Published on May 5, our lawyer received much feedback for the above topic. It's always good to be armed with the law and know your rights and entitlement.

I have often said that the true test of whether a new statute has achieved the desired objective comes after the courts are asked to decide on applications made under that statute. This has proven to be the case with the Property (Rights of Spouses) Act.

Two recent decisions from the Supreme Court have demonstrated that the courts will not readily vary the presumption under Section 6 of the act, that each spouse is entitled to 50 per cent share in the family home (the '50:50 rule').

In the first case, G v G, the wife and husband owned one property together while the other property was registered solely in the husband's name. There was no dispute regarding the jointly owned property, as each party conceded that the other had a half share. The issues surrounded the second property.

The husband asserted that he had bought the second property to provide a home for his mother and an older child from a previous union. For this and other reasons, he claimed that although his wife was entitled to an interest in the property, her interest should not be half. However, because the property had become the family home, the wife invoked the 50:50 rule.

No Financial Contribution

Based on the evidence adduced at the trial, the husband proved that the wife had made no financial contribution to the acquisition or renovation of the home. In fact, the husband's uncle was the contractor responsible for renovating the house and the husband always made a more substantial financial contribution to the home.

Given the fact that the act makes it clear that the homema-ker's contribution to the home is to be given equal weight to financial contribution, the court was mindful of the wife's role as caregiver.

The court accepted that the husband's role as the dominant financial provider entitled him to a higher share and awarded the wife a 40 per cent interest in the family home.

Whether financial contribution should feature significantly when the court is asked to decide each spouse's interest in the family home remains debatable, because it is not listed as a factor to be considered when attempting to displace the 50:50 rule. The factors listed in the act are the short duration of the marriage, the acquisition of the property prior to marriage and the inheritance of the property by one spouse. However, the act clearly states that the list is not exhaustive.

The other instance

The result of the second case, P v P, seems to also demonstrate that the court is willing to consider the financial contribution of each spouse to the family home when attempting to determine whether to vary the 50:50 rule. However, it would appear that it is only when there is significant disparity in the parties' financial contribution that such a factor will cause a variation in the rule.

The quality of the debates surrounding the application of the act continues to improve; and we can only benefit from a greater appreciation of judicial opinion on these matters.

Sherry-Ann McGregor is a partner and mediator with the firm Nunes, Scholefield, DeLeon & Co. Send feedback and questions to lawsofeve@yahoo.com or Lifestyle@gleanerjm.com.