Miriam Gibbons v Desnie Charles et Al

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Judge: Drysdale, J.
• Judgment Date: 01 August 2025
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2025] ECSC J0801-1
• Docket Number: Claim No: ANUHCV2021/0335
• Court: High Court (Antigua)
• Year: 2025

Between:

Miriam Gibbons

Claimant

and

Desnie Charles

Defendant

[2025] ECSC J0801-1

Claim No: ANUHCV2021/0335

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Appearances:

Mr. Septimus Rhudd of counsel for the Claimant

Mr. Lawrence Daniels of counsel for the Defendant

Drysdale, J.

1 At the heart of this legal dispute is the issue of matrimonial property and the corresponding entitlements of the parties involved.

The Pleadings

Statement of Claim

2 The Claimant and the Defendant met in or around 1997 and cohabitated for 13 years prior to becoming husband and wife on 9 ^th June 2011. Their marriage lasted 8 years and concluded in divorce in 2019.

3 The Claimant alleges that around June 2007, while cohabiting with the Defendant, she hired G-90 Building Systems Ltd, a construction company, to provide a quote for a Gables Model, 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom steel frame house. The estimate from the company totalled $295,000.00, which included the cost of both land purchase and home construction.

4 In June 2007, the Claimant secured a $260,000.00 loan in her name from the Bank of Nova Scotia. This loan, intended for the purchase of land and construction of their home, had monthly repayments of $1,350.00. Subsequently the Claimant purchased the land in 2008 and the same is registered in her name.

5 In 2008, the Claimant completed the construction of a house she had purchased partially built, entirely financing its construction. The couple then moved into the completed residence, establishing it as their matrimonial home. Despite this, the Claimant alone continued to be responsible for all mortgage payments, directly debited from her Bank of Nova Scotia account, without any contribution or request for contribution from the Defendant.

6 Beyond the mortgage, she also exclusively managed the home's maintenance, upkeep, and property tax payments. The Claimant acknowledges that the Defendant would, at times, pay some household bills such as electricity, water, and cable. She further contends that she largely furnished the home, only crediting the Defendant with the purchase of the refrigerator, stove, and washing machine.

7 On November 9, 2017, a decade later, they jointly secured a $210,000.00 personal credit agreement for home repairs, leading to an increase in their monthly mortgage payment to $1,437.61.

8 Following their divorce, the Claimant has continued to solely pay the mortgage on the property where the Defendant resides. An oral agreement was made in November 2019, allowing the Defendant to stay for one year to sort out his affairs. Yet, even after this year passed and despite multiple requests, the Defendant has not moved out and is now asserting an interest in the property.

9 Therefore, the Claimant claimed inter alia a determination of the respective interests of the parties and that the Defendant vacate the matrimonial home.

The Defence and Counterclaim

The Defence

10 While the Defendant disputes the initial meeting and relationship start dates, he asserts that cohabitation began in 1998, coinciding with the launch of his supermarket business. He claims that in 2004, they discussed building a home, and by 2007, after viewing an incomplete steel frame property in Paynters, they agreed to jointly contribute to the mortgage. Initially, the Claimant, due to her stable employment, was to seek a 20-year loan from RBTT, but this proved unsuccessful. They then agreed the Claimant would apply for a 30-year mortgage with the Bank of Nova Scotia, with the Defendant contributing half of the monthly payments. He avers the Claimant informed him the repayment was $1,900.00 per month, and he consistently gave her $1,000.00 in cash monthly, as payments were deducted directly from her account. The Defendant also contends that he gave the Claimant the sum of $19,000.00 towards the deposit for the house and the sum of $7,000 for insurance.

11 Beyond financial contributions, the Defendant asserts he was actively involved in the construction and upkeep of the home, personally hanging doors, painting, and performing other physical labour. He also states he consistently covered household expenses, the Claimant's daughter's school fees, house maintenance, and all utilities. Furthermore, the Defendant claims responsibility for purchasing major appliances (stove, refrigerator, washing machine, two air conditioning units) and various smaller ones, as well as clearing all ordered furniture and appliances for the residence.

12 The Defendant denies the existence of any agreement permitting him to live in the home one year post divorce and contends that he has a 50% beneficial interest in the property.

The Counterclaim

13 The Defendant's counterclaim is captured in one line wherein he asserts that he is entitled to 50% beneficial interest in the matrimonial home.

The Reply and Defence to Counterclaim

14 The Claimant refutes the Defendant's timeline, affirming her stated dates for meeting and cohabitation. She denies any joint discussions about building a house in 2004 or an agreement for the Defendant to contribute to the mortgage, despite visiting the Paynters property in 2007. The Claimant also refutes that the Defendant did not likewise have stable employment, stating that the defendant was self-employed as a grocer as well as selling imported drinks from St. Martin.

15 The Claimant denies that her RBTT loan application was not unsuccessful, and instead asserts that the loan was approved but for an insufficient sum for the property's purchase and construction. She denies discussing a $1,900 mortgage payment or the Defendant's contribution, stating her decision to approach the Bank of Nova Scotia was entirely her own. Furthermore, the Claimant asserts there was no agreement for the Defendant to contribute to the mortgage or gain any beneficial interest in the property and denies any contribution of the Defendant as alleged towards the mortgage.

16 The Claimant denies the Defendant made any contributions to the property, whether monetary or through work performed. She states the house was financed entirely by the Bank of Nova Scotia loan and that G-90 Building Systems Limited built the entire house. The Claimant also disputes receiving $26,000 from the Defendant, stating that the Defendant gave her $17,000.00 for legal fees to transfer the property into her name.

17 While admitting the Defendant paid her daughter's school fees for three terms, the Claimant clarifies this was not at her instigation. She disputes the claim that the Defendant covered all utility bills, stating his contributions were infrequent and only for some of the bills.

18 Regarding appliances, the Claimant counters that the Defendant's purchases were limited to the stove, refrigerator, and washing machine, refuting his claim of acquiring multiple small appliances. She also states the Defendant only bought one air conditioning unit, which served as a replacement for a faulty one she originally purchased.

19 The Claimant maintains that after their divorce, they agreed the Defendant could remain on the property for one year, an agreement he has since breached by not vacating. She categorically denies his entitlement to a 50% interest in the property.

Defence to Counterclaim

20 The Claimant reiterated her sole ownership of the property, citing its purchase in her name alone and her exclusive responsibility for the financing loan. She also denied any discussions with the Defendant, or expectations, regarding his beneficial interest in the property.

Evidence

21 Both parties submitted witness statements and were cross-examined on them. Since these statements closely mirrored their initial legal arguments, only the most pertinent information will be detailed below to avoid repetition.

The Claimant

22 The Claimant, who previously worked as a Supervisor at Pastry's Limited confirmed that she is now employed as a Supervisory of Fine Jewellery at J.C. Penney. During cross-examination, she stated she came to Antigua in 1994 and began an intimate relationship with the Defendant in 1998. She confirmed that she owned no property in Antigua at that time.

23 The Claimant affirmed having a daughter, whom she brought to Antigua, and that the three of them began living together as a family. The Claimant confirmed marrying the Defendant and having a joint account at Bank of Nova Scotia, though she could not recall the specific account number but remembered her cell number.

24 She denied being aware of building materials being purchased from FADI's Building Supply North Coast Hardware or Antigua Plumbing and Hardware. She revealed that the parties each contributed $200.00 to an account for building but denied that any purchases for building supplies were made from it.

25 The Claimant agreed that she obtained a loan from Scotia Bank but denied the Defendant provided the deposit or insurance amount for it. She also denied that the Defendant gave her any money monthly for the mortgage, although she clarified he did give her money at other times.

26 The Claimant confirmed that the loan was re-mortgaged for $210,000.00 with both her and the Defendant signing the agreement. She also verified her use of internet banking to monitor her loan account. While acknowledging a $750.00 standing order, she clarified it has only been consistently paid since January 2025. She specifically denied that money was previously given directly to her for the mortgage and then deposited into the account after she stopped receiving it.

27 The Claimant agreed that she and the Defendant lived together before and after the house was built, but she denied moving out of the house after their divorce. She clarified she has been living in the United States for three years and has not occupied the house during that time.

28 She acknowledged a letter from her attorney and a letter referring to the “matrimonial home.” She...