Marie Madeleine Francis Petitioner v Simon Peter Francis Respondent [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: d'Auvergne, J.
• Judgment Date: 30 June 2000
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2000] ECSC J0630-2
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Docket Number: Civil Suit No. D21/1993
• Date: 30 June 2000

[2000] ECSC J0630-2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Civil Suit No. D21/1993

Between:

Marie Madeleine Francis

Petitioner

and

Simon Peter Francis

Respondent

1 d'Auvergne, J. The parties, the Petitioner a St. Lucian and the Respondent a Dominican were married on the 13 ^th of December, 1991, in London, England where they lived for a short while and thereafter at Richfond, Dennery, in the island of St. Lucia. The evidence discloses that soon after marriage unhappy differences arose and on the 25 ^th of March 1993 the Petitioner filed for an order for dissolution of the marriage, not withstanding that the five years set by law had not elapsed.

d'Auvergne, J.

2 On the 5^th of November 1996 Decree Nisi of divorce was granted which was made absolute on the 13^th of August 1999. In between these two events on the 20^th day of February, 1997, the Petitioner filed for an order that the matrimonial home situate at Bois Jolie in the quarter of Dennery, be declared the sole property of the Petitioner; that the Petitioner do pay to the Respondent his share of the matrimonial property, less the Petitioner's share of the motor car bought in England for £999.00 and the costs of the petition.

3 The supporting affidavit of the Petitioner stated that during the marriage the Respondent operated a tailor shop earning an average of £300.00 per week plus a weekly pension of £80.00 per week, that they jointly built the matrimonial home at Bois Jolie, Dennery, which comprised of an incomplete concrete building before he left in 1993; that she had expended the sum of $43,363.50 repairing and installing, plumbing and electricity in the said house. Exactly one year later viz the 20^th day of February 1998 the Respondent filed his affidavit in reply in which he stated that he left St. Luica in 1993 inorder to return to their former matrimonial home in England; that upon his return to St. Lucia in 1996 he found the Petitioner and one Gomorrah occupying the house at Bois Jolie.

4 He deposed that the house at Bois Jolie belongs to him having been purchased with his separate funds and earnings as evidenced by receipts and his AlienLand Holding License but to date his Deed of Sale could not be registered because of a caution placed by the Petitioner.

5 He further deposed that the property they own at Richfond, Dennery, is community property purchased during the subsistence of the marriage with direct contributions from them but that since he had not yet obtained an alien's license the Petitioner placed the property in her sole name and that he sought an order in the following terms:

• (1) That the property situated at Bois Jolie is my separate property and does not form part of the community.

• (2) That the property at Richfond be declared community property.

• (3) That the Petitioner be ordered to pay the costs of and occasioned by this suit.

6 After many adjournments mainly because the Respondent still resided in England, the matter was commenced on the 17^th day of February 2000 and concluded on the 25^th February 2000. The parties both gave long winded evidence on their own behalf with the Respondent calling three witnesses including a brother of the Petitioner.

7 The Petitioner told the Court that the house at Bois Jolie was started during the period of their cohabitation, before marriage. She testified that during her sojourn in England she did three jobs daily, two cleaning jobs one from 5.00a.m. to 6.00 a.m., then to the full time job as a tailor's assistant from 7.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. and then from 8.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m., that she received Eighty pounds (£80.00) per week for the two cleaning jobs and that she also worked on Sundays with the Respondent as a tailor's assistant sewing "sleeves… then the sides"; that they both came to St Lucia and after negotiating the sale of the land at Bois Jolie "our monies went into the initial deposit of $2,000.00. We went up to London and gave the builder on our return Forty Thousand dollars ($40,000.00) to cast the house….he charged $140,000.00 to build the whole house."

8 She gave evidence of the problems encountered with the builder who claimed that the agreed amount of $140,000.00 was insufficient; that they sought help from the Planning Department and were advised to pay an extra $17,000.00 to the contractor for the completion of the house but the Respondent refused. She paid the amount from monies given to her by her five children from a former marriage ranging 42 years to 20 years; that the builder brought the house to a habitable state though incomplete and that she paid for the installation of electricity and pipe borne water. She exhibited two reports from quantity surveyor, Neville Trim, one dated 11^th May 1992 where he noted the following

• (a) "Our valuation — Cost to Construct

  Assuming a normal contract/client relationship, I assess the cost to construct the building at $230,000.00. Upon completion of thebuilding, I would suggest a replacement cost valuation, assuming 100% destruction, of $245,000.00.

• (b) Value of Work done to date

  I consider the building to be 70% complete; this includes an allowance for unacceptable workmanship. Consequently, I value the building work at $160,000.00.

• ©Estimate to complete

  Assessment for completing the building, including remedial work is $70,000.00." The other report is dated the 3^rd of June 1997 in which he referred to his former report and noted the estimated amount expended since the former report to be $52,400.00.

9 She exhibited the various bills for the purchase of material noted and receipts for labour done to the house after the second report. The Petitioner paid $700.00 for the second report. Bills exhibited were (1) $390.00 materials paid for repair of roof dated 8^th October 1998. (2) $8,750.00 dated 12^th January 1999 to builder for repairs to the said roof and $7,363.50 for installation of a hot water system. She also exhibited an estimate for the construction of a rubble wall of over $5,000.00 which she said she paid for.

10 The Petitioner gave details concerning the purchase of the motor car for £999.00. Her facts were substantiated by an exhibit dated 19^th September 1992 (car bought in Respondent's name)

11 The Richfond property which is mentioned in the Respondent's affidavit and which he referred to as the matrimonial home and consented to its being considered as community property was vehemently opposed by the Petitioner who stated that it is her property, for she purchased it with her separate funds and exhibited a document which indicated that she had paid for the purchase price.

12 A list of numerous itemized piece of furniture was exhibited by the Petitioner who claimed them to be hers from a former marriage and which were either taken or destroyed by the Respondent.

13 She testified as to a bank account at Barclays Bank, Castries, St. Lucia which was jointly owned and divided. She said that she"was given half of the amount viz $10,700.00 and some change." She concluded her evidence in...