Locked out! - Man loses fight for share of St Andrew house bought with ex-spouse

A man who left a property in 2002 and did not contribute to mortgage payments for nearly two decades has lost his legal battle to reclaim interest in the St Andrew house, which the Supreme Court says fully belongs to his former spouse.

According to Justice Tara Carr, though the two jointly bought the house, the woman "has dispossessed" him of his interest in the property through the adverse possession provision of the law.

The judgment, handed down on March 7 dismissed the lawsuit brought by Roy Dassado for a 50 percent share in the house at 2 Vilma Avenue in Hughenden, St Andrew.

Dassado filed the lawsuit in 2020, some 18 years after leaving the property, asserting that it was the family home shared with Jennifer Brown, his former partner and co-owner.

However, the court found that Brown had exercised sole control over the home for more than two decades, barring Dassado from entry, maintaining the property, and paying the mortgage without his input.

The court ruled that she had dispossessed him of his interest under Sections 3 and 30 of the Limitation of Actions Act, which allows a property claim to be extinguished after 12 years of continuous possession by another party.

Justice Carr also ruled that Dassado and Brown were not spouses under the Property (Rights of Spouses) Act (PROSA), as their relationship did not meet the legal definition of a common-law union lasting at least five years immediately before their separation. As a result, the house could not be classified as a family home under that law.

Dassado and Brown were in a relationship from 1988 to 2002 and had one child together. They purchased the home jointly in 1999. However, Dassado admitted to having an affair, which led to their separation in July 2002. Following the split, Brown changed the locks, effectively barring him from the home.

Meanwhile, the court determined that Brown had met the legal threshold for adverse possession, finding that she had been in “exclusive physical possession of the property since the claimant (Dassado) was locked out in July of 2002.” Justice Carr concluded:

“I also find that by locking him out, the defendant has satisfied me that she intended to treat with the property as her own. She has made significant repairs to the house over the period, paid the mortgage and property taxes without the input or agreement of the Claimant. Additionally, and most importantly, she has prevented the Claimant from having access to the property," the judge said.

Dassado argued that despite his forced departure, he still held an interest in the house. He claimed to have maintained the property by paying the mortgage, cleaning the yard, and painting the house.

However, Brown strongly refuted these claims, presenting bank records, tax receipts, and invoices proving that she alone had paid the mortgage and upkeep for more than 20 years.

The judge accepted her position.

“I did not accept the evidence of the Claimant as to his involvement with the property after he was unceremoniously evicted in July 2002. I am not of the view that having been locked out of the property that he would continue to maintain it by sending persons to clean the yard," Carr said.

Under the Limitation of Actions Act, a co-owner can lose their interest in a jointly owned property if another co-owner maintains exclusive possession for 12 years or more. The court found that Brown had met this threshold, and Dassado’s inaction for nearly two decades was fatal to his claim.

Justice Carr pointed out that Brown had lived in the home undisturbed for over 12 years, making mortgage payments without assistance, fulfilling requirements of the Mimitation of Actions Act.

“The evidence presented is stark and does not disclose a sufficient basis to find that they were living together as if they were husband and wife," said the judge, who added that Brown had demonstrated hostile acts toward Dassado’s claim, further strengthening her case.

“In this case, her acts were in fact hostile to the claimant, and her decisions regarding the property clearly demonstrate that she had the intention to exercise control over the property for her own benefit.”

Dassado has been ordered to pay Brown's legal fees.

He was represented by attorney Nicholas Jarrett instructed by McKenzie Powell and Company. Attorney Jermaine E Campbell instructed by Williams and Campbell appeared for Brown.

Follow The Gleaner on X, formerly Twitter, and Instagram @JamaicaGleaner and on Facebook @GleanerJamaica. Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-499-0169 or email us at onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com or editors@gleanerjm.com.