in so far as it affects contributions

- Mohammed v Albert TT 2006 CA 27
- Blacks v Douglas TT 2006 HC 88
- Stewart v Theodore TT 2005 HC 9

The focus is retrospective not prospective (cf factors for consideration in TTMPPA) -
Stewart v Theodore TT 2005 HC 9

Fewer factors considered than for married couples

- Delzine v Stowe TT 2002 HC 111

Time within which application must be made once cohabitation has ceased
- sec 8 TTCRA (2 years) o Bishop v
Chalerie TT 2007 HC 89

60 Course Outline and Worksheets prepared by Afiya France

APPLICATION OF IMPORTANT FACTORS UNDER MOST DISCRETIONARY
LEGISLATIVE INSTRUMENTS FOR DETERMINING PROPERTY ADJUSTMENT-
FAIR AND JUST

(a) Direct or indirect financial contributions to the acquisition of or improvement

of property
- Noel v Noel BB 2004 CA 26
- Chang-Kit v Chang-Kit TT 2008 HC 87
- Belgrove v Belgrove TT 2007 HC 32
- Alleyne v Alleyne BB 2001 HC 26
- Inniss v Inniss BB 2001 HC 21
- Stewart v Theodore TT 2005 HC 9
- Delzine v Stowe TT 2002 HC 111

(b) Homemaker or other non-financial type contributions to the home

- Noel v Noel BB 2004 CA 26
- Chang-Kit v Chang-Kit TT 2008 HC 87
- Hutchinson v Gaskin TT 2007 HC 218
- Cox v Cox [2007] 71 WIR 53
- Blacks v Douglas TT 2006 HC 88 (was she compensated for her contributions?)
- La Borde v Gilbert TT 2005 HC 87 (was she compensated for her
contributions?)
- Albert v Mohammed TT 2004 HC 96

(c) Income earning capacity

- Pinard v Pinard TT 2009 HC 143
- Gonzalez v Gonzalez TT 1997 M 106

(d) Standard of Living

- Abraham v Abraham TT 2002 CA 82
- Gonzalez v Gonzalez TT 1997 M 106
- Belgrove v Belgrove TT 2007 HC 32

(e) Age of Parties and Duration of Relationship

- Ramlochan v Ramlochan TT 1996 HC 178
- Abraham v Abraham TT 2002 CA 82
- Belgrove v Belgrove TT 2007 HC 32

61 Course Outline and Worksheets prepared by Afiya France

 - Cov v Cox [2007] 71 WIR 53
- Evans v Keller TT 2007 HC 34
- Stewart v Theodore TT 2005 HC 9

(f) Net property valued and Identified

- Proverbs v Proberbs [2006] 61 WIR 91
- Belgrove v Belgrove TT 2007 HC 32

(g) Relevance of conduct

- S v S [1992] 51 WIR 286
- Blacks v Douglas TT 2006 HC 88

CLEAN BREAK
- Belgrove v Belgrove TT 2007 HC 32
- Chang-Kit v Chang-Kit TT 2008 HC 87
- Stewart v Theodore TT 2005 HC 9
- Blacks v Douglas TT 2006 HC 88
- Carter v Carter BB 2003 HC 3

TYPES OF PROPERTY ORDERS

- Occupancy order o Hutchinson v Gaskin TT
2007 HC 218
- Sale o Cox v Cox [2007] 71 WIR 53 o Mesher
v Mesher [1980] 1 All ER 126 CA o Clutton v
Clutton [1991] 1 All ER 340 CA

- Transfer of Matrimonial Home o S v S [1992]

51 WIR 286

BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP- THE COMMON INTENTION CONSTRUCTIVE

TRUST

62 Course Outline and Worksheets prepared by Afiya France

INTRODUCTION
Persons without legal interest in marital property have to rely on a common intention
constructive trust to acquire beneficial interest in same in the following circumstances:
- Where the jurisdiction has no statutory powers of redistribution as the
pertinent legislation is modeled on the old UK Married Women Property Act
- Where the jurisdiction only has statutory powers of redistribution for de jure
spouse, in which case, de facto spouses have to rely on the common intention
constructive trust to acquire an interest
- Where although the jurisdiction has statutory powers of redistribution for both
de jure and de facto spouses, the applicant does not qualify as a de facto spouse
or cohabitant for the purpose of relying on the pertinent act. E.g.:
o Not single (for Jamaica) o Outside of time limit for
applying o Haven’t cohabited for the minimum
amount of time o Does not meet some other required
criteria

READING
- Karen Nunez-Tesheira, Commonwealth Caribbean Family Law: Ch
11. - Herring pgs 154- 165

DEFINITION
The common intention constructive trust arises when although the legal title in the
property is not shared between the parties, there evidence of a common intention
between the parties that the applicant has a beneficial interest or a greater beneficial
interest in the property. To establish a common intention constructive trust there must
be:
1. Common intention between the parties that the property be shared beneficially
(which can be express/direct or inferred/indirect) and
2. Detrimental reliance.
Once intention and detrimental reliance are established the court must calculate what
share the applicant is entitled to under the constructive trust

1. Common intention
Express or Direct Intention
Any oral or written agreement, arrangement or understanding reached between the
parties that the property is to be shared beneficially. Includes a misrepresentation or
excuse for not putting the property in the joint names of the parties
- Eves v Eves [1975] 1 WLR 1388
- Bent v Bent JM 2002 SC 23
63 Course Outline and Worksheets prepared by Afiya France
 - Hammond v Mitchell [1992] All ER 109
- cf Stoeckert v Geddes JM 1999 PC 5

Inferred or indirect Intention

A common intent can be inferred from a direct contribution to the purchase price or
mortgage installment
- Petitt v Petitt [1970] AC 777
- Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset [1995] 4 All ER 562
- Abraham v Williams JM 2008 SC 105
- Harrinarine v Aziz TT 1987 HC 205

The old approach to finding there is an express or inferred intention is well expressed in
the case of Lloyds Bank v Rosset. Basically it is a hard standard to meet. The more modern
approach of the court is to look at the “whole course of the conduct” to deduce whether
there was intention that they should share the property. Thus substantial indirect
financial contribution can arguably suffice to form the necessary intention
- Abbott v Abbott [2007] 70 WIR 183 - Harrinarine v Aziz TT 1987 HC 205
- Stack v Dowden [2007] HKHL 17 (really a case about quantification of share,
but note the statement of Baroness Hale)
- Jarvis v Williams AG 2009 HC 10

This slackening of the approach has called into question, especially in a Caribbean
context, whether substantial non-financial contribution could count towards establishing
common intention
- Harrinarine v Aziz TT 1987 HC 205
- Hack v Rahieman [1977] 27 WIR
- Abraham v Williams JM 2008 SC 105

2. Detrimental Reliance
A common intent to share is not sufficient. The applicant must also show that he or she
relied on that common intention to their detriment. This has been defined in a case as,
“conduct upon which the applicant could not reasonably have been expected to embark
unless they were to have an interest in the house”. Generally non- financial contribution
could count towards detrimental reliance
- Stoeckert v Geddes JM 1999 PC 5 - Jarvis v Williams AG 2009 HC 10
- Abbott v Abbott [2007] 20 WIR 183
- Eves v Eves [1975] 1 WLR 1388

64 Course Outline and Worksheets prepared by Afiya France

 3. Quantification of the shares
The court must infer the intention of the parties as regard what share of the property they
would be each entitled to. The focus must be on gleaning the intention of the parties as
to share entitlement and not fairness. This must be gleaned from the whole course of
conduct and includes both financial and non-financial factors.
- Stack v Dowden [2007] AC 432
- Abbott v Abbott [2007] 70 WIR 183
- Jarvis v Williams AG 2009 HC 10
- Jones v Kernott [2011] All ER (D) 64

*******

TUTORIAL QUESTIONS

1. Sarah and Joe meet in 2011 when Sarah is 18 years old and Joe is 40 years old. Sarah
works as a clerk in a bank. With Sarah’s encouragement, Joe purchases a small
citrus farm in 2012.

Sarah uses all her free time to help Joe on his farm. She participated in the planting
and reaping of the crops and with the accounting. Sarah is Joe’s primary confidant
and he relies heavily on her advice about the management of the farm. At the end
of the crop season every year, Joe takes Sarah on an expensive vacation, as a way
of thanking her for her valuable contribution.

In 2016, Joe’s mother conveys an acre of land with a house on it to Joe, and says,
‘This land has been in the family for over one hundred years. I want you to have
it, so that you and Sarah can start a family.’ Joe does not mention this conversation
to Sarah, but on Christmas Day 2016, he gift wraps an engagement ring and a key
to the house, with a card that says, ‘Darling, the long spell of uncertainty is over.
Before us lies the long and dreary road of life. All for one and one for all.’

When they move into the house in January 2017, Joe pays all the household bills
and the costs of renovations, from the profits of his farm. Sarah saves her modest
salary in an account in her name in the credit union. Sarah is responsible for
managing the household and uses her decorating skills to fix up the house. She
regularly entertains Joe’s business associates. The citrus farm is now one of the
most successful in the country.

65 Course Outline and Worksheets prepared by Afiya France

 Advise Sarah on whether she is entitled to a beneficial interest in the house and
citrus farm.

2. In February 2012, Karl Price, a successful businessman and father of two children
from his marriage to his wife, Anna, meets Janice Ramirez, an eighteen year old
student at a Carnival fete.

Janice, who knows Karl is married, believes Karl when he tells her that the
marriage is a mere shell. By July of that same year, after much persuasion on Karl’s
part, Janice enters into an intimate relationship with him. The relationship
continues to blossom, and by August 2013, Karl buys Janice a brand new Honda
civic, rents a two bedroom apartment in an upscale neighbourhood for Janice and
pays all of her living and household expenses.

Although Karl does not leave his wife, he visits Janice three to five times a week at
the apartment, staying for several hours but never overnighting, and invariably
having a meal prepared by Janice. Karl occasionally takes Janice out to dinner and
cinema, careful to avoid places frequented by his wife, friends or business
associates. However as far as Janice’s family, friends and neighbours are
concerned, they view Karl as Janice’s ‘husband’.

In August 2013, much to the delight of Karl, Janice gives birth to his son, Marty.
Karl continues to pay all of Janice’s expenses, including those of their son.

In June 2014 Karl, after much hesitation, gives into Janice’s pleading – and agrees
to pay for her to pursue a 2 year nursing program at a prestigious teaching hospital
in England. Janice leaves for England that same month, taking Marty with her.
Karl visits Janice in England ‘when he can’ until she completes her training in June
2016.

On her return home that same month (June 2016), Karl immediately moves Janice
and Marty into a beautifully furnished three bedroom house in Hibiscus Gardens,
purchased from part of the proceeds of Karl’s sizeable inheritance from his
recently deceased father. The house is purchased in Karl’s name alone. When
Janice questions Karl as to his reason for not including her name on the deed,
particularly since he had assured her the house was purchased for her and their
son, Karl vaguely answers that he had done so only for tax purposes on the advice
of his accountant.

66 Course Outline and Worksheets prepared by Afiya France

 A month after returning home, Janice begins working at a private hospital, earning
an excellent salary. While she makes no contribution to the mortgage payments,
Janice takes over all the household expenses as well as half of the expenses of their
son, Marty.

By March 2017, the couple’s relationship begins to deteriorate, culminating in a

heated argument in which Karl bitterly complains that Janice is a changed woman,
more interested in her career, than him to which Janice counters with an ultimatum
– either Karl leaves his wife or their relationship is over.

Karl refuses to accede to Janice’s ultimatum and thereafter the relationship rapidly
deteriorates even further until by the end of October, the couple no longer enjoy
an intimate relationship and Karl’s visit become infrequent and shorter in
duration. Three weeks ago, Janice, who has met a young unmarried doctor, sends
Karl a text, telling him that their relationship is over to which he replies “that is
fine by me but get out of my house!”

Upon receiving Karl’s text, Janice comes to you and wishes to be advised as to her
entitlement to the house. The relevant law in the jurisdiction in which Janice
resides provides that a person in a cohabitational relationship may apply to the
court for a property adjustment order within two years of the termination of the
cohabitational relationship.
a. Advise Janice.

b. In the absence of any equivalent statutory provision in the

jurisdiction in which Janice resides, advise as to the likelihood of Janice obtaining
co-ownership of the house.

67 Course Outline and Worksheets prepared by Afiya France