Man gets 25% stake in MoBay house after court upholds ex-spouse's ‘promise’ of shared ownership

A man fighting for interest in a $36m St James home controlled by his former partner has been awarded a 25 per cent share after a court ruled he made substantial contributions to expanding the property based on a "promise".

"They both jointly embarked on the project because they were in a committed relationship, and the defendant (Georgina Chin), by relying on the claimant (Scott Anthony McKnight) in the way she did and accepting his proposal for marriage, gave the claimant the impression that the house would be for both of their use," said Supreme Court Justice Tania Mott Tulloch-Reid in her judgment of March 10.

"It was that promise which gave the claimant the confidence that led him to feel comfortable enough to expend his financial and physical resources on the expansion efforts."

However, the judge limited McKnight’s interest to 25% given that Chin originally purchased the house in Bogue Village, Montego Bay, St James, on her own. The property was registered solely in Chin's name.

“I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant (McKnight) contributed to the improvement of the house and is entitled to a portion of it. Given that both he and the defendant contributed to the improvement of the house, and that it was the defendant who acquired the house, I am of the view that he is not entitled to a 50% share in the property," Tulloch-Reid said.

Chin had contended that, although they were together, she financed the expansion.

In his 2022 lawsuit, McKnight, an auto-technician, sought a 50% share, claiming he funded and oversaw significant renovations, spending his own money on expansions and acting in reliance on Chin's promises that the home was theirs to share.

McKnight and Chin were in a 10-year relationship beginning in 2012 and got engaged in 2016, living together in the home Chin bought in 2013. McKnight argued that Chin promised he would be added to the title once they married, but also alleged she did not inform him of her already-married status.

Though Chin frequently returned to the UK, McKnight stayed at the house and supervised an extensive expansion that he said started in 2018. He claimed he used his own funds to construct additional rooms and a second storey.

Chin, however, claimed to have sent money regularly for both McKnight's living expenses and construction costs.

When the expansion was completed, McKnight alleged that Chin sent people to remove furniture from the house in September 2022, but he turned them away.

Chin denied ever claiming the property was theirs, stating McKnight was unemployed during their relationship and only assisted with design aspects and supervision. She claimed responsibility for financing the expansion.

Chin also testified that, although she accepted McKnight's proposal, she was not interested in marriage at the time as she was already married and did not trust his motives. She further stated McKnight knew about her marital status but had been divorced for over four years, though she could not specify when.

The judge found McKnight’s contributions significant, both financially and physically, and that Chin’s actions led McKnight to reasonably believe he had a stake in the home. "It was that promise which gave the claimant the confidence which led him to feel comfortable enough to expend his financial and physical resources on the expansion efforts," Tulloch-Reid explained.

McKnight’s claim was based on constructive trust, which acknowledges ownership stakes when one party contributes significantly despite not being on the title.

The judge ruled McKnight met the standard, stating: “Equity must step in. The doctrine of implied, resulting, and constructive trust does not apply only to a husband and wife or common-law relationship, but also to persons living together who have decided together to set up their homes.”

Despite Chin’s claim that McKnight never had an ownership interest, the court found inconsistencies in her testimony. "Chin was not a very credible witness… If she had not intended the claimant to share in the property, why was it necessary for him to be a part of that decision-making process?" the judge said.

The judge further questioned Chin’s claim of mistrust, pointing out that McKnight lived in the house from 2013 to 2022, supervised construction, and managed finances such as paying workmen and buying materials. "Those are not the actions of someone who does not trust the motives of her partner."

The court also noted discrepancies in Chin's assertion that she sent money every week, citing records showing gaps in payments. It was revealed that Chin did not send any money between 2018 and April 2020 based on her view that no construction was being done during that period.

It also emerged in court that Chin was unsure whether she disputed when the expansion started and could not say how much money she spent to support the expansion.

The court found that based on statements submitted, Chin sent GBP 28,190 (J$5.6 million) between 2013 and 2022. She said the calculation was based on "today's rate... which is different from and more than the exchange rate over the period in question". McKnight claimed to have spent over $15 million on construction, though his receipts did not support that amount, the judge said.

The court ruled McKnight is entitled to a 25 per cent share of the property and ordered the title to reflect his interest. If Chin refuses to sign the transfer documents, the Registrar of the Supreme Court will execute them on her behalf.

Chin must also pay 25% of McKnight’s legal costs.

McKnight was represented by attorney Craig Carter, who was instructed by A McBean & Co.

Attorneys Leroy Equiano and Esther Reid appeared for the defendant.

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.