Reuben Ephraim Smith v Celestine Claudia Smith

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Cottle J
• Judgment Date: 02 March 2009
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2009] ECSC J0302-1
• Docket Number: Claim No. SLU HMT 2003/0009
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 02 March 2009

[2009] ECSC J0302-1

IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Claim No. SLU HMT 2003/0009

Reuben Ephraim Smith

Petitioner

and

Celestine Claudia Smith

Respondent

Appearances:

Mr. Mark Maragh for Petitioner

Ms. Samantha Charles for the Respondent

Cottle J

1 On 10^th August, 2005 the Petitioner applied to the court for a declaration that the matrimonial home and its contents located on Block 1251 B parcel 301 in Grande Riviere Gros Islet is community property within the meaning.of Article 1190 et seq, of the Civil Code of St. Lucia. Alternatively he sought a declaration that the respondent held the property, registered in her sole name, on trust for himself and her in equal shares. He wished to be paid for the value of his share of the property. In his affidavit in support, the petitioner swears that the parcel of land was purchased by the brother of the Respondent with funds supplied him by the Petitioner. The house was built, he says from the proceeds of sale of a jointly owned home in Seattle, Washington.

2 The respondent, in her affidavit, swears that the parcel of land was a gift to her from her brother. She exhibits the deed of donation. She explains that at the time, the marriage was experiencing difficulties and she had even filed for divorce. Against this background, her brother gave her the property so she could establish a home for herself after the marriage ended. In the event she discontinued her petition and the parties continued to be married until 2004 when the decree nisi was granted, later to be made absolute.

3 It is convenient to dispose of some of the contentions of the petitioner at the outset. On the question of whether the matrimonial home is community property the answer is that it is not. This argument has been advanced in these courts before. Each time it has been rejected. The incidents of community property are founded on the domicile of the parties at the date ofcelebration of the marriage. I can do no better than to repeat the words of Sir Vincent Floissac C. J. in Remy v Prospere 44 W1R 173:

"The codal definition of "community" indicates that community of property is a question of status or matrimonial status. The definition signifies that community is a product, incident or consequence of the matrimonial status. Since article 5 provides in effect that the St. Lucian laws relating to matrimonial status (which is the source of community) apply only to persons domiciled in St. Lucia. It follows that the St. Lucian laws of community do not apply to a husband who was not domiciled in St. Lucia at the time of his marriage. Any doubt as to the restricted application of the St. Lucian laws of community is removed by the proviso to article 1180 which accentuates the otherwise obscure precondition of St. Lucian community that the husband should be domiciled in St. Lucia at the time of his marriage".

4 It has also been advanced that S 45 of the Divorce Act can operate to empower the court to award the Petitioner the value of a share in the...