Stanaway-Ivey v Overland

JurisdictionJersey
CourtRoyal Court
Judge(Crill, Deputy Bailiff and Jurats Le Quesne and Picot):
Judgment Date28 August 1980
Date28 August 1980
ROYAL COURT
(Crill, Deputy Bailiff and Jurats Le Quesne and Picot):

J.C.K.H. Valpy, for the petitioner;

G. Le V. Fiott, for the respondent.

Family Law—financial provision—maintenance of standards—wife not necessarily entitled to continue living on same lavish scale as permitted through husband's generosity during marriage—entitled to have home sufficient for reasonable needs and adequate funds to enable her to maintain it, having some regard to standards previously enjoyed—wife may reasonably expect to participate in anticipated increases in husband's wealth

Family Law—financial provision—means of parties—court to make assessment of resources respondent known to have and which can reasonably be made available—care needed in consideration of assets not realisable in immediate or foreseeable future—if conflicting valuations, prudent to take lower figure

Family Law—financial provision—means of parties—if substantial means available for division, one-third rule or other mathematical formula not appropriate starting point—court must look at reality of financial situation and take broad view of division of assets to meet justice of case

CRILL, DEPUTY BAILIFF: The parties in this case were married on the 20th August, 1970. They have no children but the respondent accepted as children of the family the two girls and a boy from the petitioner's previous marriage. Nothing we have heard in this case leads us to suppose that the respondent throughout the marriage and subsequently has not treated these children in a very generous way. On the 21st December, 1978, the petitioner filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of the respondent's adultery. An answer was put in which, while admitting the adultery, alleged that it had been conduced by the petitioner's wilful neglect and misconduct and, further, that she had treated the respondent with cruelty. At the hearing of the petition on the 5th September, 1979, the answer was not proceeded with and a decree nisi was granted on the undefended petition to the petitioner. We were invited to examine the answer but we declined to do so. It was apparent to us and particularly after hearing the parties and reading the correspondence that certainly as at the 20th August, 1978, the respondent was not blaming the petitioner for the break-down of the marriage. On the contrary, he expressed his regret in a letter which we were told, although it is not dated, can be dated by Mrs. Overland's recollection of the time she received it, and it is expressed in the fondest terms. It is as follows:—

"My dearest Jill,

This little token is not what I wanted to give you but it is an excuse for me to write this note to you just so you know that I am thinking of you and of the day eight years ago that now seems so far away.

I want you to know that I believe our marriage was still the best anyone could ever hope for and nobody could have given so much as you gave to me, why I changed I will never know but do constantly, and will always regret.

I know this will bring little comfort to you but I want you to know that I do love you.

Keep smiling,

Love David xx

P.S. In case you don't know what it is, its a ladies garter perfume bottle".

There are four issues before the Court on ancillary matters. The first is an application by the wife for the transfer to her of the last matrimonial home in Jersey, Les Champs, Grouville, with its contents; secondly, for a lump sum and thirdly, for a Consent Order regarding the maintenance and education of the three children we have mentioned. Because we have already referred to the attitude of the respondent towards the children and being satisfied that he has always fulfilled his voluntary obligations towards them, we do not think that it would be appropriate to make any Order regarding their education or their maintenance, but merely to note that the respondent is to continue with the arrangements which have existed hitherto. It will be open to the wife to come back to the Court if the husband defaults.

We are left, therefore, with the application for the transfer of Les Champs, a capital sum, and a claim for a contribution for support. These matters are governed by Articles 28 and 29 respectively of the Matrimonial Causes (Jersey) Law, 1949, as amended. These Articles are as follows:

Article 28

Power of Courtto order transfer or settlementof property.

(1) Where a decree of divorce or nullity of marriage or judicial separation has been made, the court may, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the conduct of the parties to the marriage and to their actual and potential financial circumstances and notwithstanding the provisions of Article 26 of this Law, order:

(a) that one party to the marriage transfer to the other party to the marriage, or to any child or children of the marriage, or to such person as may be specified in the order for the benefit of such child or children, any property whether real or personal to which the first mentioned party is entitled;

(b) that a settlement of any property whether real or personal to which one party to the marriage is entitled be made to the satisfaction of the court for the benefit of the other party to the marriage or of any child or children of the marriage.

(2) An order made under this Article, in so far as such order relates to a judicial separation, shall be deemed to be part of the terms of separation between the parties within the meaning of this Law.

Article 29

Financial provision for party to a marriage incases of divorce etc.

(1) Where a decree of divorce, nullity of marriage, judicial separation or restitution of conjugal rights has been made the Court may, having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the conduct of the parties to the marriage and to their actual and potential financial circumstances, order:—

(a) that one party to the marriage shall pay to the other party to the marriage during their joint lives or for such other term as may be specified in the order such annual or other periodic sum for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • J v H
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • July 9, 2014
    ...there are agreed values, with and without the lifetime interest of K. I was also referred to the case of Stanaway-Ivivey v Overland [1980] JJ 233 and asked by the wife's advocate to use the lower figure of the valuations. In this case however, both valuations are agreed and at some stage K'......
  • H (the Mother) v J (the Father)
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • October 3, 2013
    ...JLR Note 21 . S -v- G [2003] JLR Note 29 . Croft -v- Moy (1971) JJ 1793 . Howarth -v- McBride (1984) JJ 1 . Stanaway-Ivey -v- Overland (1980) JJ 233 . Southern (nee Brownbill) -v- Southern and Kingswell [1999] JLR 94 . S -v- W [1999] JLR Notes 9a . Maskell -v- Maskell [2001] EWCA Civ 858......
  • HOWARTH v McBRIDE
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • February 7, 1984
    ...a payment of £100,000. As regards the impact of the Housing Laws upon the parties, the Court in the case of Stanaway-Ivey v. Overland, 1980 J.J. 233, had regard to the Law but that was by consent. Nevertheless, we think it would be unrealistic, if not unfair, for us to disregard the Housing......

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