Henderson J
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
HOLDEN AT GEORGE TOWN, GRAND CAYMAN
CAUSE NO. D50/2004
BETWEEN:
DONALD LOUISE FRAZIER
Petitioner
AND:
LILLIAN CLAUDETTE FRAZIER
Respondent
Appearances:
Ms. Zena Merren of Appleby Spurling Hunter for the Petitioner
Mr. William Jones of Ogier for the Respondent
Ms. Sherri Bodden-Cowan of Bodden & Bodden for the
Joinder to Suit - Denise Winsome Frazier
Before:
Hon. Justice Henderson
Heard:
April 11， 2006
JUDGMENT
I have conducted a hearing to apportion the matrimonial assets prior to dissolution of the marriage.
The parties began a relationship in 1995 and married in 2000. Mr. Frazier had already been
married and separated from his first wife early in 1996. He divorced his first wife later that year.
The part the house Frazier had filed that was sold in
of this hearing.
Six issues have been presented to me for resolution. I will deal with the first four, which are relatively minor, first.
The Scott Schedule shows that item two consists of some $500 worth of phone and CUC bills. These were incurred from March to June 2005 at a time when a tenant, who had been in the house, had left and the house was being repaired prior to sale. I think these bills must be regarded as an expense of the sale and therefore deducted from the sale proceeds prior to division of the assets. It follows that they are, in effect, being divided between the parties in the percentage portions which I will specify in due course.
Item four is a deposit received by Mr. Frazier from a Mr. Brumbaugh in the amount of $5,000. There is no real contest that Mr. Frazier must be solely responsible for repaying Mr. Brumbaugh, as I now find. However, I am prepared to recognize the sum of $900, which was derived from the Brumbaugh payment and applied towards the mortgage on the matrimonial home. I will permit that $900 sum to be deducted from the sale proceeds.
Item five specifies four bills, the first three of which Mr. Frazier accepts responsibility for. The fourth appears to be subsumed in a larger amount, which is listed on the schedule as item six. I turn to that now.
| Problem Water Lines | Expend $3,210 monthly | Resulting |
|---------------------|---------------------|-----------|
| Water bill | $100 monthly | Rease the |
| Water bill | $100 monthly | caused the to leak. to sc |
| Water bill | $100 monthly | v and to re some |
| Water bill | $100 monthly | water a constainc. Eviden |
| Water bill | $100 monthly | water bill astronomically. Mr. Frazier was in occupation of the house until August 26th. The |
Judgment - Donald Frazier v. Lillian Frazier Cause No. D50/04 11.04.06
The document appears to be a legal judgment from the Cayman Islands, specifically in the case of Donald Frazier v. Lillian Frazier, Cause No. D50/04, dated 11.04.06. Below is the transcription of the document, maintaining the original structure and content:
amount I have referred to was said to be owing as at August 31st, 2004. No one knows when or how this difficulty occurred. In these circumstances, I think it must be Mr. Frazier, the person who was last in occupation of the home, who bears responsibility for the payment. That amount must be deducted from his share.
The first issue of substance concerns a debt said to be owing to Mr. Frazier's first wife, Denise Frazier. She applied to this court and received an order permitting her to join in this lawsuit. I am inclined to agree with Ms. Bodden that that represents at least a tacit admission by the court that there is jurisdiction to make orders in favour of third parties in a matrimonial cause. In addition, I have considered some submissions provided to me by Ms. Bodden at my request this afternoon and note in particular her submission, well based on authority, that the provisions of the Cayman Islands Matrimonial Causes Law are somewhat broader than those found in England. I, therefore, will approach this issue, albeit with some trepidation, on the footing that I do have jurisdiction in appropriate circumstances to make an order in favour of a third party in a matrimonial lawsuit.
In 1996, Denise Frazier and Donald Frazier agreed in writing that Denise would convey to Donald her interest in the then matrimonial home for the sum of $30,000. Payment was not made immediately. As the agreement indicates, payment was to be made at some later date when Mr. Donald Frazier was able to make it.
In 1998, home was n the nan to be natural love and affection. I then the state link the seg:considerat
This transcription is based on the visible text in the image provided. The document discusses a legal case involving a debt owed to Mr. Frazier's first wife, Denise Frazier, and the court's jurisdiction to make orders in favor of third parties in matrimonial causes. It also mentions an agreement between Denise and Donald Frazier regarding the conveyance of interest in a matrimonial home.
1
conclusive as against third parties. In this context, I regard Claudette Frazier as a third party. She
2
cannot be made responsible for any portion of the debt owing to Denise Frazier.
3
4
However, the agreement between Denise and Donald Frazier is in writing and appears to be
5
enforceable. No argument has been presented to the contrary. In these relatively unusual
6
circumstances, I am prepared to make an order in favour of Ms. Bodden's client. I will order that
7
the sum of $30,000 be paid to Denise Frazier from the share of the matrimonial assets I am about to
8
allocate to Donald Frazier.
9
10
That brings me to the final issue, which is apportionment. The starting point, of course, is a 50/50
11
division. In many cases, perhaps even in most cases, the appropriate order will be an equal division
12
of assets.
13
14
The primary reason for departing from the equal division has to do with the respective
15
contributions of the parties coming into the marriage. Those cases where an unequal division has
16
been found to be appropriate usually are based upon situations where one party contributed
17
significantly more at the outset.
18
19
In the present case, Mrs. Frazier contributed some $23,000 towards the cost of building the present
20
matrimonial home. Those monies came from the sale of land belonging to her. In addition...she....
21
ted some nam.of $17.5( In addition about whethributed.all con that a sorthere is
22
contribution of the su0. which whether she contributed an of that, but n W accepted t.is acerigntlement of it
23
was contributed in some way to what I will call the cost of the marriage.
Judgment - Donald Frazier v. Lillian Frazier Cause No. D50/04 11.04.06
1
2
Set against that are the contributions of Mr. Frazier. He contributed towards the living expenses of
3
the couple the sum of some $37， 000， representing the sale proceeds of his previous matrimonial
4
home. He also contributed a gift of $30， 000 provided by his parents， which was used in part to
5
build the home. Moreover， Mr. Frazier brought into the marriage the land upon which the home
6
was built.
7
8
I accept the more conservative of the four appraisals done on this home and value that piece of
9
land at $40， 000.
10
11
Significant sums were contributed to the joint savings account of the parties and the lion's share of
12
that has been contributed by Mr. Frazier.
13
14
Overall， it is clear that there is a significant disparity between his contributions and hers. This is
15
not a purely mathematical exercise. One needs to do equity in a broad sense between the parties.
16
17
I am satisfied from all of the circumstances that it would be appropriate， as Mr. Frazier urges， to
18
depart from the 50/50 rule. I consider it fair and appropriate that his greater contribution and his
19
obligation to pay Denise Frazier $30， 000 should be recognised by an award of 60 percent of the
20
21
22
23
Judgment - Donald Frazier v. Lillian Frazier Cause No. D50/04 11.04.06
family assets. I, therefore, order that Mr. Frazier is to receive 60 percent and Mrs. Frazier 40
percent of the family assets.
I leave it to counsel to work out the precise terms of the order.
Dated this 11th day of April, 2006
Henderson，J.
Henderson, J.
Judge of the Grand Court
Judgment - Donald Frazier v. Lillian Frazier Cause No. D50/04 11.04.06