VERONICA HOWELL v IVAN GEORGE HOWELL

SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) Suit No. D76 of 1991 3etween: VERONICA HOWELL Petitioner vs IVAN GEORGE HOWELL Respondent Mr. W. Hinkson for Petitioner Mrs. A. Foster for Respondent 1994: May 26th March 3rd 1997: April 30th JUDGMENT d'Auvergne, J The parties were married on the 18th day of Sept r, 1974, but lived together as man and wife from 1962. Petitioner is a St. Lucian whereas the Respondent was born St. ' s Antigua. A decree si was obtained on the 30th of June, 1992 to be ute within three months. On the 9th of July, 1993 an application for ancillary reI f was f led and after four adjournments the matter was part on 2 th day of May, 1994 and completed on the 3rd of March, 1997. Petitioner presently lives in the United States of America and

is employed as a Child minder and the Re is a Cook 1 ves at Hospital Road, Castries, and is emp as a Chef at Marigot Bay Hotel. parties have s (6) grown up issues to determined by this application concerns two ies name a parcel of land cons~sti~y of 2,500 sq feet th a concrete wooden building situate at Faux-a-Chaux it , Cast es secondly, an unsurveyed piece or 1 of 1 flve acres roods and thi pe more or less, si_uate at llet t quarter of Anse-la- evidence was adduced by the Petit r to show that t at tal Road is Community ter the lebration of t marriage and that ment namely, the at Millet longed to tne partles s despite t fact that it was Learned Counsel for the Respondent conceded the at ital Road belonged to the Community that the ies were co-owners with equal shares. However, Counsel t Re vehemently argued that the at llet, Anse-la- property stered in the sole name of the Re fore age but during the period of concubinage 1 to Respondent since the Petitioner had not cont ed f ial or otherwise to the purchase. argued that the Petitioner had no fici erest In property nor was there any resulting trust creat or f said that it was separate property and quoted Article 1192 (2) (a) and (e) of the Civil Code of St. Lucia. further quoted the case of Burns v Burns 1984 1 ALLER Page 244 at Pages 252 and 264.

Learned Counsel on the r hand isted a financial contribut was made by the Petitioner s father contributed Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) towards her behalf and that she worked and ant t land th the Respondent. He quoted the cases of: Eves v Eves 1975 ~ AF~ Page 768. Cook v Head 1972 2 ALLER 38 Gissing v Gissing 1970 2 ALLER 780 CONCLUSION: The Plaintiff told the Court that her father d r Cl Deligny for her share of the land and 1 the Re Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) towards of the and at Millet. Her brother, the said Clive Deligny, sa that loaned t Respondent Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) towards the e f land which was refunded to him by his r. He stressed that sold land to Respondent at that Drice because he said, 111 ended my sister to fit". He also sa that the very morning the Court hearing he a t Re his Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). The Respondent confirmed that the land was for Seven Thousand Dollars ($7,000.00), from Clive Deligny, there was "no scussion ll made tween the Petitioner and f ing the property and that he bought property In s so e name. He said 111 did not mean rlfriend I was living th to have a half (1/2) share of the property. 11 First of all, would like to stress that the property under

consideration is not matrimonial a piece 1 on the outskirts of Cast es on which bananas were ant my judgment was no express trust f an erest in t for the benefit of the Petitioner; and tnere was no express agreement to create such an interest. Petitioner rect contribution to the purchase ceo Her case, must depend on showing a common intention she d a benefici erest t property. In order to if common intention sts iL is the ention of t ies when the property was ed that is important. The s not disclose this common ent act, Re states categorically that there was no such ent and I lieve It is so my ew evidence no circumstances arose to that Respondent ended to an t e erest on Petitioner. The fact she ant land and the ts which were d and used by t s not, In my judgment, carry any implication of 1 ent Based upon the above my order is as follows: The Petitioner is not entitled to any t piece f 1 sing of five acres roods and s more less, situate at Millet and registe e name of spondent. the Petitioner is entitled to f t at Hospital Road comprising of 2,500 square t with concrete wooden house erected thereon. each party do bear his or her Costs . . . . . . . . . . .

Suit No. D76 of 1991 D’Auvergne, J Delivered: 30/04/97