Rey v Gumbs

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Court: Court of Appeal (Anguilla)
• Judge: Peterkin. C.J.
• Judgment Date: 10 July 1984
• Neutral Citation: AI 1984 CA 3
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1982
• Date: 10 July 1984

Court of Appeal

Peterkin, C.J., Berridge, J.A., Robotham, J.A

Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1982

Rey

and

Gumbs

Constance Mitcham for the plaintiff/appellant

I.D. Mitchell for defendant/respondent

Family law - Husband and wife — Matrimonial property

Facts: This was an appeal from the decision of the trial judge in a matter which was brought under section 19 of the Married Women'sProperty Act, Cap. 328. The issues were whether a trust arose in favour of the plaintiff who was the former wife and whether it could be inferred from the evidence of the conduct of the parties and the surrounding circumstances that there was a common intention that the plaintiff would have a beneficial interest in two properties

Held: The plaintiff made a significant direct and indirect contribution to the matrimonial home and there was a resulting trust in her favour. Having regard to all the circumstances, the beneficial interest of the plaintiff should be evaluated at 1/2 of the matrimonial home. There was ample evidence to justify the finding of the trial judge that the plaintiff had no interest in the other property. The appeal in regard to the matrimonial home was allowed and the plaintiff'sshare evaluated as 1/2. In regard to the other property the appeal would be dismissed.

Peterkin. C.J.

1 This is an appeal from the decision of St. Bernard J. in a matter which was brought before him by summons under section 19 of the Married Women's Property Act, Chapter 328, which empowers a judge to determine in a summary way, where a husband and wife hold property jointly, the extent of the beneficial interest, if any, of each spouse in that property.

2 Three questions were posed for determination by the court in the summons. They are as follows:

• “(a) Whether the properties known as Block 38713B Parcel 15, South Central a two storeyed house on 0.40 acres of land and Block 38711B Parcel 2 South Central comprising 75 acres of land were not held on trust as to one (2) share for the plaintiff by her late husband Edwin Wallace Rey, deceased.

• (b) Whether the said deceased could dispose of the plaintiff's property under his will dated the 14th day of April, 1980, to the detriment of the plaintiff.

• (c) Whether the defendant, who is the executor in the will of Edwin Wallace Rey, deceased, is entitled to distribute the said property belonging to the plaintiff to other beneficiaries named in the said will.”

3 The answer to questions (b) and (c) hangs on the answer to question (a) as it is obvious that a testator could not lawfully dispose of property which was not his own and it would accordingly be unlawful for the executor to distribute such property.

4 The learned trial judge considered that the wife had made a contribution to the matrimonial home and assessed her beneficial interest in the parcel of land comprising seventy-five acres. From this decision she has now appealed on the ground:

• “(1) That the learned trial judge erred in law in awarding a one-eight share of the matrimonial home excluding the land to the appellant instead of a one-half share of the property.

• (2) The learned trial judge erred in law and fact in holding that the appellant had no beneficial interest in the 75 acres of land known as Bloch 38711B Parcel 2 South Central.

• (3)The learned trial judge erred in not awarding cost to the appellant.

That the decision is unreasonable having regard to the evidence.”

5 The relief sought is that she be granted a one-half share of the matrimonial home as well as the parcel comprising seventy-five acres.

6 ...