LUCIEN ELIAS CHARLES v ALETHA CHARLES

# 18 SAINT LUCIA '.~ . "';'~ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) A.D. 1996 ~' Suit No. D.5 of 1995 BETWEEN: LUCIEN ELIAS CHARLES " Petit and ALETHA CHARLES Re Mr. A. Arthur for Petitioner Respondent served. Does not appear. 1996: May 8 and 15 J U D G MEN T MATTHEW J. (In Chambers) . On September 21, 1995 tL2 Petitioner obta an si dissolving the marriage of the Parties whi was z on 7, 1974 in the of Cast es. The Order stated that ancillary would be ourned to Chambers. The Petitioner filed a notice of applicat for ancillary reI f asking for a declaration under Section 41(1) of t Act and that a portion of land at Riche Bois in Micoud and shown as parcel 1627B 25 be divided between the Parties or alternat that one Party purchase the share of the other. The notice was supported by an affidavit of the Petit stat that the Respondent and himself own community prope consisting f two lots of land a house erected thereon and that he is in occupation of the house. He said the lots of land and house are valued at approximately $200,000 and he is willing to purchase the Respondent's half share in the said lots and house. The Respondent res s the ted States fAme ca was with the summons and affidavit by prep a stered mail. Respondent replied a document purport made on 1,

996.It is described as an affidavit in f summons nut re in the document does it say it was before an aut ficer. There is no jurat. at most it is a letter in reply. In that letter ts t a'1d the Petit own the lots and land but she ays t Petitioner has not been oc of t s 992 but resides elsewhere and that t Petitioner owns ot Mahaut of coud. She says she has been the one for renovation of the house from 1979 to the sent and t riod the thing the Petit has the e s a let seat. She said that the ld of fami Re tte Natasha es i1 on April 24, 1977 is solely under r care and r for her needs and coll s. the record is a document 2, 19 6 and igned by both Parties to the effect that t are will to send heir daughter to the United States to further r ion would mainly borne by t child's uncle aunt. the he ng fore this Court learned Counse t Petit d not dispute the facts the Re 's letter, save to say that the property is community prope registered in the names of Parties and that each Party is entitled to a half share. I have stated many times before that cons icat for ancillary relief in respect of property, the Court cannot look at t law of community only but must have to the Act as well. In Suit D.27 of 1993 between Camilla In. iste Lucien In. iste I sa at Page 13 the "In earlier decisions I·said the Court must take h t law of community and the Divorce Act into cont ation h of them represent law of Saint Lucia. Sect acknowledges that". 1'1. her letter the Respondent stated that the Petit r was tro1 o the Social Welfare authorities Sa Lucia but f the system's inadequacy he never paid one cent ld Petitioner has not deni~d ~hat ei I t Re n the circumstances of case and exercise of my scret under Section 45 of the Divorce Act I declare that t Petit should it some of s share the shall be entitled to one- rd of communi the Respondent to two-thirds. Respondent sha:l to the Petit one-t rd of vaIue f the property as determined by a competent valuer retain the property. There shall be no order as to costs. A.N.J. MATTHEW sne

Suit No. D5 of 1995 MATTHEW J. Delivered: 15/05/96