Ramelize v Ramelize

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Permanand, J.
• Judgment Date: 29 October 1990
• Neutral Citation: TT 1990 HC 159
• Docket Number: No. M 5 of 1987
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Date: 29 October 1990

High Court

Permanand, J

No. M 5 of 1987

Ramelize

and

Ramelize

Appearances:

Mrs. Cherril-Anne Antoine for petitioner.

Mrs. J. Clarence-Quamina for respondent.

Family Law - Husband and wife — Divorce — Matrimonial property division — Effect of conduct during marriage on distribution of assets.

Permanand, J.

1 The petitioner and respondent were married on December 31, 1966 in Islington, London when, according to their Marriage Certificate, the husband was a cabinet maker and the petitioner a professional dancer. On October 21, 1987, Crane, J. granted a decree nisi to the petitioner on the ground that the marriage had broken down irretrievably as the respondent/husband had behaved in such a way that the petitioner/wife could not reasonably be expected to live with him.

2 On April 6, 1980, the respondent/husband filed a Notice seeking –

• (i) an order that the petitioner/wife do pay to him such lump sum as the Court thinks reasonable;

• (ii) an order that the property situate at 22 Industry Lane, Belmont be transferred to the respondent.

3 On December 7, 1989, the respondent/husband also filed a Notice seeking periodical payments.

4 Affidavits were filed by the respondent/husband on May 27; 1988, August 8, 1988 and March 9, 1990 and by the wife on July 20, 1988, January 24, 1989, February 13, 1990 and on May 22, 1990.

5 By the consent of the respective parties, both Notices were heard together and all the affidavits were relied upon. According to his affidavit filed on May 27, 1988, the respondent/husband deposed that although he is a cabinet maker by trade he is now unemployed as on May 19, 1987, while travelling on a truck, he was attacked by thieves and received a chop on his left hand which is now deformed and therefore he is unable to do any strenuous activities.

6 Prior to the aforementioned incident, the respondent stated he and the petitioner were involved in several business ventures since their return to Trinidad in 1968 when he and the petitioner managed a gas station/supermarket belonging to the respondent's brother at Laventille Road, Laventille for approximately fourteen years and then purchased a parcel of land at Toco for thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000.00) which was a gravel pit. He worked on same and received approximately sixty thousand dollars ($60,000.00) as income after which it was sold for two hundred and thirty thousand dollars ($230,000.00).

7 Meanwhile, the petitioner and two of their three children resided at 22 Industry Lane, Belmont which property had belonged to her aunt who devised a one-half share to the petitioner and that the petitioner purchased the other share with a loan of one hundred and thirty eight thousand dollars ($138,000.00) from Republic Bank Limited, paying one hundred and twenty thousand dollars ($120,000.00) for the half share and putting eighteen thousand dollars ($18,000.00) towards stocks in the supermarket. The children attended school in Port-of-Spain; they are now all over the age of eighteen.

8 The respondent states that both he and the petitioner placed one hundred and forty thousand dollars ($140,000.00) in a “Fixed Deposit” with Trade Confirmers Limited which Company subsequently went into liquidation and he heard nothing with regard to the deposit, however, the petitioner/wife states that the respondent withdrew two sums of forty thousand dollars ($40,000.00) and fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00), as well as the interest, and that the balance of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) was assigned to Republic Bank (vide Exhibit “G.R.1”) as security for an overdraft for the supermarket business which they had entered in around 1982 at 40 Belmont Valley Road, which premises the petitioner inherited from her mother. The petitioner continued to be a part-time teacher and assisted in the supermarket with the respondent and also looked after the home. In 1986 the supermarket was closed and business ceased and the premises were rented as the petitioner states that by that time the respondent was a regular user of alcohol and drugs. In 1988 the petitioner partitioned the premises at 40 Belmont Valley Road into two apartments and received four hundred dollars ($400.00) per month for each apartment.

9 The petitioner is a temporary music teacher at Dunross Preparatory School and also provides private tuition. Her income is as follows:–

1. Net salary from Dunross Preparatory School	$1,173.00
2. Rent from property at 22 Industry Lane:
(a) Upper floor	750.00
(b) Ground floor – 2 apartments ($550 + $500)	1,050.00
3. Rent from property at 40 Belmont Valley Road:
(a) two existing tenants	800.00
(b) one small apartment is available for rent for $300.00 – $350.00 monthly
4. Fees for private music lessens – 9 months per year	1,350.00
TOTAL	$5,123.00

10 and her expenses are as detailed in her affidavit filed on July 20, 1988 as follows;–

1. Rent — furnished apartment for two unemployed children over 18 years and myself	$1,200.00
2. Mortgage instalments on property at 22 Industry Lane, Belmont	2,101.00
3. Instalments on balance of business overdraft — Republic Bank (balance approximately $10,152.14)	200.00
4. Car loan instalments – Republic Bank (balance approximately $8,000.00)	400.00
5. Food and household expenses	1,200.00
6. Electricity	100.00
7. Water Rates –
(1) 22 Industry Lane	200.00
(2) 40 Belmont Valley Road	150.00
8. Clothing	150.00
9. Building insurance	100.00
10. House repairs/maintenance for the two buildings	200.00
11. Car insurance	148.00
12. Allowances to 2 children	260.00
TOTAL	$6,409.00

11 The petitioner contends that the respondent is not entitled to any lump sum or transfer of property as she states that due to the respondent's behaviour the supermarket was closed in September 1986. She relied on Exhibit G,R.3” — Medical Report dated February 19, 1967 from Dr. I. N. Hosein who is a member of the Society of Clinical Psychiatrists (United Kingdom) on which it is noted that it is ‘Private and Confidential’ and without the doctor's consent I shall not consider and/or repro-duce same, and a report dated March 16, 1987 from the afore-mentioned Dr. Hosein which reads as follows.–

“Re: CLARENCE RAMELIZE

In accordance with your request I wish to confirm that the above named was admitted here on 8th July 1985 for the treatment of Depression and Alcoholism.

He absconded from hospital on 12th July 1985 with-out completing therapy.”

12 On January 8, 1987, the petitioner sought and obtained an injunction against the respondent at an ex parte hearing and on March 27, 1967, Brooks, J. granted an order whereby the injunction continued until trial. The petition was heard on October 21, 1987. The injunction, inter alia, restrained the respondent from molesting, assaulting, threatening, harassing or otherwise interfering with the petitioner and allowed the petitioner to return to the matrimonial home and also ordered the respondent to vacate the matrimonial home at 22 Industry Lane, Belmont.

13 The court observes that the respondent, who deposed he is unable to use his left hand to do any strenuous activities, failed to provide any medical evidence with regard to same, similarly; his allegation that he suffers with an ulcerated stomach, he stated that same was due to pressure of work and stress but the petitioner states same is due to his consumption of alcohol and drugs. Exhibit ‘“G.R.3” dated March 16, 1987 con-firms that the respondent is a user of alcohol.

14 While the respondent replied to the petitioner's allegation, he has not denied the use of alcohol and drugs but states that his illness was brought about by a combination of several factors — stress and worry over their marriage which was showing signs of a breakdown. On this aspect, insofar as their versions differ, l prefer to accept the petitioner's version. Whenever there is a conflict in the evidence of the petitioner and...