Court strips ex-boyfriend of property rights over infidelity, dishonesty

A man who led a woman to believe that they were in a committed relationship lost out on half a share in her St Elizabeth home and motor vehicle after he cheated and fathered a baby during their nearly three-year relationship.

Leandy Clarke was, last month, ordered by the Supreme Court to transfer his 50 per cent share in both the property and the motor vehicle within three weeks after the court declared his former partner, Deena Keniston, the sole legal and beneficial owner of both assets.

Justice Kirk Anderson, in a written judgment, said that although equity under the constructive trust principle would ordinarily favour Clarke, the circumstances of the case prevented him from benefiting from that equity. Constructive trust is equitable remedy imposed by the courts to prevent unjust enrichment or unconscionable conduct.

"He should not benefit from same because of his dishonesty to the claimant in enabling himself to have had his name placed on the respective titles for the property and for the Toyota Wish motor vehicle and also because of what this court has determined was his dishonesty before this court," the judge said.

The court heard that Keniston met Clarke in December 2018 while visiting Jamaica from the United States. Shortly afterwards, they began what she believed was a committed and monogamous relationship based on representations made by Clarke.

Acting on that trust, Keniston purchased a property in Fort Charles, St Elizabeth, for US$207,500 using her own funds. She also bought a Toyota Wish motor vehicle. Both assets were registered in their joint names.

According to Keniston, Clarke's name was placed on the motor vehicle registration for insurance purposes and so he could use the vehicle while she was overseas.

But she shared that before purchasing the property, Clarke spent almost all of his time with her. However, after his name was placed on the title to the property, he became noticeably less interested and spent less time with her.

In March 2021, Keniston also registered the property as a business in both their names but indicated to the court that she intended to cancel the registration.

The relationship eventually ended after Keniston discovered that Clarke had been involved with other women during their relationship and had fathered a child outside the union.

In December 2021, she returned to Jamaica, took possession of the motor vehicle and asked Clarke to relinquish his interest in both the vehicle and the property, contending that he had deceived her. He subsequently refused, resulting in her filing a claim, which began in 2023.

In his affidavit, Clarke denied telling Keniston that he was exclusively devoted to her. He claimed that he gave her all of his time because she requested it.

He further claimed that he remodelled the swimming pool, painted the interior of the house, maintained the property grounds, carried out plumbing work, and performed other maintenance tasks. He also said he had arranged for the replacement of the roof, which was financed by Keniston. However, he produced no records to support those claims.

Keniston, however, maintained that Clarke and his friend were paid for the painting work. She also said he merely assisted in finding a contractor for the swimming pool and that the work was poorly done and had to be redone.

Clarke also argued that the relationship did not end because he fathered a child outside of it. Instead, he claimed it ended after Keniston granted access to the Fort Charles property to one of her friends and that he was being deprived of his share in the property.

He further claimed that Keniston had told him that she wanted to purchase the house for both of them to live in and enjoy together, along with his children, because she believed she might die at around 63 or 65 years old.

Attorney Judith Clarke, who represented Keniston, argued that a resulting trust existed in favour of her client in relation to both the Fort Charles property and the Toyota Wish. She submitted that Clarke had failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption.

Counsel further argued that because Clarke had been paid for any work he performed on the property, he had not acted to his detriment and, in any event, his contributions were insufficient to create any equitable interest in his favour.

Clarke's attorney, Ewan Thompson, countered that ownership intentions are determined at the time property is acquired and are not altered by the breakdown of a relationship. He also argued that jointly titled property is presumed to be jointly owned beneficially unless evidence establishes otherwise.

Justice Anderson, however, sided with Keniston after examining the evidence. While acknowledging the legal presumption of joint ownership, he found that Clarke's deceit defeated any claim to equitable relief.

The judge also found that Clarke was not a witness of truth and concluded that Keniston was the more credible witness. He noted that her account was supported by one of Clarke's witnesses, who testified that after learning of Clarke's infidelity, Keniston wanted his name removed from the title and took steps to recover possession of the Toyota Wish.

Justice Anderson subsequently ordered Clarke to transfer his half share in the Fort Charles property and the Toyota Wish to Keniston within three weeks. Failing that, the Registrar of the Supreme Court was authorised to complete the transfers by signing the necessary documents.

The court also waived all transfer duties and taxes in Keniston's favour and awarded her costs.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com