THE SUNDAY GLEANER, MARCH 6, 2022 | NEWS A5 BUSINESSWOMAN CLAUDETTE CrooksCollie has won her latest battle against attempts by her estranged husband, a medical doctor and former politician, Dr Charlton Collie, to have a share of her $85-million home in StAndrew. The Court of Appeal on Friday overturned a lower court’s ruling that Dr Collie was entitled to a 20 per cent interest in the property to which he only contributed $1.3 million in “cosmetic” support. He wanted half of the property value. Crooks-Collie has led the investment firm MoneyMasters Limited, while Dr Collie is a pulmonologist and former Jamaica Labour Party member of parliament-candidate. The two got married in March 2012 after 30 years of friendship, but the court said it was partly an extramarital affair as Dr Collie was married to someone else from June 1984 to October 2011. The new marriage broke down quickly, as by August 2013 they were sleeping separately and by October that year Dr Collie filed a claim, which he amended in 2015, in the Supreme Court, seeking, among other things, a declaration that the property at Plymouth Avenue was the family home and he was entitled to 50 per cent interest in it. Crooks-Collie resisted the claim that was made under the Property (Rights of Spouses) Act (PROSA), a legislation that allows spouses who are separated or got divorced to assert their interests in matrimonial property years after that separation or divorce with the court’s permission. She argued that the Plymouth property was bought in 2003 and owned solely by her, was not intended to be the family home and that the marriage was of a short duration. 20 PER CENT INTEREST The Supreme Court judge who heard the case concluded that the property was the family home and awarded Dr Collie a 20 per cent interest instead of the 50 per cent he sought. Although he did not grant Dr Collie the 50 per cent interest in the property, the judge said the medical doctor was entitled to an interest because, among other things, Dr Collie made “significant” contributions to the improvement of the property, the running of the household, and the payment of bills. Crooks-Collie appealed the decision. Arguments were heard in September 2020. The Court of Appeal argued that the judge’s view was wrong, noting that Dr Collie’s contribution was not sufficient enough to give him any interest in the woman’s house. The court considered evidence that Crooks-Collie bought the property and carried out major refurbishing, without any input from Dr Collie, who was living outside of the island at the time. Crooks-Collie spent over $30 million by the time she started living in it. The court was told that Dr Collie was still married to someone else when, upon agreement with Crooks-Collie, he moved into the Plymouth property in 2008 to live with her and their daughter. By the time they got married in 2012, he had paid for some improvements to the property. He estimated that, by the time of the wedding, he had spent approximately $1.3 million on various cosmetic, but permanent, improvements to the Plymouth property. In 2010, the property was valued at about $85 million. In November 2013, a parish court judge ordered him to leave the property after allegations that he physically abused Crooks-Collie. SIGNIFICANT RISK Friday’s Court of Appeal judgment was written by Justice Carol Edwards but Court President Patrick Brooks and Justice Nicole Foster-Pusey gave opinions on the case, although they ultimately agreed with the Edwards’ conclusions. Brooks said he did not agree with some of Edwards’ reasoning. “I am concerned that the close analysis that my learned sister has applied to this issue runs a significant risk of overturning the learned judge’s findings of fact on matters of evidence when this court has not had the benefit of seeing and hearing the witnesses,” he said, referring to how Edwards handled one of the issues. Dr Collie had argued that the businesswoman purchased the Plymouth property after they both agreed that it would be a good idea for her to buy a property that would be their family home once he was divorced from his first wife. However, he agreed that the Plymouth property was purchased and renovated solely by CrooksCollie without any financial contribution from him. According to him, the only reason his name was not put on the title was to avoid confusion of assets in his divorce proceedings with his first wife. He also claimed that after moving into the property in 2008, he made substantial improvements to the value of the home by installing air conditioning units; tiling the back patio; paving the yard; painting the house; building a dog house and installing decorative globe lights. He also claimed that he was integrally involved in running the household and paid several bills, some of which were in his name. He claimed he paid all the expenses, except the mortgage and their daughter’s tuition. Dr Collie agreed that CrooksCollie bought his first wife’s halfshare in a property he had held jointly with her, referred to as the “Cherry Hill property”. But he denied that this was because that property was earmarked to become their family home. Crooks-Collie countered her estranged husband’s claims, insisting that she was the sole owner of the Plymouth property, having bought and renovated the Plymouth property nine years before their marriage. She said she spent $17 million to purchase the property, and later $13 million to renovate it. She denied any common intention to treat the Plymouth property as the family home, noting that the agreement was to make the Cherry Hill property into the family residence. The Plymouth property was purchased to provide adequate housing for her daughter and her ageing mother, who subsequently died in 2007, she said. Crooks-Collie had also told the court that although she met Dr Collie in 1982, they did not become romantically involved until he separated from his first wife in 1998. By that time, she said, she was already an independent and successful businesswoman who had acquired a substantial amount of assets, including her own investment firm. Crooks-Collie later said Dr Collie reunited with his first wife in April of 1999, before their daughter was born, and that at the time she bought the property, she was not in a relationship and got no help from him. NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE She also claimed that they had had an understanding that, in the event of separation or divorce, they would each retain the assets they had brought into the marriage and that agreement was to be signed reflecting that after the marriage in 2012. Dr Collie had a property at Long Mountain. In the lead Court of Appeal opinion, Justice Edwards said the Supreme Court was correct to rule that the Plymouth property was the family home. She said the lower court ruling that Dr Collie was entitled to 20 per cent of the property was “simply not supported by the evidence”. “The evidence points to the inevitable conclusion that it would be unreasonable or unjust, in all the circumstances, to award the respondent (Dr Collie) any share in the Plymouth property.” The judge also said the “cosmetic improvements” to the property on which Dr Collie relied were voluntarily made for his own benefit and that there was no evidence from him that Crooks-Collie encouraged him. In a brief comment, Justice Foster-Pusey argued that while common intentions can be drawn from extramarital affairs, “it is questionable whether there was any common intention for Dr Collie to have a beneficial interest in the Plymouth property. “At best, the contributions that Dr Collie made could only be described as minuscule,” she said. Claudette Crooks-Collie was represented by Queen’s Counsel Denise Kitson and Anna Kaye Brown who were instructed by the firm Grant, Stewart, Phillips & Company. Sashawah Newby argued for Dr Collie. editorial@gleanerjm.com Businesswoman wins battle to keep estranged husband out of $85m home CONTRIBUTED Dr Charlton Collie and Claudette Crooks-Collie on their wedding day in March 2012.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUzNTI=