Chang v Chang
| Jurisdiction | Belize |
| Judge | Brown J. |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 1988 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Belize) |
| Docket Number | Action No. 49 of 1988 |
| Date | 20 December 1988 |
Supreme Court
Brown, J.
Action No. 49 of 1988
Mr. S. W. Musa S.C. for the petitioner
Mr. Dylan Barrow for the respondent
Family Law - Husband and wife — Maintenance.
On the 14th day of January, 1988 in an action entitled Supreme Court Action No. 74 of 1986 (DIVORCE), heard before Ponnambalam J., Kaisan Chang obtained a decree nisi dissolving the marriage between the parties on the ground that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. Custody of Wendy Chang, a 12 year old child of the marriage, was granted to the husband/respondent herein and custody of the other 3 children of the marriage, Judy Chang 11 years, Pauline Chang 10 years and Helen Chang 4 years, were granted to the wife/petitioner. That decree was made absolute on the 26th February 1983.
This application made pursuant to Rule 65 of Matrimonial Causes Rules (The Rules) is for maintenance for the petitioner and the three children in her custody. The respondent has been voluntarily paying to the petitioner the monthly sum of $360 and latterly $450 for the support of herself and the three children. This sum the petitioner finds to be very inadequate.
Upon this application being made I have, in accordance with Rule 69 Matrimonial Causes Rules investigated the averments contained in the pleadings. The petitioner and respondent attended and gave evidence. From the investigation it is the petitioner's case that the 3 children in her custody are attending Holy Redeemer Primary School, Belize City. She operates a small grocery in the front portion of a downstairs (lower flat) at No. 41 Daly Street, Belize City. She and the children live in the rear of the shop. She has described the furnishings, the cramped space of 1 bedroom with 1 bunk bed for the 2 older children and a double bed for petitioner herself and the 4 year old child. One bathroom with a toilet and no wash basin. A small kitchen and sitting room which she described as being cramped. The floor which is low is damp when it rains he said “although there has been some improvement hence the increased rental”. The rent has increased from, $150 per month to $2O0 and since October 1987 to $300. She insists that what she earns from the shop plus the $450 per month maintenance is not enough to meet their living expenses. She finds it extremely difficult to pay the rent and meet other bills, including educational expenses for the 3 children. It is her contention that when they lived together as man and wife with the 4 children they resided in a big house with 3 bedrooms 1 living room — significantly better and larger accommodation. The building was of 2 storeys with a downstairs having the store and 3 storerooms or warehouses at back.
The parties were married in Hong Kong in 1975, after which the wife was brought to live at 117 Commerce Street, Dangriga, Belize. The property at 117 Commerce Street was much smaller then compared to when they separated. The wife's version is that she was told that this property was theirs, his and hers. They, in fact, both worked to expand it. The respondent didn't inform the plaintiff of the transfer of ownership to himself and his mother in 1976 as exhibited by a Deed of Gift. He had told her that he had paid $30,000 for the original building in 1994. Improvements have been made to the back of the building and an extension made of cement (concrete). It has been extended — about 4 times the original size, while they lived together. They ceased living together in about 1984. She estimates the value of the building, matrimonial house and store, to be over $200,000. There has been further extension to the building since their separation. The respondent carries on a wholesale and retail business; a grocery and dry goods store. It is the wife's contention that he is engage in the business of selling Boledo and Sunday Lottery also, engaging 16 Lottery sellers and 4 workers in store although the respondent refutes this. He keeps his money in Barclays Bank, Dangriga and a U.S. Bank in San Francisco, the present value of which is unknown to her. The respondent had told her that he was in receipt of a $60,000. The respondent's mother is unable to sign her name. The respondent uses his mother's name in business. It was the respondent who told her that he earns annually $60,000.
She alone sells Boledo at her store. One worker helps her with domestic chores and part time in the shop. Her accountant prepares her income tax. She maintains an account at Barclays Bank to facilitate the payment of rent to her landlord's attorney. She maintains two accounts at Holy Redeemer Credit Union, one for the children and one for herself. She doesn't have enough money to have a separate dwelling house from that at the shop. Chinese people generally live upstairs of their store. The respondent observed that certain cheques issued for the monthly payments were not encashed on occasions, more than a month after issue. This is because the petitioner doesn't need the assistance.
In 1985 the petitioner told respondent to give her a lump sum so that she could return to Hong Kong with two the children. That is not her intention now. She wanted to live a normal married life. Her husband showed no love and affection to her when she was sick as a result of regular child bearing and for long periods he didn't talk to her. On one occasion for six months they had no relationship.
The husband since April 1988 has remarried. They now have a daughter born on 23/9/88. The property at 117 Commerce Street, Dangriga, the husband contends was bought on 17/1/74 with 85% financing from his mother, Anna Chang, and 15% financing from himself. The (Deed) exhibited does not so recite. However, that is a Conveyance between Kaisan Chang as Grantor and Kaisan Chang and Anna Chang as Grantees. The consideration is “… the natural love and affection which the Grantor bears toward the Grantee and the sum of $10.00 paid to the Grantor by the Grantees (the receipt of which sum the Grantor hereby acknowledges) the Grantor as Beneficial Owner hereby grants and conveys unto the Grantees …” He states there was no such payment. By the Deed Exhibited and dated 4/1/74 between Winifred Canton, the vendor, and Kaisan Chang, the purchaser, the respondent is shown as becoming seized of the property as purchased for a consideration of $14,000 of the said property No. 117 Commerce Street. There is no mortgage held against this property.
It is the respondent's evidence that: “I had my income tax prepared for the last 5 years … These reflect my income and stocks for my business in Dangriga …”. “I have a grocery and dry goods business … I don't sell Boledo … my mother is Anna Chang. She sells Boledo … my mother has a fixed deposit abroad which my father left for her …”
The trades licence exhibited for the grocery and dry goods store at 117 Commerce Street, Dangriga is in the names of Kaisan and Anna Chang. Income tax exhibits are produced showing the respondent as a self employed merchant. A wholesale and retail business is conducted but not importation. The invoices exhibited all show sales to Kais
an Chang from the various business houses. Copies of the income tax returns for the year 1983, shows relief claimed for his mother Anna Change 62 years, with no income, for the year 1984, Anna Chang, 59 years with no income living with respondent who claims relief for her, for 1985 — Anna Chang, 66 years with no incomes relief claimed for her. for 1985 Anna Chang 67 years with no income relief again claimed by respondent and for 1987 Anna Chang 67 years with no income relief again claimed by respondent. The Barclays Bank Account exhibited is shown to be in the names of Kaisan and/or Anna Chang. The respondent's evidence is that this Bank Account is used in connection with his business. Business in Dangriga, he says, isn't so good. It is respondent's position that he only assists his mother with the running of the lottery business. She is the one who operates it business. His mother, although a party to the Joint Account at Barclays has not signed a cheque since Christmas 1987, for $50. He can sign cheques on the account as he sees fit. That account is not used for the Lottery Business which business pays for itself from daily sales. The respondents's business has an overdraft facility with no arrangement as to limit. There is a Joint Savings account at Scotia Bank in the names of the respondent and Anna Chang amounting in excess of $8,000.
The wife had moved out in 1979 to another house. He couldn't sleep there every night as he had to care for the shop from thieves. According to the respondent it was a neighbourhood quarrel which caused him to get the other house for the petitioner to live in. The petitioner had left from this house for Belize City leaving 2 of the children alone in the house. All the children were left with the respondent while petitioner took a job with Thomas Chee at the China Inn Restaurant. The respondent has never visited the premises at 41 Daly Street but knows where it is located. Boledo, Lottery and Jackpot are sometimes good business he says. His position is that he cannot make a lump sum payment because his business is small and he has a new family. He told this court that he alone is working because of his mother's age. He is his mother's only child. He and his mother started a small business in 1963, a saloon, or a shop-grocery, when he came to Belize from China at the age 16 years with his mother. His father died when he was 7 years old. During the subsistence of the marriage his wife helped in the shop sometimes and also helped to sell Boledo. His business is...
To continue reading
Request your trial