Man loses ownership of property to ex-wife after 14-year neglect

A man who migrated overseas and ceased contributing to the joint property he shared with his ex-wife, following their separation, has officially lost his stake in a Manchester property after a legal battle.

Justice Althea Jarrett, after hearing the 2022 claim brought by the ex-wife, Charmaine Buckle, declared that she had dispossessed David Wright of all his interest in the quarter-acre property on Savoy Crescent, which had a small house.

Buckle, a healthcare worker, who is a resident of the United States like her ex-husband, had contended that she had been in control and/or possession of the property, to the exclusion of the defendant, since 2004. Wright admitted that he had stopped making mortgage payments from 2008.

“I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant has demonstrated a sufficient degree of physical custody and control over the property, along with an intention to exercise such custody and control over it, for her sole benefit, from 2008 to the date of the filing of the claim,” Jarrett said in the February judgment.

The judge also ordered that the registered title for the property be issued solely in Buckle’s name, and awarded her costs.

Before the marriage broke down in 2002, the parties bought the property jointly through the National Housing Trust (NHT). However, Buckle said, when they separated two months after the birth of their child, she was left with the mortgage payments and care of her baby.

Shortly after, she rented the property to cover the mortgage payments and to help with finances for their child.

Buckle noted that there was a November 2024 consent order which indicated that the property was to be valued and that she was to be given the first option of buying her half within two months of the valuation. Failing that, Wright would have the option of purchasing her half, if she did not exercise her option for sale and complete the sale process within four months.

MAINTAINING ALL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS

Buckle said that, although they both migrated to the US, she would return regularly to visit her mother and the property.

But, since leaving the island in 2005, she had discharged the mortgage, repaired the property at her own expense, appointed agents to manage the rental arrangements she approved, paid the property taxes and the utilities, without any participation from the defendant.

According to her, she had been in sole possession of the property since.

However, Buckle indicated that Wright, through his lawyer, wrote to her in 2019, asking her to have discussions about valuing and dividing the property.

She further disclosed that Wright had been paying his portion of the mortgage via salary deduction up to 2007. She also said that she never had any discussion with Wright regarding renting the property to cover the mortgage.

“She did not consult with him in respect of anything to do with the property, and he has not been in possession of the property since he left it in 2002,” the judgment said.

Under cross-examination, Buckle said Wright did not reply when she enquired about the consent order which she was not in a position to take up.

She also denied having any discussion with Wright about the rent being utilised for mortgage payments.

Buckle also stated that the house was rented “on and off” and that she added a bedroom and a bathroom to maintain their daughter, as the defendant was not maintaining her and could not be found for many years.

Wright, in his affidavit, denied abandoning his child. He also claimed there was an agreement to rent the property and to use it to cover the mortgage.

He claimed to have made several lump-sum payments since 2018 when he was informed that the property was in arrears. Two receipts for payments of $100,000 and $45,000, which were filed after the hearing, were not accepted.

HOSTILE SITUATION

According to Wright, “a hostile situation” had forced him to leave his marriage and, since then, he has been met with hostility, especially when the property was mentioned.

Wright said he migrated in 2008 without informing Buckle and that his salary deduction stopped at that point. While admitting that he had not made any arrangements with Buckle regarding the payments, he said he had informed the NHT that he would deal with the matter if there was any delinquency.

The judge in her analysis said Wright had essentially made out the case for the claimant, specifically as it relates to the period from 2008 to the filing of the claim in March 2022.

“The defendant himself admitted that he did not make any of the monthly mortgage payments between 2008 and 2023, and despite saying that he had paid the property taxes, he had no documentary proof to support this assertion,” she said.

The judge, however, noted that Wright had contradicted himself with his own evidence that there was an arrangement with the rent and that he made regular checks on the property to see if the mortgage was paid while indicating that there was no communication between them since 2002 because of the hostile situation.

“I find his evidence hardly credible, and, on a balance of probabilities, find that he made no such checks and that there was no agreement between him and the claimant for the property to be rented and the rent applied to the mortgage,” the judge said.

The judge also found Wright’s evidence about his oral arrangement with the NHT “remarkable”.

“It is unlikely that a mortgagee would engage in such a verbal arrangement with a mortgagor,” the judge said.

She said it was also significant that Wright did not return to the court to enforce the concern order, despite claiming that he was excluded from the property and deprived of information.

Attorney-at-law Marjorie Shaw represented Buckle while attorney-at-law Shernett Robinson represented Wright.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com