Marvin Keithlyn Elroy Trott v Edwina Elizabeth Trott

• Jurisdiction: Bermuda
• Judgment Date: 27 June 1995
• Docket Number: Divorce Jurisdiction 1993: No. 256
• Date: 27 June 1995
• Court: Supreme Court (Bermuda)

In the Supreme Court of Bermuda

Ward, CJ

Divorce Jurisdiction 1993: No. 256

BETWEEN:

Marvin Keithlyn Elroy Trott

Petitioner

and

Edwina Elizabeth Trott

Respondent

Miss Benskin for the Petitioner

Miss Lomas for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

The parties were married on 5th September 1968. They separated in June 1993. Decree Nisi was pronounced on 27th May 1994 and it was made absolute on 2lst July 1994. The parties are now 52 and 49 years of age respectively. There are two children of the family both over 18 years of age and the younger of whom is still attending university. The marriage lasted for 24 years. It is not disputed that until the breakdown of the marriage the wife performed the functions of wife and mother. That is not to say that there are not different emphases laid on the extent of the contribution of each party, but in general the wife's contribution has been recognized.

In her Notice of Application for Ancillary Relief dated 3rd June 1994 the wife seeks orders for periodical payments, lump sum, property adjustment for herself and for the dependent children. The children are now aged 24 and 22 years respectively. The elder has completed his university education (at least for the time being) and should soon be gainfully employed. The younger is still attending university. That aspect of the wife's application was not pursued.

More particularly the wife seeks the right to reside in the former matrimonial home for life. She said that she felt she had earned her right to live in it and that she has done so for 22 years. But it is more than a mere life interest which she is seeking, for she said that if she is allowed to reside there and the children should also stay with her, then they will help with the upkeep of the house because eventually it will be theirs. The ultimate disposition of the property was clearly still in her mind.

In her opening remarks Miss Lomas for the wife said that if the wife were allowed to reside in the home for life, she would seek no other benefit. The valuers of the former matrimonial home also prepared a valuation of the capital value of the life interest in it of a woman aged 48 years and assessed such life interest to be worth $130,000. I do not know if the late disclosure of the valuation of the wife's life interest led to a reassessment of her claim for a capital sum. But it is apparent that in her written submission the previous position was modified so that it became an interest of the wife entitling her to reside in the former matrimonial home for life or until remarriage and in the event that the interest should terminate on remarriage then in such case two-thirds of the capital value of the property at the time of the remarriage should be paid to the wife as a lump...