Golding, Huntley James V Maragh Blossom Monica
Golding, Huntley James V Maragh Blossom Monica
233
AND
Property (Rights of Spouses) Act – whether applicant and now deceased partner
were unmarried and cohabited as man and wife for 5 years or more – Child born
to a third party during the relationship - documentary evidence .
Stuart Stimpson and Kimberly Williams instructed by Hart, Muirhead & Fatta for the
Applicant Blossom Maragh
IN CHAMBERS
COR : BATTS J
[1] On the 12th day of December 2016, I granted the Declaration stated at paragraph
15 below. I promised then to put my reasons in writing at a later date. This
judgment fulfills that promise.
[2] Mr. Stimpson has made it clear that his client was not relying on the Property
(Rights of Spouses) Act in order to claim an interest in 12 Lancelot Avenue. This
is because those premises had never been the matrimonial home. His client’s
concern was to be declared a spouse and in that way share an interest in all the
rights and privileges granted by law.
[3] It was agreed between the parties that the Judges Bundle filed on the 24 th
November 2016 contained the relevant affidavits. It was further agreed that two
of the affidavits would not be relied upon. This because Messrs. John Golding
and Bernard Golding, the affiants, would not be called.
[4] The Applicant swore two affidavits and relied on an affidavit of Aaron Yates. The
objectors Sherron Golding, Orville Golding and Shaniqcoy Golding all filed
affidavits and relied on the affidavit of Lorna Moulton. All affiants were cross-
examined.
[5] Having seen and heard the witnesses and received the documentary evidence I
was satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the Applicant had enjoyed a
spousal relationship with the deceased for in excess of 5 years. They had lived
together as man and wife for in excess of that period and did so at premises
owned by the Applicant. I will not restate all the evidence presented but instead
will only indicate those bits of the evidence which drove me to my conclusion.
[6] Mr. Aaron Yates had known both the deceased and the applicant for over thirty
three (33) years. He lived in Nannyville and was a retired grounds man who
worked at Excelsior High School. The Applicant had also been employed at
Excelsior High School and also lived in Nannyville. Mr. Yates would pass her
house to get to his home. His evidence was clear and I accepted him as a
witness of truth. There was one major discrepancy as his affidavit stated that it
was Mr. Huntley Golding who had introduced him to Ms. Maragh. However,
when giving evidence he was clear that it was Ms. Maragh who had introduced
him to Mr. Golding. He describes the statement in the affidavit as a “misstate”. I
accept his evidence, in his words:
“no we used to interact. The first time I met him Miss Blossom saw
me call me and I went and she introduced me to Mr. Golding and
said jokefully this is my expected husband. These were her exact
words I think.”
A: He has his house. I did not ask him to put my name on his title because
he has children.”
And,
Q: How?
A: I saw a paper with child’s name. He said he did not know it. He tell me is
a mistake and I must not quarrel with him because him and she have a
relationship. Is by accident that he went with her and child came.”
[9] The Applicant’s case was supported by documents. In particular cards and well
wishes from relatives of Mr. Golding. These relatives regarded her as his
spouse. The card from “Cyril & Family” to “Blossom & Family” read, “Strength &
Hope will come again but for now... do what you need to honour this sorrow,
letting your heart and sprit heal. Thinking of you”
The card from “Andy & Family” to “Blossom & Family” read, “We know our words
can’t take away your sense of loss, but were hoping you can find some comfort in
knowing the memories you shared are forever.”
The thank you card from May, Garfield, Nadea, Val, Steve and Senior read:
The Applicant also exhibited bills and receipts in her name related to the
funeral expenses of Mr. Golding. This corroborated her account that she
had borne all his funeral expenses.
[10] The Objectors’ evidence was not convincing. In many ways it was based on
conjecture. They were unable to explain the sympathy cards issued to the
Applicant. Indeed when I asked Orville Golding whether he was familiar with Aunt
May he answered in the affirmative. He acknowledged that the card had been
sent to the Applicant. He could give no explanation for such a card being sent if
the Applicant was not living with Mr. Golding.
[11] Other than Lorna Moulton and Shaniqcoy Golding, those giving evidence for the
objectors lived outside Jamaica. They were therefore hardly in a position to
speak to the residence of the deceased. Ms. Moulton admitted that her
relationship with the deceased ended in 2002,
“After I received a phone call from the Applicant asserting that she and the
deceased had got married.”
[12] Sherron Golding admitted that she often spoke to her father on the phone when
he was in Nannyville. She acknowledged knowing uncle Cyril. She too could not
adequately explain the condolence cards sent to the Applicant.
Even her own words inadvertently suggest that the deceased had a spousal
relationship:
“Q: You can’t say he was not living with Miss Maragh from 2005 until
he died?
A: He tells me that to get away from her to go over and spend a week
or two. That’s why he did not sell the house somewhere to go
because of argument. His clothes still there, the tables and chairs.
Q: Then he go back?
A: I guess so.”
Manifestly, if this is true, the deceased by those words is acknowledging that his
place of abode is with the Applicant. When there is a disagreement he retreats
to his house for a short period.
[13] Shaniqicoy Golding was the daughter the deceased had by Lorna Moulton. Her
evidence in cross-examination was telling:
A: Sometimes.
A: Yes.
Q: From you were a little girl that’s where you went to get your lunch money
for school?
A: Yes, sometimes.”
[14] I preferred the evidence of the Applicant and her witness to that of the objectors.
On the evidence and on a balance of probabilities, I found that the Applicant was
a single woman who lived and cohabited with Mr. Huntley Golding a single man
as if she were in law his wife for a period in excess of five (5) years.
2. No order as to Costs.
David Batts
Puisne Judge