Tittle v Tittle

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Judge: Peterkin J.A.,Davis C.J
• Judgment Date: 29 October 1976
• Neutral Citation: AG 1976 CA 9
• Date: 29 October 1976
• Court: Court of Appeal (Antigua and Barbuda)
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1976

Court of Appeal

Davis, C.J.; St. Bernard, J.A.; Peterkin, J.A.

Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1976

Tittle

and

Tittle

Family law - Husband and wife — Matrimonial property — Agreement to build matrimonial home made prior to marriage — Wife provided finance and husband provided skill and labour — Whether agreement made in contemplation of marriage — Further house constructed after marriage with contributions of both parties as made previously — Wife utilized family savings — Evidence unclear as to value of contribution of each party — Proprietary rights of both parties in family assets established — Principle of equality is equity applied — Finding that family assets were jointly owned by each party; that case of joint enterprise by both parties was established — Appeal allowed.

Peterkin J.A.

1 This is an appeal by the husband, Llewellyn Tittle, from the order of Nedd, J. made on 10/3/76 as the result of a hearing of an application by the wife, Virginia Tittle, under section 19 of the Married Women's Property Act, (Cap. 352 of the laws of Antigua), whereby the learned Judge held as follows:–

• (1) That the wife was entitled to the entire beneficial interest in the dwelling house situate at Martins Village, subject to the payment into Court by the wife to the use of the husband of the sum of $3,040.00:

• (2) That the wife was entitled to the entire beneficial interest in the dwelling house situate at Cashew Hill;

• (3) That certain articles and appliances stated were solely the property of the wife; and

• (4) That the wife and the husband were joint owners of a radiogram and television set.

2 The facts as found by the trial judge are stated in the judgment. The parties were married in June, 1963. Prior to this they had been lovers for some time and she had borne him a child. They decided to build a house in 1962. The wife provided the money with which the materials were purchased. The husband who was a master carpenter provided the skill and labour. The house was erected at Martins Village, and later became the matrimonial home. In 1965 the need arose to extend the house because of the children. The wife provided the money for materials from her wages as a hotel maid. The husband provided the skill and labour, and the sum of $40.00. In 1971 the house was further enlarged, again with money provided by the wife and time and labour provided by the husband. Altogether the husband has put a value of $8,000.00 on his labour only in respect of this house. The wife claims that its present value is $30,000.

3 Construction on the house at Cashew Hill started in 1967. It was the wife's idea to build it for rental to assist with the children's education. It was completed in 1969. The wife contributed about $4,000 in money. The husband's contribution was his time and labour. He built the house. She has estimated its present value at $15,000. The learned judge found that the husband was entitled to a beneficial interest in this house to the extent of his contribution by way of labour which he evaluated at $3,000.00, but went on to state that the husband had paid himself in full out of the rents, and that the beneficial interest in the house therefore now rested solely in the wife.

4 A number of items of furniture were also claimed by the wife. The learned judge apparently preferred her evidence to that of the husband, and has awarded her most of the furniture.

5 The marriage failed and divorce proceedings were brought by the wife in April, 1974, but the petition has not yet been heard.

6 Counsel for appellant has argued that, even on her own figures given in evidence; the total spent by the wife on the house at Martins Village was $4,500.00. He then went on to submit that the agreement to build in 1962 was in contemplation of marriage, and that this was borne out by the fact that the house had become the matrimonial home when they married in 1963. Counsel also cited a number of cases to the court, among which were Smith v. Baker [1970] 2 All E.R. 826, and Ulrich v. Ulrich, 1968 1 A.E.R., 67. He further submitted that both houses should be declared to be jointly owned in equal shares by the parties, and so should the furniture.

7 Counsel for respondent on the other hand has asked the Court to find that the judge decided correctly on the facts, and went on to submit that there was nothing on which to draw an inference in respect of the matrimonial home; that the case was on all fours with that of Mahabir v. Mahabir, 7 W.I.R., 131, which he cited, and that consequently the beneficial interest in both houses rested solely in the wife.

8 I am afraid that I cannot agree with this view. In the case of Mahabir v. Mahabir the wife's father had purchased the property out of his own resources in the name of the wife with the intention of benefiting her alone. The husband repaired, repainted and maintained the home, landscaped and improved the grounds, and built a tennis court. Six or seven years after the purchase the house was demolished and re-built at a cost of $53,000. Once again the entire cost was provided by the father from his own resources and he did so on the footing that the property belonged and would continue to belong to the wife alone. The Court of Appeal confirmed the conclusion of the trial judge that the beneficial ownership of the property was in the wife alone. In my opinion the case of Mahabir v. Mahabir is not on all fours with the instant case.

9 With regard to the house at Martin's Village, it was built at a time when they were courting. She had borne him a child, and, on her own evidence, they were still in love. She contributed the money. He contributed time and labour. One year later they were married, and it became the matrimonial home. I am of the view that this home was acquired and built by the joint efforts of both of them as a continuing provision for the future. It was a joint enterprise. In the circumstances, I would refer to the words of Denning, M.R. in the case of Ulrich v. Ulrich mentioned above:–

“In the first place, I think that money contributed by a man and woman before marriage, with a view to setting up a matrimonial home, are in the same position as moneys contributed by them after marriage. They are contributed to the purchase of property which is intended to be a family asset. When the marriage takes place, it becomes a joint asset belonging to both in equal shares. Such is the...