D. v D

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'Hanlon J.
• Judgment Date: 10 December 1982
• Neutral Citation: 1983 WJSC-HC 316
• Court: High Court
• Date: 10 December 1982

1983 WJSC-HC 316

THE HIGH COURT

No. 470 Sp./1982

D. v. D.

IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW (MAINTENANCE OF SPOUSES AND

CHILDREN) ACT, 1976.

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIED WOMEN'S STATUS ACT, 1957

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY HOME PROTECTION ACT, 1976

BETWEEN:

N.D.

PLAINTIFF

AND

A.D.

DEFENDANT

Subject Headings:

HUSBAND & WIFE: property

1 Judgement delivered by O'Hanlon J. the 10th day of December, 1982.

2 The principal issue arising for determination in this case concerns the beneficial ownership of a number of properties which the Plaintiff and the Defendant have acquired in the course of their life together as husband and wife. As invariably happens in this type of case it becomes necessary to examine the background to many transactions to arrive at a resolution of the problems which have arisen as to the interest to which each spouse is entitled in the family assets.

3 The Plaintiff was born on the 28th October, 1932, and the Defendant is approximately the same age as the Plaintiff or a little older. They met in or about the year 1951 both being from the Listowel area, and a few years later they emigrated, first to London, then moving on to Canada where they each succeeded in obtaining employment. In 1955 they moved again, this time to New York, where they were married on the 15th October, 1955. The Plaintiff obtained work as a waitress and the Defendant as a miner, and while they pooled their earnings from that time forward, it would appear that the Defendant was at that time taking in substantially more than the Plaintiff as weekly income.

4 The next development was that the Defendant's father died, and the Defendant inherited the small family holding near Listowel. As a result the parties returned home to Ireland in 1956, bringing with them their savings of about £3,, and remained living on the Defendant's farm until 1958 when it was sold for about £2, in order to purchase a somewhat larger holding at Ballyduhig for about £5,. This latter holding is still retained, and is one of the properties referred to in these proceedings. These are the lands comprising 64 acres three roods and 29 perches, and registered on Folio 8211 of the Register of Freeholders, County of Kerry.

5 It would appear that the purchase price for these lands was provided to a large extent out of the proceeds of sale of the Defendant's farm at Ballinruddery and out of moneys advanced by way of loan by the National Bank, Listowel. I think the position regarding any contribution derived from the wife's earlier assistance in building up a joint savings funds is too obscure to support a claim to a share or interest in these lands and 1 propose, accordingly, to declare that the Defendant, who is the registered owner, is also entitled to the full beneficial ownership in the said lands.

6 After a further period of about seven years the family fortunes began to decline; they suffered heavy losses due to brucellosis, and a decision was taken to let the lands of Ballyduhig and to emigrate again, this time to London. Before leaving Ireland they sold off stock and farm machinery and this realised about £3,500. In London they bought a house in Cricklewood in the husband's name only, for about £6,500, using such money as they were able to bring over from Ireland and raising about £4, by way of mortgage to make up the balance. They remained in London for about four years. The wife claimed that she held two part-time jobs concurrently and that her earnings were sufficient to meet the mortgage repayments and were used for this purpose. Lettings were made of part of the house and she also claimed to have contributed significantly to the income derived from this source by the work she did in relation to same. The house was eventually sold in or about the year 1969 for about £8,500, arid a balance of about £4, remained after paying off the outstanding mortgage.

7 In the previous year - 1968 - No. 19 Church Street, Listowel, (a licensed premises with residential accommodation overhead), was purchased, once again in the sole name of the Defendant, for a sum of about £4,380 but it was necessary to spend a good deal of money and to carry out a good deal of work on the premises before it could be re-opened for business and used as a family home.

8 There was a good deal of dispute as to the part played by the different members of the family in carrying out the works of repair, extension, and redecoration which were necessary in relation to No. 19 Church Street, but I am satisfied that the Plaintiff, the Defendant, their son, John, and the Plaintiff's brother all took part in this work...