EGBERT DOLCIE v MADELEINE DOLCIEf

SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) A.D. 1995 Suit No. D30 of 1992 BETWEEN: EGBERT DOLCIE Petitioner and • . I MADELEINE DOLCIE f Respondent ,I t Mr. D. Theodore for Petitioner Mr. V. La Corbiniere for Respondent 1995: October 12 and 18. J U D G MEN T MATTHEW J. (In Chambers).

49.The husband 56 years old and the wife were married . .. a si divorce on March 21, 1970 and the wife obtained I • on March 5, 1993. There are no ldren of the family. On November 8, 1994 the husband filed a notice ancillary relief and the only issue that arises for determinat is a property order and costs. By an affidavit fi on said November 8, 1994 the husband alleged that he is a and earns on average $1,000 a month. He stated that the property which falls into community was a lot of land at Chabot on which is located the matrimonial home, a partly wooden and partly concrete structure where the Parties reside, wife and the husband downstairs. The husband a valuation of the property at $77,451.00 which was by wife. The husband that he was willing to purchase the wife's one half share property. In her affidavit in opposition filed on November 17, 1994 the wife stated that community property also consists of a Mitsubushi Lancer Motor e valued at $10,000. Learned Counsel for the husband accepted valuation but stated that the wife should pay him $5,000 his half share and keep the car. The wife s she verily believes that the husband's salary was $2,000 and $3,000. She stated that 1978 she left her employment at Cunard Hotel La Toc to care of the husband and his minor son. She said that throughout the marriage she was not adequately maintained by the husband. Strangely enough the wife did not ask a maintenance order or any other financial provisions. Her only claim was for the whole the lot and the land. She that for over 5 years the husband rented the bottom floor house at $350.00 a month and nothing even though Parties were living together on top floor. During the course of the proceedings a letter from Geest was tendered to show the husband no longer worked as a watchman after August 1993. I do not see the relevance of this for none of the affidavits had mentioned him to be working for Geest. They both treated him only as a stevedore. Learned Counsel for the wife stated as already indicated that he had no problem with the valuation of the except that the top where the wife lives is the wooden part which is in need of substant repairs. Both Counsel agreed to rely only on the re ive affidavits and ne Party wished to cross-examine the other Party on his or her aff t. Mr. La Corbiniere asked the Court to make an order under Section 45 (a) (ii) of the Divorce Act but bearing in mind the guidelines laid down in Sect 45 (b). He submitted that t wife had made a substantial contribution both in terms of her money which went into the maintenance of the household and also by her services. In his reply Mr. Theodore joined issue with the other s on the question of the wi leaving her employment at La Toc to take care I • ! of the husband his son. Counsel submitted that the wife is entitled by law to share in the community property. Counsel referred to Sections 24 25 of the Divorce Act and especially paragraph (f) of sub-Sect (1) of Sect

25.Counsel submitted that it has to be heinous conduct on the part of one spouse to have his share forf ted. Counsel referred the Court to D27 of 1993 CAMILLA FRANCES IN. BAPTISTE v. LUCIEN GEORGE IN. BAPTISTE decided on March 3, 1995 at Page 13 where was stated by the Court that it must take both the law of community and the Divorce Act into contemplation in such actions for both of them represent the law of Lucia. I I have had to provisions of the Divorce Act to which was directed. I am of the view both Part made substantial contributions to the household over 24 years that the marriage existed. I do not find this is a case where I should ask the husband to forfeit his share community property. I have not been shown that there is an ive home for him and such an order would result in placing him on the streets. I . Although I was not asked to do so I gave serious consideration to sharing the ownership of the house so that each Party gets one storey but I had to reconsider this in view of the fact that the bottom storey may more valuable. It will have to be to the Parties and their Counsel how they ef to the order I propose to make. shall give My order in of property is that it be owned by the < • • Parties in equal just as it is registered in the Land Registry as 1 1047C 415. I further order the husband to pay the wife $5,000 for her share of the Motor Car. There shall be no order as to costs. A.N.J. MATTHEW Puisne Judge •

Suit No. D30 of 1992 MATTHEW J. Delivered: 18/10/95