Janice Rita Mitchell Claimant v Sebastian Julien Mitchell Defendant [ECSC]
| Jurisdiction | Grenada |
| Judge | Henry, J. |
| Judgment Date | 18 January 2013 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2013] ECSC J0118-7 |
| Court | High Court (Grenada) |
| Date | 18 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO. GDAHMT 2010/0045 |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GRENADA
AND THE WEST INDIES ASSOCIATED STATES
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CLAIM NO. GDAHMT 2010/0045
Henry, J. The parties were married in New York City on the 15th November 1991. Their divorce was made final in October 2010. The petitioner now seeks a property adjustment order in regard to what she describes as the matrimonial home and an order for lump sum payment.
There are no children of the marriage. However the petitioner has one adult daughter and two boys and the Respondent has two adult sons as well.
The allegations alleged by the parties do not paint a picture of a traditional marriage. The husband and wife did not regularly reside in the same country. The husband admittedly worked and resided in the United States of America most of the time, while the wife was regularly resident in Grenada. But this picture is alsonot one that is unfamiliar to the Caribbean culture. Quite often one spouse may reside abroad for various reasons. Although often physically separated, the marriage may still subsists. This is the essence of the petitioner's allegations.
According to the petitioner, after the marriage in 1991 she returned to Grenada, while the respondent continued residing and working in New York in the construction industry. She alleges that they opened a boutique which she ran and a restaurant. According to her the respondent would go back and forth working in the USA, while she ran things in Grenada.
Petitioner alleges that the couple wanted a home but no bank would lend the respondent money to buy the land. So she approached the National Commercial Bank and borrowed $10,000.00 in March 1998. This sum, she asserts, was used to buy the land. It is her evidence that unknown to her the respondent put the deed in the name of his mother, Matilda Hazzard.
With regard to the state of the land when purchased, petitioner's evidence is that the land was briar bush, and that the respondent and herself cut it and burnt it with old tyres to clear the same so they could start their home.
The house she states was built without a mortgage and in stages. It took them about nine years to build. The house consists of two floors: upstairs where the respondent lives and three rental apartments downstairs.
With regard to the funds used to build the home, the petitioner's evidence is that the respondent would go to America to work and send money for her; that he then would come to Grenada, supervise the men, while also working himself, then he would go again. According to petitioner, she assisted by carrying sand, graveland blocks, clearing goods from customs, paying the men and running their other businesses. Petitioner also states that she purchased a quantity of plants from Mirabeau Farm Center which she planted on the land. Now the land, she states, has many fruit trees. In addition she planted dasheen, cabbage, peas and rotational crops.
According to petitioner, a second piece of land, next door to the first, was purchased by them. Her evidence is that again, unknown to her the respondent put the deed in his mother's name.
After the marriage broke down, petitioner's evidence is that respondent closed the joint account and took all the money, leaving her totally dependent on him for everything. Finally, the day of Hurricane Emily in 2005, she states that she had to flee the matrimonial home as a result of threats of physical violence from the respondent. About this time, he also closed down the various businesses they had without consulting her and instead opened 'Sugar Daddy' restaurant, from which she has been excluded. The respondent, she states, currently operates the restaurant from two locations.
The petitioner states that she is 51 years old and has given the respondent and the marriage the better part of her life, love and effort. She now finds herself in the position of having to start from zero, again. She therefore prays the court to make the orders prayed for.
Two witnesses gave evidence on behalf of the petitioner: Carlos Peters, petitioner's son and Cecilia George.
The evidence of Carlos Peters is that he has lived with his mother for most of his life and has worked in some of the businesses the parties had together. He states that the respondent usually resided in the United States and so it fell to his motherto run the businesses; that she would clear the goods on the port sent by the respondent from New York. With regard to the house at Woodlands, his evidence is that when the respondent returned to Grenada he met the house being built by the petitioner.
The evidence of Cecilia George is that she has known the parties for over fifteen years. She says she knows that they had various businesses together. She names specifically the boutique "Can't Touch This" and a restaurant "Eat Your Heart Out". According to her evidence the petitioner worked in all the businesses. With regard to the house in Woodlands, her evidence is that she knows when the home was being built. The respondent, she notes, would be in and out of Grenada, while the petitioner stayed in Grenada running the various businesses and supervising the house while it was being built. She recalls specifically that petitioner would go on the port and clear goods and materials.
Respondent paints a different picture. The respondent admits that the parties were married in the United States of America in 1991. He states however, that they lived together for only about a month after the wedding then petitioner returned to Grenada.
Respondent states that petitioner relocated to Grenada. He only relocated to Grenada just before Hurricane Ivan struck. His return he says was due to ill health. He could no longer continue employment in the construction field as he used to do.
Respondent states that in about 1999, he opened a restaurant/business known as 'Eat Your Heart Out' and a Boutique called 'Can't Touch This'. According to him, the petitioner controlled and operated the restaurant and a gentleman, Mr. SamuelNicholas, managed the Boutique. His evidence is that he took no income from the restaurant; that all its earnings were the petitioner's for he gave it to her for her income. As for the Boutique, his evidence is that the petitioner never ran or operated that business.
The respondent labels as untrue the petitioner's allegation that they wanted a home, but that no bank would lend money to the respondent. He asserts that they rented two apartments from one, Davis John in Woodlands. One was the petitioner's home, because he, the respondent, was still permanently resident in the US. Further, he denies that he and petitioner ever decided to buy land together because they were separated and living apart from each other for most of the marriage.
With regard to the $10,000.00 the petitioner alleges she borrowed for the purchase of the land, Respondent states that he has no knowledge of any such transaction. He states that he is however aware that the petitioner used to traffic in cosmetics and clothes which she used to sell. He recalls that the petitioner would travel to New York to purchase Avon products and other items to send to Grenada.
He is emphatic in stating that the petitioner bought no land in Woodlands or anywhere else that he knows of. Neither did the petitioner borrow any money for and/or gave him any money to buy land on her behalf or for both of them jointly.
His evidence is that the first property mentioned by the petitioner, the deed to which is exhibited to her affidavit as 'B', is familiar to him. He says that that property is one of the properties owned and bought by his mother, Matilda Hazzard, now deceased. He states that he took no part in the purchase of the said property as the petitioner asserts. He further states that he was in the United States when his mother bought the property the petitioner is now attempting to claim an interest in.
Respondent also denies clearing the land with the Petitioner or burning bush from the land. He says he has no knowledge of any such acts, and reiterates that the land in question was purchased by his mother.
With regard to the construction of the house, the respondent's evidence is that the earth and foundation works were done in 1999, and that the petitioner had nothing to do with the matter at all. According to him, his son Julien Mitchell, who is an Architect by profession, drew and designed the plans for the building and he financed the construction of the house in phases, completing it in 2003. It is his position that the petitioner had or took no part in the construction of the house. Neither did she assist in any material or preparatory fashion in its construction.
He labels as untrue and incorrect the petitioner's assertion that in order to build the house he would work in America and send money for her; or that he would on visits to Grenada supervise the men who were building. He denies that he ever, even once, sent money for the petitioner to build any house as alleged.
Respondent denies any knowledge of petitioner's purchase of plants or of her planting trees and rotational crops on the land. He states that any fruit trees found now on the property would have been planted by him in recent times. According to him, he knows of no time when the petitioner planted trees on his mother's property in Woodlands.
In response to the petitioner's claim that she worked as hard as the respondent did to raise their standard of living, the respondent states that he has no knowledge of that claim. He says that between the time of their marriage in 1991 and the year 2004 when he relocated to Grenada, he was permanently resident in New York and...
To continue reading
Request your trial