A Supreme Court judge has ruled that a St Catherine couple are each entitled to an equal share of their family home, dismissing a husband’s attempt to secure an 80 per cent interest in the property based on his financial contributions over the years.
In a judgment handed down recently, Justice Sonia Wint-Blair declared that Courtney Waul and Maureen Waul each hold a 50 per cent legal and beneficial interest in the property located in Eltham View, Spanish Town. The court ordered that the house be sold on the open market, with the net proceeds divided equally between the former spouses.
The judge also directed Mr Waul to pay his wife $801,346.62, representing his share of the cost of maintenance, repairs and improvements she carried out on the property.
The dispute arose from competing claims over ownership of the home, which the couple acquired during their marriage and occupied while raising their three children.
Mrs Waul brought legal action in September 2023 seeking to sever the joint tenancy, sell the property and recover money she said she spent restoring and upgrading the residence.
According to evidence presented to the court, Mrs Waul returned to Jamaica in 2022 after spending years working overseas and found the property in poor condition. She alleged that the home had become unsuitable for comfortable living and accused her husband of failing to properly maintain it.
She testified that throughout the marriage she regularly sent money and supplies to support the household while abroad and later financed significant repairs and renovations to the property.
Mr Waul argued that he should receive an 80 per cent beneficial interest because he paid the deposit on the property, serviced the mortgage and handled maintenance costs over the years. He also noted that he used a redundancy payment to clear the remaining mortgage balance.
However, Mrs Waul maintained that her earnings overseas, remittances and other financial contributions to the family and property were substantial and should be recognised.
In rejecting the husband’s claim, Justice Wint-Blair found no evidence to justify departing from the legal presumption that a family home purchased in the joint names of spouses is owned equally.
The judge noted that there was no agreement, declaration or conduct demonstrating that the parties intended for Mrs Waul to hold a reduced share of the property.
While acknowledging Mr Waul’s significant financial contributions, the court concluded that those payments alone were insufficient to establish a common intention that ownership should be divided unequally.
The ruling also recognised Mrs Waul’s role in supporting the family through overseas employment, remittances and later investments in the property, finding those contributions inconsistent with the claim that she held only a minor interest in the home.
The court accepted that the couple had operated under a family arrangement in which Mrs Waul worked abroad while continuing to contribute financially to household expenses and the property.
Justice Wint-Blair also considered claims relating to repairs and improvements undertaken by Mrs Waul. Evidence presented included receipts for expenditures on plumbing work, tiles, doors, bathroom fixtures, fencing, cupboards, construction materials and labour.
Although Mr Waul disputed some of the renovations, arguing that certain works were cosmetic and carried out without his approval, the court found that he continued to occupy the property and benefited from the upgrades.
One claim for $220,000 related to grill work was rejected after the court determined that the installation had already been completed before the renovations took place.
After reviewing the evidence, the court accepted expenditures totaling $1.6 million and ordered Mr Waul to reimburse his wife half that amount.
As part of its orders, the court directed that the joint tenancy be severed and authorised the Registrar of the Supreme Court to sign any documents required to complete the sale if either party fails to cooperate.
Attorney-at-law Sediann Graham represented Mrs Waul, while attorney Tameka Menzie appeared for Mr Waul.
Court Postpones Murder Case of Man Accused of Killing Elderly Mother
