Barbara Gayle
, Staff ReporterTHE LIMITATIONS of Actions Act was enacted in 1881 to put a limit on the time that a person is entitled to bring legal actions in the courts or obtain remedies through the courts.
A ruling on December 1 by the United Kingdom Privy Council in a Jamaican case has sparked much debate because a large number of persons were not aware that one of the parties to a joint tenancy agreement could be dispossessed of the property under the Limitations of Actions Act.
There were many who believed that only squatters could obtain properties under the Act if they had lived on the property undisturbed for more than 12 years.
The Privy Council has held that a spouse who abandons the matrimonial home for more than 12 years can lose his or her share in the property under the Limitations of Actions Act. In order to maintain their interests in the properties, they can make contributions to the properties, even by paying the taxes, get their share of the rental or as the Privy Council said "take action to have the properties sold or rearrange their ownership by an exchange of beneficial interest or even to obtain a proper written acknowledgement of her title."
Myra Wills who had formed a relationship with Alexander George Wills in the 1970s and got married in 1986 after he divorced Elma in 1985, had brought the case to the United Kingdom Privy Council after she lost her case both in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.
RULING
The Privy Council ruled in her favour on December 1 when it held that from as far back as 1976, Elma had "abandoned" the matrimonial home at 84 Sunrise Crescent, St. Andrew as well as another property at 6 Newleigh Avenue, St Andrew which they had owned as joint tenants and therefore the property belonged soley to Mr. Wills who died intestate in 1992.
Elma who was living in the USA had said that in 1987 Mr. Wills offered her $25,000 for her share in the properties. She said she did not accept the offer because it was too low and she had hoped to own the properties as the survivor, so she wanted him to enjoy the rent from the properties and she did not want to deprive him of a roof over his head. Mr. Wills was suffering from leukemia.
However, The Privy Council found that "after 1976 at the latest, George occupied and used the former matrimonial home and enjoyed rents from the rented properties as if he were the sole owner, except so far as he chose to share his occupation and enjoyment with Myra".
Elma and Mr. Wills were joint tenants for the Sunrise Crescent property from 1966 and owned the Newleigh Avenue property from 1957. They were married in 1935.
A WILL
Mr. Wills died intestate (without making a will) in 1992 and Elma attended the funeral and informed the tenants that they were to pay rent to her. Myra applied for letters of administration because there was no will and also sought her claim from her husband's properties.
The Privy Council's ruling means that only Myra and Mr. Wills's three children from his first marriage are the beneficiaries to the properties.
"You must do what is necessary to secure your interest in a property when you know a relationship is over," attorneys-at-law Ingrid Lee Clarke-Bennett and Pamela Shoucair-Gayle, who represented Myra at the Privy Council explained. James Dingemans, Q.C., an English lawyer also appeared for Myra at the Privy Council hearing.
Myra's lawyers explained that a person must not wait until the other person forms a new relationship and then say "you are going to wait until he or she dies before you take steps to claim the property". They said the case was an uphill task for them when they filed the originating summons for Myra in 1992.
JOINT TENANCY
"We felt because the concept was new to this jurisdiction, it was difficult to change what the concept was that joint tenancy cannot be disturbed."
The lawyers said Elma had to be dispossessed because she made no contribution to the properties and received nothing from the properties by way of rent or otherwise.
They said they did not think the Act should be changed because it "has helped one person out of the mire and will in future help many others".
However, attorney-at-law Raphael Codlin who represented Elma at the Privy Council, is calling on Parliament to amend the Act "because serious injury will be done to joint tenants if this judgment is allowed to stand."
