Young v Young

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)
• Judge: Alcantara, J.
• Judgment Date: 28 September 1981
• Docket Number: No. 104 of 1980
• Date: 28 September 1981

Supreme Court

Alcantara, J.

No. 104 of 1980

Young

and

Young

Mr. Denys Barrow for the plaintiff

Mr. Wilfred P. Elrington for the defendant

Property - Contribution of wife to building of house — Whether wife entitled to beneficial interest in house upon separation of the spouses.

Alcantara, J.

1 I think I am able to give my decision now without the necessity of adjourning for judgment.

2 The plaintiff is the wife and the defendant is the husband. They married on the 3rd March, 1963 having previously lived together as husband and wife for seven years. They are no longer living together, having separated in July, 1978.

3 The wife is claiming a declaration that she holds a half share in the property she is at present living. Her contention is that this house, Lot 5152 in the King's Park area of Belize City, was acquired and built as the result of joint enterprise between herself and her husband.

4 There is no dispute that prior to her marriage she went to live with the defendant; she went to his house in Amara Street. There is no dispute about this house. The plaintiff makes no claim to it. It was built by the defendant on land belonging to an aunt of his. In cross-examination the plaintiff said this: “I have a share in King's Road house. The other properties belong to Mr. Young.”

5 Sometime after marriage - sometime in 1966 - she thought it would be a good idea to have a house of their own because of the uncertainty of living on land belonging to the defendant's aunt.

6 I find as a fact that it was through her initiative that Lot 5152 was acquired. I accept her evidence as to the steps she took. Her evidence on this point is as follows:–

“It was my idea. Government owned the land. Lands Dept. responsible. I went there. I just asked for a piece of land. I had a discussion with Mr. Lee Longsworth. I asked my uncle to write a letter on behalf of my husband. Though it was better for a man to make application ……………..

Mr. Longsworth told me he could not give me land in husband's name as money was in my name. After conversation I went to the Government Treasury with husband to make joint account to get land. I had an account in the Treasury. He had none. I had $1100. I had money before I was married. Saving it for years……..…. House built in Lot 5152. Financed from my savings.”

7 The plaintiff admits that the husband contributed in a major part to the building of this house. In examination in chief she had this to say: “Husband built house. He physically built it. He contributed money to building of house. I cannot say how much.”

8 I would like to add that the lot was acquired in the husband's name in 1967 and the house was completed in 1968. The husband at the time was a carpenter. There is also evidence that the wife contributed physically in clearing the land. After moving into the house the defendant was running a sand truck.

9 Evidence has been adduced as to how both of them went to the United States to work, how they acquired a truck there. In 1972 the husband bought a grocery shop which the wife used to run. In 1974 the husband bought a property at New Home Haulover for $600. In 1975 the husband bought a second truck for $5000. The grocery shop after having been profitable for a time and a source of income to maintain the family had to be closed down in December, 1975. There was a purchase of a third truck for $7000 in 1975 and in 1976 the plaintiff had to go to the States and a blue cab pick-up was bought. Further, in 1977 the husband bought a parcel of land in Burrel Boom and in 1978 a Dump Truck.

10 This evidence is only relevant to show that both the husband and the wife were working together to achieve a degree of prosperity. Apart from the fact that the wife says that the husband drank, at least up to 1965, I am satisfied that he was a good provider. Similarly, I am satisfied that the wife was a good administrator and lost no opportunity in helping to the household expenses by working and tending whenever an opportunity arose.

11 The husband's evidence does not really contradict that of the wife. His main contention is the house at King's Park as it stands today is much bigger than it was when they first occupied it and that the extension and additions to the house are solely attributable to...