Singles rule

A woman’s failure to prove that she and her so-called spouse were in an exclusive relationship when they were together has resulted in her losing out on obtaining any beneficial interest in his property and assets.

The ex-partner in question, Wilward Harris, had maintained that the woman, Sashana Daley, was never his spouse and that his true common-law wife was the mother of his child.

Daley sued her ex-partner in 2018 after their relationship soured and sought orders, including a declaration that the home they had resided in at Clinton Close in St Catherine, was the family home and that she was entitled to 50 per cent interest. She also sought an order that her former partner had the first option to purchase her interest.

Daley also wanted shares in the assets and proceeds of their business and/or emoluments; a lump sum of $5,940,000 for her work in the business; and 50 per cent of the value of a 2012 BMW X6 motor vehicle and a 2007 Toyota Voxy motor vehicle.

However, she was denied a declaration that she was entitled to half of the St Catherine property after Supreme Court judge Justice Opal Smith found that she was not Harris’ spouse under the Property Rights of Spouses (PROSA) Act.

Consequently, Daley appealed the decision, claiming, among other things, that the judge had erred in failing to conclude that they were spouses and also by ruling that both parties had failed to provide any evidence that they both were otherwise ‘single’ during the tenure of their relationship.

But the Court of Appeal, in a judgment published last month, dismissed the appeal while noting that Daley had failed to address the issue of whether the parties were both single during their relationship.

“Ultimately, there was no discernible evidence in the affidavits or the viva voce evidence that the appellant had addressed the issue of the parties being single.

“The respondent denied there was a common-law relationship. This denial would have alerted the appellant that she was being put to strict proof as to her claim of being the common-law wife of the respondent in fact and law,” noted the three-judge panel comprising Justice Paulette Williams, Marcia Dunbar-Green, and Georgiana Fraser.

Accordingly, they indicated that Daley’s failure to provide evidence as to the status of the parties as single “was an incurable error that adversely impacted the cogency of her claim as a spouse under PROSA”.

Under the act, one of the prerequisites that must be satisfied before a declaration that either party is a spouse must be proof of the party’s single status.

Began living together in 2009

Both parties agreed that they started out as a visiting relationship before it changed into what Daley described as a common-law relationship in which they began living together in 2009.

Harris, while denying that Daley was his common-law wife, insisted that their relationship was “sporadic”, and further, that he was involved with another woman who he regarded as his common-law wife.

The essence of Daley’s complaint was that the judge erred in law and fact when she concluded that she had not provided any evidence that the parties were “single” during their relationship and that they were not spouses under the provisions of PROSA.

However her attorneys, Ludlow Black and Debbie Ann Hutchinson, argued that the single status of either party was never a fact in issue.

At the same time, they were adamant that there was enough evidence from which it could have been ascertained that both parties were not legally married and that Harris would have provided the court with evidence if he was married.

The lawyers said there was evidence that demonstrated that the parties functioned as a couple to the outside world, including residing at Harris’ mother’s house during the weekdays to avoid traffic woes and going home to the disputed property to spend the weekends as a family.

Furthermore, they said it was “remarkable that the judge, despite finding that the parties had co-habited as man and wife, determined that they were not spouses”. According to them, the evidence that was used to arrive at the finding that Harris and Daley had lived as man and wife should have been sufficient, as indirect evidence, to determine that they were single.

Turning to Harris’ claim that the mother of his child was his common-law wife, the lawyers argued that the judge erred when she did not consider Harris’ failure in also bringing evidence to prove that common-law union.

‘No misstep’

Harris’ lawyer, Steven Jackson, however, averred that the judge was correct in finding that Daley did not provide any evidence to establish the party’s status as single, and further, that his client did not have a duty to prove his status.

Additionally, he contended that the trial judge made “no misstep” in finding that Daley was not his client’s spouse and that the appeal lacked merit and should be dismissed.

For the Court of Appeal judge, the appeal hinged on whether the criterion of being a single man or woman must first be satisfied in order to establish the status of being a spouse.

The judges emphasised that the party’s single status was a clear factual question for the trial judge and rejected Daley’s counsels’ argument that single status of either party was not an issue in fact.

“The appellant had a legal obligation to prove her status as a spouse under PROSA before invoking its provisions for a 50 per cent share of the family home. Additionally, this argument overlooked the respondent’s denial of being in a common-law relationship with her,” they said.

Besides the lack of evidence to prove that they were single, coupled with Harris’ denial that they had been living as man and wife, the judge said the court also had issues as it related to the continuity of the relationship, which was not addressed by the trial judge.

“It could not, therefore, be assessed whether the evidence of the respondent as to breaks in the relationship was accepted or rejected by her. Those averments, however, would have affected whether the appellant had satisfied the requisite period of continuous co-habitation for five years or more,” they noted.

Consequently, the judges found that Daley had failed to satisfy the court that she was Harris’ spouse and that they had co-habited in an exclusive relationship for at least five years.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com