The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune News Editor

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

A SUPREME Court judge has reinforced that homemakers must not be treated as making a lesser contribution to a marriage than breadwinners, as she divided more than $400,000 in property between a divorced Grand Bahama couple.

Justice Constance Delancy said a matrimonial partnership can operate through a division of labour and courts should not discriminate between the spouse who earns the household income and the spouse whose contribution is principally domestic.

The ruling came in ancillary proceedings following the breakdown of a marriage that lasted about 14 years and produced no children. The former couple accumulated three properties with a combined appraised value of $409,427 during the marriage.

The husband was the principal breadwinner while the wife largely remained outside the formal workforce, maintaining the home and assisting with the couple’s rental properties.

Justice Delancy said: “A matrimonial partnership may operate through a division of labour.”

Where each spouse contributes within the role undertaken, she said, the court should not discriminate between the person who earned the income and the person whose contribution was principally domestic.

The judge ordered the woman to transfer her interest in the matrimonial home, Lot 90 in the Grand Bahama East Subdivision, to her former husband within 60 days.

The man was ordered to transfer two other properties, Lots 171 and 14 in the same subdivision, to his former wife within the same period. He must also pay her $1,000 a month for six months beginning September 30.

Lot 90, which includes the matrimonial home and a separate rental unit capable of generating about $500 a month when occupied, was appraised at $209,646.

Lot 171 was valued at $92,007 and Lot 14 at $107,774, placing their combined value at $199,781. An equal division of all three properties would have amounted to $204,713.50 for each party.

Justice Delancy said equality was the appropriate yardstick for assessing the distribution, while stressing that the court’s ultimate obligation was to reach a fair outcome after considering all the circumstances.

The woman had worked as a teacher’s aide before the marriage and relocated to Grand Bahama after marrying. She said her husband discouraged her from working and told her he could provide more than she earned as a teacher’s aide.

She said she cooked, cleaned, maintained the yard, ran errands, supervised work on the properties and helped manage and collect rental income.

The man disputed preventing her from working and said he encouraged her to find employment and tried to involve her in business opportunities.

Justice Delancy did not resolve that dispute entirely in either party’s favour. She said what was clear was that, for a substantial part of the marriage, the husband was the principal wage-earner while the wife performed the principal domestic functions and assisted with the rental properties.

The judge said the husband’s earnings provided the household’s main financial support and contributed to the acquisition, construction and preservation of the properties. The woman, meanwhile, principally served as homemaker, cooking, cleaning, maintaining the home and yard, performing errands and helping to manage the rental properties.

The woman, 57, had no employment income at the time of the proceedings and claimed sciatic nerve and back pain affected her ability to work.

Justice Delancy did not accept that she was medically incapable of employment, saying no medical evidence supported the alleged back condition and her testimony did not establish total incapacity.

However, the judge said the woman’s lengthy absence from formal employment and the need to re-establish herself economically could affect her immediate earning prospects.

The husband, 52, earned $4,137.96 a month and was in the stronger income position. Medical evidence showed he had significant visual impairment in his right eye, which could detect only light.

Justice Delancy said that impairment was relevant to the security and potential duration of his future employment, but did not justify giving him a greater share of the matrimonial assets simply because he had a disability.

The woman had sought $2,500 a month from her former husband until she obtained employment. The man opposed the request, arguing among other things that she had refused work and business opportunities and had not produced evidence supporting a need for $2,500 a month.

The court found that he had created opportunities for her to establish a business outside the home and that she refused to do so. The final order nevertheless required him to provide $1,000 a month for six months.

A fourth property, Lot 89, was excluded from the matrimonial estate.

The woman argued that payments had been made towards its purchase during the marriage, but the man denied ownership and produced a conveyance showing that title was vested in his niece.

Justice Delancy said that, “Whatever suspicions may arise from the circumstances surrounding that transaction,” the recorded owner was a third party who was not before the court and there was insufficient evidence to find that either former spouse held a legal or beneficial interest in the property.

Each party was ordered to keep vehicles registered in his or her name and bear his or her own legal costs.