Cornes v Cornes

JurisdictionBermuda
Judgment Date13 May 1988
Date1988
Docket NumberDIVORCE JURISDICTION 1985 No. 184
Year1988
CourtSupreme Court (Bermuda)
Pamela Christine Cornes
Petitioner
and
Herbert James Cornes
Respondent

[1988] Bda LR 68

DIVORCE JURISDICTION 1985 No. 184

In the Supreme Court of Bermuda

Miss Ann Frith Cartwright and Mrs. Georgia Marshall for the Petitioner

Mr. John Barritt for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

Martyn Ward, J.

When the parties to this suit married, on the 8th September, 1979, it was the Petitioner's second marriage and the Respondent's third. The Petitioner is a citizen of the United States. She had three children by her first marriage. They were in her custody and with her in Bermuda at the time of the marriage. The Respondent accepted them as children of the family, although for a reason which is not clear to me they were not certified as such for the purposes of section 45(1)(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1974. The Respondent is Bermudian. His two children by a former marriage were not in his custody, but he had access to them and was liable to pay $475 per month maintenance for them by Court order.

The Petitioner, who is now 43 years of age, worked at the beginning of the marriage first as a schoolteacher and then as a secretary. She was, in fact, an heiress. The Respondent knew that, but it was not, of course, then known that she would succeed to her inheritance as soon as she did. The Respondent, who is now 55 years of age, was, and is, Deputy Chief Environmental Health Officer, although his official designation has recently changed. He is well qualified by long experience in his field and by having spent three years at Columbia University, on detachment by the Government of Bermuda, acquiring a Masters Degree in Public Health and Environmental Management.

From the settlement of her financial affairs with her former husband, the Petitioner had about $145,000 invested in the United States through the agency of the United States Trust Company of New York and she also had $45,000 invested with Fair Haven Investors, Inc., her investment advisors in the United States, as a form of educational trust for her three children. She also received $771 per month from her former husband for their children's maintenance, although he has withheld payment since the beginning of 1986. For his part, the Respondent brought about $15,000 in savings into the marriage and a net salary of $2,100 per month.

The parties lived first at the Respondent's rented accommodation, known as “Greenfields”, but this was only a two-bedroom house and manifestly too small for the parties and the Petitioner's three children. Only by liquidating the Petitioner's investments in the United States could a larger home be acquired, but the decision to do this, nevertheless, was taken and a house was found. This was “Coralston Manor”, Cobbs Hill Road, Warwick, and it was bought for about $165,000. The purchase was financed entirely by the Petitioner liquidating part of her assets, the Respondent contributing nothing from his savings. She made payments totalling $69,000 as down payments and for costs and took out a mortgage of $100,000. As the Petitioner was not Bermudian the Conveyance had to be in the Respondent's sole name. The purchase was completed in September, 1980.

By that time, the Petitioner was pregnant — Christine was born on the 17th November, 1980 — and she had given up working in about July, 1980. At the time, non-Bermudians could acquire property in Bermuda, but only by leave of the Governor in Council. The time taken for such an application to be heard would have meant too long a delay to secure “Coralston Manor”, hence the Conveyance into the Respondent's name. Once the parties had settled into their new home, however, such an application was made and granted and the property was then transferred into their joint names. That was on 13th August, 1981. That transfer avoided any difficulty which might otherwise have ensued to the Petitioner's detriment because of the provisions of s.80(1)(b) of the Bermuda Immigration and Protection Act, 1956.

The Petitioner used another part of her settlement monies in buying furniture and shipping it, and furniture which she already owned, from the United States. The Respondent's contribution to furnishing the new home was, I am satisfied, negligible, but there appears to be no issue now relating to furniture. The cost to the Petitioner of removal expenses and refurbishing “Coralston Manor” was of the order of $30,000.

From the date of the purchase until December, 1982, the Respondent paid the mortgage instalments of $936 per month (I intend to omit all references to cents) and he claims that he was obliged to draw on his savings of $15,000 towards other household expenses, until his savings were exhausted, although I was never satisfied from his evidence that his savings were spent in that way.

Very soon after taking up residence at “Coralston Manor” the kitchen was renovated for which purpose the Respondent took out a bank loan of $15,000. The renovations cost more than that and the Petitioner drew on the balance of her funds in the United States to meet the extra costs.

At that stage, had the parties been asked who owned the home, I have little doubt that both would have said that the Petitioner did. The speculation is not an idle one. Despite the fact that the parties had been married such a short time, and that they had a child, I believe the Petitioner when she said that from the outset she had serious reservations about the wisdom of her having married the Respondent. Nevertheless, she continued with the marriage.

And then in October, 1982, her father died and she inherited what, on any view, was a considerable sum of money invested in the U.S. and in Switzerland, together with furniture from his home in France. The value of the Petitioner's inheritance was then of the order of $2,000,000, producing an annual income in excess of $100,000 before tax. Of course, it transformed her life. Immediately, she was able to contemplate expenditure which would never have been possible before. Principally, she put in hand...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT