Estalyn Rachael Pierre Nee Stapleton v Wayne Maxian Pierre

• THE EA TERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT SAINT INCENT AND THE GRENADINES IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SVGHM 2012/0117 BETWE N ESTALYN RACHAEL PIERRE NEE STAPLETON (a.k.a. RACHAEL MCKENZIE) of Lowmans Windward AND WAYNE MAXIAN PIERRE of Barrouallie PETITIONER RESPONDENT App arances: Ms. Paula David of Counsel for the Petitioner. Ms. Patina Knights of Counsel for the Respondent. -------------- 2017: Feb. 13 Mar. 1 --------------------- DECISION

[1]enry, J.: Mr. Wayne Pierre is a fisherman. He married Estalyn Stapleton, in 20001. They were d vorced in 20142. The marriage produced two children, one of whom is a minor - Dwayne. This case nvolves an application3 by Mrs. Pierre for division of the matrimonial property including a residence. he claims a half interest in the matrimonial home, has applied for an order for its sale, property ettlement, periodical payments and lump sum payment for her benefit. She also seeks a financial rovision or transfer of property order on Dwayne's behalf.

[2]t trial, Mrs. Pierre submitted that she was no longer interested in pursuing her claims for property ettlement or periodical payments. She requested that an order be made for division of the furniture nd certain kitchen appliances and cookware. She indicated further that she was also seeking an order hat Mr. Pierre be required to pay one half of Dwayne's medical and educational expenses. Mr. Pierre cknowledged that Mrs. Pierre acquired an interest in the matrimonial home, but he contended that it as no more than one third.

ISSUES

[3]T e issues are:- . Whether Mr. Pierre should be directed to pay half of Dwayne's medical and educational expenses? . Which of the assets are matrimonial properties? 3.

To what share of each matrimonial asset is Mr. Pierre and Mrs. Pierre entitled?

Issue 1 Should Mr. Pierre be directed to pay half of Dwayne's medical and educational expenses?

[4]n 20th February 2014, the court made an order directing that Mrs. Pierre shall have the custody, care nd control of Dwayne with reasonable access to Mr. Pierre. Mr. Pierre was ordered to pay monthly ontributions of $250.00 towards Dwayne's maintenance. Neither party sought a variation of that order. rs. Pierre testified that Dwayne was born on 6th April, 2004. He is therefore twelve years old. He is ttending secondary school. rs. Pierre deposed that Mr. Pierre makes the maintenance payments late and she that she needs

[5]2 By d cree absolute dated 12th March. 3 File on 10th October 2014. r ssistance to take care of Dwayne's education and medical expenses. She explained that she has r eceived help from friends, relatives and her pastor to cover related expenses for Dwayne such as f chool uniforms, books, other school supplies and medicals. Mr. Pierre said that he pays maintenance or Dwayne and is unable to save any monies because of his several financial obligations.

[6]Mr. and Mrs. Pierre submitted correctly that the court is required to have regard to the provisions of ections 31, 32, 33 and 34 of the Matrimonial Causes Act4 ('the Act') which establish 'the rules and uidelines for the distribution of assets between former parties to a marriage. In this regard, they osited that the court must consider the income, earning capacity, property and other financial esources of the parties, the financial needs, obligations and responsibilities of the parties, the standard f living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage, the age of each party, the uration of the marriage, any physical or mental disability of either party, the contribution of each party the family's welfare including any contribution made by looking after the home or caring for the family nd the value of any benefit which either party will lose as a result of the dissolution of the marriage.

[7]hey submitted further that the court must take these factors into account with a view to placing each arty, so far as reasonably practicable and just, in the position he or she would have been had the arriage not broken down and each party had properly discharged his or her financial obligation t wards the other. These submissions capture the essence of the referenced sections of the Act and utline some relevant considerations which guide the court in making orders regarding the care, ustody and control of minor children on breakdown of a marriage. It is important to note however that t e court's foremost consideration is always the child's welfare.5

[8]It cannot be gainsaid that Dwayne's welfare would be safeguarded without adequate arrangements eing ma_de to secure his educational and medical needs. In this regard, his parents share r sponsibility for those expenses to the extent that they are financially able. Mr. Pierre has neither isputed his obligation towards Dwayne, nor that Dwayne's requires the facilities as described by Mrs. ierre. He has advanced no reasons why he should not be ordered to share those expenses equally. 5 Secti n 12 (1) of the Law of Minors Act Cap. 232 of the Revised Laws of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 2009; J v. C [1970] A.C. 6 6.

[9]As escribed below, Mrs. Pierre and Mr. Pierre's living conditions, income and financial obligations appear o be evenly matched. Accordingly, it seems just that Mr. Pierre be directed to pay to Mrs. Pierre 50% f the expenses associated with Dwayne's future medical and educational needs. Mrs. Pierre is equired to present Mr. Pierre with copies of all invoices or receipts in respect of such expenses, as the asis for computing his contributions.

Issue 2 Which of the assets are matrimonial properties?

[10]Mr. and Mrs. Pierre built their home at Keartons and moved into it in 1996. Title to the land was ransferred in Mr. Pierre's sole name by Crown Grant dated 12th May, 2016•6 Mrs. Pierre paid $904.00 f the $1432.50 purchase price. Mr. Pierre explained that he was unable to pay it in full because things ere slow at that time. The house is made of concrete. It is a modest two bedroom unpainted house I hich was valued7 at $45,000.00 in 2008. he house is furnished with basic furniture including a living room chair set, refrigerator, stove, DVD p layer, space saver, mahogany bed, bunk bed, appliances and cookware such as a microwave, t t aster, electric kettle, cake mixer, coffee maker, blender, deep fryer and gas bottle. Mrs. Pierre aintained that those items were jointly acquired from their earnings and that she bought the DVD layer while she was employed in Canada. Mr. Pierre insisted that he purchased the chair set, stove nd refrigerator on hire purchase in his name and paid for them from his earnings as a fisherman. He dmitted that Mrs. Pierre bought the DVD player. He implied that Mrs. Pierre is not entitled to any part

[11]those items. I disagree with him for reasons provided later. (12] ased on the foregoing, I accept that the matrimonial assets comprise the matrimonial home, a living r om chair set, refrigerator, stove, DVD player, space saver, mahogany bed, bunk bed, a microwave, t aster, electric kettle, cake mixer, coffee maker, blender, deep fryer and gas bottle. These items must b apportioned between the parties in light of the guiding principles as to distribution referenced p eviously and discussed subsequentl.y Issue 3 • o what share of each matrimonial asset is Mr. Pierre and Mrs. Pierre entitled?

[13]r. Pierre is 50 years old and is a fisherman. He earns approximately $800.00 to $1000.00 per month. rs. Pierre is 40 years old and gained employment as an assistant cook in September 2016. From I 007 or 2008 she worked part time as a housekeeper on the island of Mustique, for two weeks each onth, earning $60.00 per day. She indicated that she gave up that position and returned to the ainland Saint Vincent to provide guidance and supervision for Dwayne. She said that she was nemployed for a sometime before securing her current job.

[14]either Mr. nor Mrs. Pierre is suffering from any physical or mental impairment. Their formal education nded in primary school. They are reasonably expected to be employed in the fishing and service i dustries respectively for another 20 years or so. Apart from their employment related income they ave no other source of revenue. Mrs. Pierre indicated that she has contributed to the National I surance Scheme and the Mustique pension fund. She may be entitled to receive retirement benefits f om one or the other in due course. There was no conclusive proof of either.

Financial needs obli ations and res onsibilities of the arties

[15]rs. Pierre did not indicate how much she now earns, what her recurrent living expenses entail or what re her living arrangements. Mr. Pierre lives at the matrimonial home with his new partner and her f mily. Mrs. Pierre explained that she and Mr. Pierre had migrated to Canada in 2001 leaving their ildren in her mother's care. When her mother passed away in 2004, Mr. Pierre returned to Saint incent and the Grenadines to care for the children while she remained in Canada. From there, she worked and helped to finance the family's needs.

[16]he returned home in 2007 and discovered that Mr. Pierre had moved his partner into the matrimonial h me. They never resumed their previous living arrangements. Mr. Pierre said that Mrs. Pierre cut off a I communication from him between 2004 and 2007 and filed for refugee status in Canada, claiming t at he had brutalized her. He explained that as a result he moved on with his life.

[17]r. Pierre indicated that he pays all expenses for his household, his boat, his car and fishing supplies. H stated that he lives from to month to month and has no savings. Like Mrs. Pierre he did not itemize hose expenses. He did not describe the boat or car or provide a value for either. I am therefore unable o make a proper assessment of the reasonable needs of either party. Likewise, I have no way of roperly comparing Mrs. Pierre's present living circumstances to Mr. Pierre's.

Duratio of marria e contribution to the famil 's welfare and standard of livin

[18]The Pierres were married for just over 13 years. I accept however that the marriage had broken down ince 2004, roughly 4 years after the nuptials. It was a very short union. The Pierres' testimony escribed a typical working class family facing the usual joys, sacrifices and difficulties making a I velihood for their family. They enjoyed the basic necessities and had few extras. This was evidenced y their decision to leave their children behind and travel to Canada in the 90s, in an attempt to secure better life for the family through their collective efforts. It was also manifested in their collaboration in hysically building their house with assistance from friends and neighbours. In this regard, both Mr. and [ rs. Pierre testified that they built the concrete blocks themselves. However, they each took credit for tre major contributions to its acquisition.

[19]r. Pierre was the main bread winner when they embarked on the project. He plied his fishing trade, ometimes with assistance from Mrs. Pierre who accompanied him to sea. She insisted that she went shing with him on a full time basis for an entire year. Mr. Pierre disputed this and maintained that Mrs. ierre went fishing with him only occasionally. He accepted that she was a hard worker who took good are of the house and the children.

[20]Mrs. Pierre claimed that they acquired the land for building through her industry since she was the one ho enquired about its availability from one Alban Mason. Mr. Pierre countered that Mr. Mason was his f iend and he made the initial contact and secured the land for building. It was not clear what role Mr. ason played in assisting the Pierres to conclude the agreement for purchase of the land from the rown. However, in or about 1995, they bought cement with monies saved from Mr. Pierre's earnings. ey built the cement blocks which were utilized in the construction and completed the construction I rgely through self-effort with assistance from friends. Mrs. Pierre cooked meals for the volunteer (21] Mr. Pierre was adamant that Mrs. Pierre's assistance was limited to cooking and building concrete locks. Mrs. Pierre was equally insistent that she passed tools and building materials for the workmen. he couple and their family eventually moved into the house in 1996. I am inclined to believe Mrs. ierre who gave her evidence in a matter-of-fact and forthright manner. Mr. Pierre was not forthcoming. e was an evasive witness. Even if Mrs. Pierre did not participate in the more labour intensive part of he construction due to her obvious limitations as a woman, I accept that she made substantial ontributions by cooking for the volunteers , paying most of the purchase price for the land, building locks and generally being a supportive wife to Mr. Pierre, and a committed mother to the children.

[22]It is self-evident that Mr. and Mrs. Pierre collaborated on all important family endeavours including uilding a home for their family and earning a living. By arranging their affairs in the manner described, i is clear to me that they approached their family's affairs as a single unit intent on supporting each ther for their mutual benefit and the advancement of the family's goals. In this regard, they both houldered responsibility for household duties including care of the children, depending on what was onvenient at the material time and they both played an active role in earning income to take care of t e unit's expenses. I am satisfied that they both made substantial direct and indirect contributions to cquisition of the land and construction of the house. (23) Mrs. Pierre submitted that they have both made contributions towards the material well-being of the f mily and that she took the lead as caregiver for the children. She contended that there is no benefit t at either party has lost or will lose as a result of the dissolution of the marriage. She contended that r. Pierre has had the use of the matrimonial home and contents exclusively since 2007. She argued t at even if the court were to accept Mr. Pierre's version of how the matrimonial home was acquired t ere is nothing in them which would make a difference in how the assets are to be distributed. (24] rs. Pierre submitted further that Stonich v Stonich8 is the leading case on the distribution of assets f !lowing the dissolution of a marriage. She argued that fairness is the yardstick which governs distribution, that equality is the basic measure of fairness and should be departed from only 'where t ere is good reason for doing so'. She contended also that Mr. Pierre has supplied no good reason for d parting from division on the basis of equality. Relying on the Stonich case, she submitted that 'the arty to the marriage who cared for the home and the children contributed just as much to the welfare f the family as the income earner and that the Act did not suggest that any particular form of ontribution was to be accorded greater significance than others.'

[25]r. Pierre made similar submissions quoting from the judgment of Saunders J. A. where he said: 'If the husband's skill initiative, hard work and drive yield handsome financial rewards, it is entirely unfair to regard those rewards as being any greater in value than those of the wife who might have employed equal skill, initiative and dedication at home bringing up the children and keeping a stable household.'9 [26) iting decisions in Cooke v Head10, Abbott v Abbott11 and Grant v Edwards12 Mr. Pierre contended at this case involves consideration of the principles regarding the creation of a constructive trust. He ccurately submitted that neither party provided documentary evidence of their respective contributions t the acquisition of the matrimonial property. He argued that they had no joint accounts and that the onetary contributions to the home were derived exclusively from his earnings as a fisherman while rs. Pierre took care of the home and the children. He echoed Mrs. Pierre's contentions that equality hould be departed from only if there is good reason for doing so. He cited the case of White v White13 support. [27) r. Pierre submitted that there are good reasons in the instant case to depart from equality namely: . He and Mrs. Pierre were respectively 24 and 34 years old at the time of their marriage and there is a 10 year age difference between them; . He was a self-employed fisherman while Mrs. Pierre was unemployed; . They had no joint resources like a bank account; . There was no common intention to acquire the home; 9 Ibid. t para. 30 of Stonich v Stonich. 13 [200 ] 1 AC 596. 5. Mrs. Pierre remained in Canada in 2004 and ceased communication with him; 6. Mrs. Pierre has not disclosed whether she acquired savings or other assets during the marriage even though she remained employed on Mustique and might have been employed when she remained in Canada post-2004; 7. He lives month to month; and 8. The marriage lasted for roughly 4 years.

[28]r. and Mrs. Pierre distilled the applicable legal principles in their submissions. It is established law that a former spouse is entitled to a share of all matrimonial property, including assets jointly acquired during t e marriage. The court is authorized to orders for apportionment of such property between the parties b sed on their respective interests.14 The Stonich case is authority for the proposition that the court's 'ultimate and overriding objective' is fairness. An examination of Mr. and Mrs. Pierre's conduct will shed Ii ht on their shared intentions regarding ownership.15 Those common intentions may be actual, inferred o imputed from their behavior and the surrounding circumstances1.5

[29]he court must take into account all contributions made by each party in looking after the home and aring for the family. It must also have regard to the value of any benefit which either party will lose as result of the dissolution of the marriage. I cannot discount Mr. Pierre's efforts in taking care of the hildren and the home while Mrs. Pierre was away in Canada working and sending remittances back ome to assist with the family's needs. Similarly, I cannot overlook Mrs. Pierre's dedication to the ousehold while Mr. Pierre went to sea to make a living, or her physical labour during the construction the matrimonial home. I am mindful that Mr. Pierre and his new family have enjoyed the benefit of t e matrimonial home to Mrs. Pierre's exclusion from 2004 to present. Mr. Pierre will lose this benefit a a result of the breakdown of the marriage as did Mrs. Pierre when she returned from Canada.

[30]I o not agree with Mr. Pierre that there are circumstances which warrant a departure from equality in t is case. The Pierres conducted themselves at all material times in a co-ordinated and cohesive f shion with common goals of achieving stability and a secure home. Even though Mrs. Pierre appears o have paid more towards the purchase price for the land and perhaps did not put as much physical abour into its construction and understandably so, I am satisfied that they both made roughly equal ontributions to the acquisition of the matrimonial property. There is no basis on which to depart from quality in this case as urged by Mr. Pierre. The age difference, lack of savings, duration of the arriage, lack of communication and present living arrangements have not negatived the parties' espective substantial contributions to the matrimonial assets. Both parties deprived the court of ertinent information regarding their financial affairs. While Mr. Pierre correctly accused Mrs. Pierre of mitting mention of savings, he did not indicate the value of his boat or car.

[31]am satisfied that they pursued the acquisition and construction of the home as a joint enterprise as t ey appeared to have done with their other daily pursuits. By withholding certain details of their current tatus, Mr. and Mrs. Pierre have deprived the court of the opportunity to have a full appreciation of all ertinent facts. The court must nevertheless attempt to provide a fair resolution of the issue at hand ased on the available evidence.

[32]Th court must endeavour to facilitate a 'clean break' between the parties. In doing so, it remains mindful o its obligation to ensure that each party's financial positions after the marriage should as far as p ssible remain as it was during the marriage.16 In view of the findings of fact and applicable legal p nciples, it seems to me that fairness would best be achieved by making an order for equal division of al matrimonial assets. Accordingly, I hold that Mr. and Mrs. Pierre is each entitled to an equitable 50% in erest in the matrimonial home, the furniture, appliances and household items. Mr. Pierre holds the m trimonial assets in trust for Mrs. Pierre and him in equal shares. ORDER (33] It is declared and ordered: 1 Mr. Wayne Pierre is directed to reimburse Mrs. Estalyn Pierre on a case by case basis, 50% of the expenses associated with Dwayne's future medical and educational needs. Mrs. Pierre is required to provide Mr. Pierre with copies of all invoices and/or receipts in respect of such expenses, as the basis for computing his contributions. Mr. Wayne Pierre holds: (a) the referenced living room chair set, refrigerato, rstove, DVD player, space saver, mahogany bed, bunk bed, microwave, toaster, electric kettle, cake mixer, coffee maker, blender, deep fryer and gas bottle; (b) the beneficial interest in the matrimonial property situated at Keartons and described in Crown Grant 99 of 2016; in trust for Mrs. Estalyn Pierre and him in equal shares. Mr. Wayne Pierre shall deliver to Mrs. Estalyn Pierre or her duly authorized agent on or before 24th March, 2017: (a) the bunk bed; (b) one space saver; (c) the microwave oven; (d) the blender; (e) the DVD player; ( the deep fryer; and (g) either the love seat or sofa from the living room chair set; as her share of the furniture and cookware items. Mr. Wayne Pierre and Mrs. Estalyn Pierre each owns and is entitled to ½ share in the beneficial interest or net proceeds of sale of the matrimonial property situated at Keartons and described in Crown Grant 99 of 2016. Mr. Wayne Pierre is to obtain a valuation of the said property on or before 31st March, 2017 from a licensed valuer to be agreed by the parties. • 6. The matrimonial property is to be offered for sale on the open market between 1st April, 2017 and 30th June, 2017 by public auction or private treaty at a price as close as possible to the value ascribed in the said valuation report. Sale of the property is to be attempted as often as necessary until it is sold, right of first refusal reserved to Mr. Wayne Pierre or Mrs. Estalyn Pierre. 7. The registrar of the high court is to effect conveyance, transfer and registration of title. 8. The net proceeds of the sale are to be divided equally between Mr. and Mrs. Pierre after deduction and defrayment of the cost of the valuation report and all expenses related to the sale. 9. Mr. Wayne Pierre and Mrs. Estalyn Pierre shall bear his or her own costs. (34] I would like to thank counsel for their submissions.

Esco L. Henry

HIGH COURT JUDGE

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SVGHM 2012/0117 BETWEEN ESTALYN RACHAEL PIERRE NEE STAPLETON (a.k.a. RACHAEL MCKENZIE) of Lowmans Windward PETITIONER AND WAYNE MAXIAN PIERRE of Barrouallie RESPONDENT Appearances : Ms. Paula David of Counsel for the Petitioner. Ms. Patina Knights of Counsel for the Respondent. —————— 2017: Feb. 13 Mar. 1 ——————— DECISION

[1]Henry , J.: Mr. Wayne Pierre is a fisherman. He married Estalyn Stapleton, in 20001. They were d vorced in 20142. The marriage produced two children, one of whom is a minor – Dwayne. This case involves an application3 by Mrs. Pierre for division of the matrimonial property including a residence. he claims a half interest in the matrimonial home, has applied for an order for its sale, property ettlement, periodical payments and lump sum payment for her benefit. She also seeks a financial rovision or transfer of property order on Dwayne’s behalf.

[2]t trial, Mrs. Pierre submitted that she was no longer interested in pursuing her claims for property ettlement or periodical payments. She requested that an order be made for division of the furniture nd certain kitchen appliances and cookware. She indicated further that she was also seeking an order hat Mr. Pierre be required to pay one half of Dwayne’s medical and educational expenses. Mr. Pierre cknowledged that Mrs. Pierre acquired an interest in the matrimonial home, but he contended that it as no more than one third. ISSUES

[3]The ISSUES are:- Whether Mr. Pierre should be directed to pay half of Dwayne’s medical and educational expenses? Which of the assets are matrimonial properties? To what share of each matrimonial asset is Mr. Pierre and Mrs. Pierre entitled? Issue 1 Should Mr. Pierre be directed to pay half of Dwayne’s medical and educational expenses?

[5]Mrs. Pierre deposed that Mr. Pierre makes the maintenance payments late and she that she needs assistance To take care of Dwayne’s education and medical expenses. She explained that she has received help from friends, relatives and her pastor to cover related expenses for Dwayne such as f school uniforms, books, other school supplies and medicals. Mr. Pierre said that he pays maintenance or Dwayne and is unable to save any monies because of his several financial obligations. 2 By d cree absolute dated 12th March. 3 File on 10th October 2014.

[6]Mr. and Mrs. Pierre submitted correctly that the court is required to have regard to the provisions of sections 31, 32, 33 and 34 of the Matrimonial Causes Act4 (‘the Act’) which establish ‘the rules and guidelines for the distribution of assets between former parties to a marriage. In this regard, they posited that the court must consider the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources of the parties, the financial needs, obligations and responsibilities of the parties, the standard f living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage, the age of each party, the duration of the marriage, any physical or mental disability of either party, the contribution of each party the family’s welfare including any contribution made by looking after the home or caring for the family and the value of any benefit which either party will lose as a result of the dissolution of the marriage.

[4]On 20th February 2014, the court made an order directing that Mrs. Pierre shall have the custody, care and control of Dwayne with reasonable access to Mr. Pierre. Mr. Pierre was ordered to pay monthly contributions of $250.00 towards Dwayne’s maintenance. Neither party sought a variation of that order. rs. Pierre testified that Dwayne was born on 6th April, 2004. He is therefore twelve years old. He is attending secondary school.

[7]They submitted further that the court must take these factors into account with a view to placing each arty, so far as reasonably practicable and just, in the position he or she would have been had the marriage not broken down and each party had properly discharged his or her financial obligation towards the other. These submissions capture the essence of the referenced sections of the Act and outline some relevant considerations which guide the court in making orders regarding the care, custody and control of minor children on breakdown of a marriage. It is important to note however that t e court’s foremost consideration is always the child’s welfare.5

[8]It cannot be gainsaid that Dwayne’s welfare would be safeguarded without adequate arrangements being made to secure his educational and medical needs. In this regard, his parents share responsibility for those expenses to the extent that they are financially able. Mr. Pierre has neither disputed his obligation towards Dwayne, nor that Dwayne’s requires the facilities as described by Mrs. Pierre. He has advanced no reasons why he should not be ordered to share those expenses equally. 4 Cap. 239 of the Revised Laws of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 2009. 5 Secti n 12 (1) of the Law of Minors Act Cap. 232 of the Revised Laws of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 2009; J v. C [1970] A.C. 6 6.

[9]As described below, Mrs. Pierre and Mr. Pierre’s living conditions, income and financial obligations appear o be evenly matched. Accordingly, it seems just that Mr. Pierre be directed to pay to Mrs. Pierre 50% f the expenses associated with Dwayne’s future medical and educational needs. Mrs. Pierre is required to present Mr. Pierre with copies of all invoices or receipts in respect of such expenses, as the Bbasis for computing his contributions. Issue 2 Which of the assets are matrimonial properties?

[13]Mr. Pierre is 50 years old and is a fisherman. He earns approximately $800.00 to $1000.00 per month. Mrs. Pierre is 40 years old and gained employment as an assistant cook in September 2016. From 2007 or 2008 she worked part time as a housekeeper on the island of Mustique, for two weeks each month, earning $60.00 per day. She indicated that she gave up that position and returned to the mainland Saint Vincent to provide guidance and supervision for Dwayne. She said that she was unemployed for a sometime before securing her current job.

[10]Mr. and Mrs. Pierre built their home at Keartons and moved into it in 1996. Title to the land was transferred in Mr. Pierre’s sole name by Crown Grant dated 12th May, 2016 • 6 Mrs. Pierre paid $904.00 of the $1432.50 purchase price. Mr. Pierre explained that he was unable to pay it in full because things ere slow at that time. The house is made of concrete. It is a modest two bedroom unpainted house which was valued7 at $45,000.00 in 2008.

[11]the house is furnished with basic furniture including a living room chair set, refrigerator, stove, DVD p layer, space saver, mahogany bed, bunk bed, appliances and cookware such as a microwave, t aster, electric kettle, cake mixer, coffee maker, blender, deep fryer and gas bottle. Mrs. Pierre maintained that those items were jointly acquired from their earnings and that she bought the DVD layer while she was employed in Canada. Mr. Pierre insisted that he purchased the chair set, stove and refrigerator on hire purchase in his name and paid for them from his earnings as a fisherman. He admitted that Mrs. Pierre bought the DVD player. He implied that Mrs. Pierre is not entitled? to any part those items. I disagree with him for reasons provided later.

[14]either Mr. nor Mrs. Pierre is suffering from any physical or mental impairment. Their formal education ended in primary school. They are reasonably expected to be employed in the fishing and service industries respectively for another 20 years or so. Apart from their employment related income they ave no other source of revenue. Mrs. Pierre indicated that she has contributed to the National Insurance Scheme and the Mustique pension fund. She may be entitled to receive retirement benefits f om one or the other in due course. There was no conclusive proof of either. Financial needs obligations and responsibilities of the parties

[18]The Pierres were married for just over 13 years. I accept however that the marriage had broken down since 2004, roughly 4 years after the nuptials. It was a very short union. The Pierres’ testimony described a typical working class family facing the usual joys, sacrifices and difficulties making a Iivelihood for their family. They enjoyed the basic necessities and had few extras. This was evidenced y their decision to leave their children behind and travel to Canada in the 90s, in an attempt to secure better life for the family through their collective efforts. It was also manifested in their collaboration in physically building their house with assistance from friends and neighbors. In this regard, both Mr. and Mrs. Pierre testified that they built the concrete blocks themselves. However, they each took credit for the major contributions to its acquisition.

[15]Mrs. Pierre did not indicate how much she now earns, what her recurrent living expenses entail or what re her living arrangements. Mr. Pierre lives at the matrimonial home with his new partner and her family. Mrs. Pierre explained that she and Mr. Pierre had migrated to Canada in 2001 leaving their children in her mother’s care. When her mother passed away in 2004, Mr. Pierre returned to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines to care for the children while she remained in Canada. From there, she worked and helped to finance the family’s needs.

[16]The returned home in 2007 and discovered that Mr. Pierre had moved his partner into the matrimonial h me. They never resumed their previous living arrangements. Mr. Pierre said that Mrs. Pierre cut off a I communication from him between 2004 and 2007 and filed for refugee status in Canada, claiming t at he had brutalized her. He explained that as a result he moved on with his life.

[17]r. Pierre indicated that he pays all expenses for his household, his boat, his car and fishing supplies. H stated that he lives from to month to month and has no savings. Like Mrs. Pierre he did not itemize those expenses. He did not describe the boat or car or provide a value for either. I am therefore unable o make a proper assessment of the reasonable needs of either party. Likewise, I have no way of roperly comparing Mrs. Pierre’s present living circumstances to Mr. Pierre’s. Duration of marria e contribution to the family ‘s welfare and standard of living

[22]It is self-evident that Mr. and Mrs. Pierre collaborated on all important family endeavours including uilding a home for their family and earning a living. By arranging their affairs in the manner described, is clear to me that they approached their family’s affairs as a single unit intent on supporting each ther for their mutual benefit and the advancement of the family’s goals. In this regard, they both houldered responsibility for household duties including care of the children, depending on what was onvenient at the material time and they both played an active role in earning income to take care of t e unit’s expenses. I am satisfied that they both made substantial direct and indirect contributions to cquisition of the land and construction of the house.

[19]r. Pierre was the main bread winner when they embarked on the project. He plied his fishing trade, sometimes with assistance from Mrs. Pierre who accompanied him to sea. She insisted that she went shing with him on a full time basis for an entire year. Mr. Pierre disputed this and maintained that Mrs. Pierre went fishing with him only occasionally. He accepted that she was a hard worker who took good are of the house and the children.

[20]Mrs. Pierre claimed that they acquired the land for building through her industry since she was the one who enquired about its availability from one Alban Mason. Mr. Pierre countered that Mr. Mason was his friend and he made the initial contact and secured the land for building. It was not clear what role Mr. Mason played in assisting the Pierres to conclude the agreement for purchase of the land from the crown. However, in or about 1995, they bought cement with monies saved from Mr. Pierre’s earnings. They built the cement blocks which were utilized in the construction and completed the construction largely through self-effort with assistance from friends. Mrs. Pierre cooked meals for the volunteer

[25]Mr. Pierre made similar submissions quoting from the judgment of Saunders J. A. where he said: 'If the husband’s skill initiative, hard work and drive yield handsome financial rewards, it is entirely unfair to regard those rewards as being any greater in value than those of the wife who might have employed equal skill, initiative and dedication at home bringing up the children and keeping a stable household.’9

[28]Mr. and Mrs. Pierre distilled the applicable legal principles in their submissions. It is established law that a former spouse is entitled to a share of all matrimonial property, including assets jointly acquired during t e marriage. The court is authorized to orders for apportionment of such property between the parties b sed on their respective interests.14 The Stonich case is authority for the proposition that the court’s 'ultimate and overriding objective' is fairness. An examination of Mr. and Mrs. Pierre’s conduct will shed Ii ht on their shared intentions regarding ownership.15 Those common intentions may be actual, inferred o imputed from their behavior and the surrounding circumstances1.5

[29]he court must take into account all contributions made by each party in looking after the home and aring for the family. It must also have regard to the value of any benefit which either party will lose as result of the dissolution of the marriage. I cannot discount Mr. Pierre’s efforts in taking care of the hildren and the home while Mrs. Pierre was away in Canada working and sending remittances back ome to assist with the family’s needs. Similarly, I cannot overlook Mrs. Pierre’s dedication to the ousehold while Mr. Pierre went to sea to make a living, or her physical labour during the construction the matrimonial home. I am mindful that Mr. Pierre and his new family have enjoyed the benefit of t e matrimonial home to Mrs. Pierre’s exclusion from 2004 to present. Mr. Pierre will lose this benefit a a result of the breakdown of the marriage as did Mrs. Pierre when she returned from Canada.

[30]I o not agree with Mr. Pierre that there are circumstances which warrant a departure from equality in t is case. The Pierres conducted themselves at all material times in a co-ordinated and cohesive f shion with common goals of achieving stability and a secure home. Even though Mrs. Pierre appears 14 See actions 29, 31 and 32 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, Cap. 239 of the Revised Laws of Saint Vincent and the Grena ines, 2009 (“the Act”). s1 Abb tt v Abbott [2007] UKPC 53. o have paid more towards the purchase price for the land and perhaps did not put as much physical abour into its construction and understandably so, I am satisfied that they both made roughly equal ontributions to the acquisition of the matrimonial property. There is no basis on which to depart from quality in this case as urged by Mr. Pierre. The age difference, lack of savings, duration of the arriage, lack of communication and present living arrangements have not negatived the parties' espective substantial contributions to the matrimonial assets. Both parties deprived the court of ertinent information regarding their financial affairs. While Mr. Pierre correctly accused Mrs. Pierre of mitting mention of savings, he did not indicate the value of his boat or car.

[31]I am satisfied that they pursued the acquisition and construction of the home as a joint enterprise as t ey appeared to have done with their other daily pursuits. By withholding certain details of their current tatus, Mr. and Mrs. Pierre have deprived the court of the opportunity to have a full appreciation of all ertinent facts. The court must nevertheless attempt to provide a fair resolution of the issue at hand ased on the available evidence.

[32]Th court must endeavour to facilitate a ‘clean break’ between the parties. In doing so, it remains mindful o its obligation to ensure that each party’s financial positions after the marriage should as far as p ssible remain as it was during the marriage.16 In view of the findings of fact and applicable legal p nciples, it seems to me that fairness would best be achieved by making an order for equal division of al matrimonial assets. Accordingly, I hold that Mr. and Mrs. Pierre is each entitled to an equitable 50% in erest in the matrimonial home, the furniture, appliances and household items. Mr. Pierre holds the m trimonial assets in trust for Mrs. Pierre and him in equal shares. ORDER (33] It is declared and ordered: 1 Mr. Wayne Pierre is directed to reimburse Mrs. Estalyn Pierre on a case by case basis, 50% of the expenses associated with Dwayne’s future medical and educational needs. Mrs. Pierre is required 1s Sec on 34 of the Act. to provide Mr. Pierre with copies of all invoices and/or receipts in respect of such expenses, as the basis for computing his contributions. Mr. Wayne Pierre holds: (a) the referenced living room chair set, refrigerato, rstove, DVD player, space saver, mahogany bed, bunk bed, microwave, toaster, electric kettle, cake mixer, coffee maker, blender, deep fryer and gas bottle; (b) the beneficial interest in the matrimonial property situated at Keartons and described in Crown Grant 99 of 2016; in trust for Mrs. Estalyn Pierre and him in equal shares. Mr. Wayne Pierre shall deliver to Mrs. Estalyn Pierre or her duly authorized agent on or before 24th March, 2017: (a) the bunk bed; (b) one space saver; (c) the microwave oven; (d) the blender; (e) the DVD player; ( the deep fryer; and (g) either the love seat or sofa from the living room chair set; as her share of the furniture and cookware items. Mr. Wayne Pierre and Mrs. Estalyn Pierre each owns and is entitled to ½ share in the beneficial interest or net proceeds of sale of the matrimonial property situated at Keartons and described in Crown Grant 99 of 2016. Mr. Wayne Pierre is to obtain a valuation of the said property on or before 31st March, 2017 from a licensed valuer to be agreed by the parties.

[12]Based on the foregoing, I accept that the matrimonial assets comprise the matrimonial home, a living r om chair set, refrigerator, stove, DVD player, space saver, mahogany bed, bunk bed, a microwave, t aster, electric kettle, cake mixer, coffee maker, blender, deep fryer and gas bottle. These items must b apportioned between the parties in light of the guiding principles as to distribution referenced previously and discussed subsequently Issue 3 – To what share of each matrimonial asset is Mr. Pierre and Mrs. Pierre entitled? 6 Registered on 24th May, 2016. 7 By lie nsed land surveyor Franklyn Browne on January 12, 2008.

[21]Mr. Pierre was adamant that Mrs. Pierre’s assistance was limited to cooking and building concrete locks. Mrs. Pierre was equally insistent that she passed tools and building materials for the workmen. he couple and their family eventually moved into the house in 1996. I am inclined to believe Mrs. Pierre who gave her evidence in a matter-of-fact and forthright manner. Mr. Pierre was not forthcoming. e was an evasive witness. Even if Mrs. Pierre did not participate in the more labour intensive part of he construction due to her obvious limitations as a woman, I accept that she made substantial contributions by cooking for the volunteers , paying most of the purchase price for the land, building locks and generally being a supportive wife to Mr. Pierre, and a committed mother to the children.

[23]Mrs. Pierre submitted that they have both made contributions towards the material well-being of the family and that she took the lead as caregiver for the children. She contended that there is no benefit t at either party has lost or will lose as a result of the dissolution of the marriage. She contended that Mr. Pierre has had the use of the matrimonial home and contents exclusively since 2007. She argued t at even if the court were to accept Mr. Pierre’s version of how the matrimonial home was acquired there is nothing in them which would make a difference in how the assets are to be distributed.

[24]Mrs. Pierre submitted further that Stonich v Stonich is the leading case on the distribution of assets following the dissolution of a marriage. She argued that fairness is the yardstick which governs distribution, that equality is the basic measure of fairness and should be departed from only ‘where t ere is good reason for doing so’. She contended also that Mr. Pierre has supplied no good reason for d parting from division on the basis of equality. Relying on the Stonich case, she submitted that ‘the party to the marriage who cared for the home and the children contributed just as much to the welfare f the family as the income earner and that the Act did not suggest that any particular form of ontribution was to be accorded greater significance than others.’

[26]iting decisions in Cooke v Head , Abbott v Abbott and Grant v Edwards Mr. Pierre contended at this case involves consideration of the principles regarding the creation of a constructive trust. He ccurately submitted that neither party provided documentary evidence of their respective contributions the acquisition of the matrimonial property. He argued that they had no joint accounts and that the onetary contributions to the home were derived exclusively from his earnings as a fisherman while rs. Pierre took care of the home and the children. He echoed Mrs. Pierre’s contentions that equality hould be departed from only if there is good reason for doing so. He cited the case of White v White support.

[27]M r. Pierre submitted that there are good reasons in the instant case to depart from equality namely: He and Mrs. Pierre were respectively 24 and 34 years old at the time of their marriage and there is a 10 year age difference between them; He was a self-employed fisherman while Mrs. Pierre was unemployed; They had no joint resources like a bank account;There was no common intention to acquire the home; 9 Ibid. t para. 30 of Stonich v Stonich. 13 [200 ] 1 AC 596.

6.Mrs. Pierre has not disclosed whether she acquired savings or other assets during the marriage even though she remained employed on Mustique and might have been employed when she remained in Canada post-2004;

7.He lives month to month; and

8.The marriage lasted for roughly 4 years.

6.The matrimonial property is to be offered for sale on the open market between 1st April, 2017 and 30th June, 2017 by public auction or private treaty at a price as close as possible to the value ascribed in the said valuation report. Sale of the property is to be attempted as often as necessary until it is sold, right of first refusal reserved to Mr. Wayne Pierre or Mrs. Estalyn Pierre.

7.The registrar of the high court is to effect conveyance, transfer and registration of title.

8.The net proceeds of the sale are to be divided equally between Mr. and Mrs. Pierre after deduction and defrayment of the cost of the valuation report and all expenses related to the sale.

9.Mr. Wayne Pierre and Mrs. Estalyn Pierre shall bear his or her own costs. (34] I would like to thank counsel for their submissions. Esco L. Henry HIGH COURT JUDGE