Hector v Hector
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE MEGAW,LORD JUSTICE SCARMAN |
| Judgment Date | 22 March 1973 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1973] EWCA Civ J0322-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 22 March 1973 |
[1973] EWCA Civ J0322-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Appeal (by leave) of husband from order of Mr. A. B. Hollis, Q. C. (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge of the Family Division)on 14th July, 1972.)
Revised.
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Megaw and
Lord Justice Scarman.
Mr. PAUL MILLER (instructed by Messrs. Armstrong & Co.) appeared on behalf of Earl Ellington Hector.
Mr. IVAN KROLICK (instructed by Mr. 3.D. Laddice) appeared on behalf of Carol Augustine Hector.
This case raises a question under the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970 as to the proper way of dealing with a matrimonial home. It is a situation which often occurs In these oases. The parties married many years ago. They came from the Jest Indies originally. There are five children: a son born in 1955, who has now returned to the west Indies; another son born in 1957; a daughter born in 1959; a son in 1960, and now a daughter; the youngest, in 1965 All those children have been with the family all the time. we are concerned with the house which is No. 14 Belfort Road, London, S. E.15. It was bought in 1963 In the husband's name alone, with a mortgage. The price was £3,300, found by mortgages amounting to some £3,000, them to find £300 in cash. The wife says that she found a very considerable part of that money. For many years both went out to work. The mortgage instalments were repaid out of their combined resources.
On 25th October 1971 the Registrar of the Lambeth County Court held under section 17 of the 1882 Act that hey held the property beneficially in equal shares, although it was in the husband's name.
Unfortunately this marriage has foundered; there has been a divorce. There were proceedings before the Magistrate whereby the husband was ordered to pay £2 a week for each child while they were under 16 and £1 a week for the wife.
He left in June of 1970; there was a decree nisi in November 1971 and a decree absolute in February 1972. Now the question is what is to be done about the property, and particularly about the house. It is the only asset. The husband has met another lady and he intends to marry again. The wife has remained in the house with the family, bringing up the four children.
It is a large house with five bedrooms. She has been bringing up the children and going out to work as a telephonist earning £20 a week. Ever since the husband left she has kept up out of her earnings the mortgage instalments, the rates and so forth.
The case was heard by Mr. Hollis, Queen's Counsel, sitting as a Deputy Judge. He thought the right course was to make sure that the wife had the title to the property altogether in herself. He ordered the husband to transfer the whole of his interest to her. That was quite right. As we indicated in Wachtel v. Wachtel, when a husband leaves the wife; and the wife is left in the home bringing up the children. then the right thing is to transfer the home to the wife alone so that she has that security to bring up the family as they have been in the past. So it is right to order the transfer of the whole of the husband's interest in the property legal and beneficially to the wife under section 4(a)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Codrington v Codrington
...the matrimonial home and the wife left. The wife was given a charge on the matrimonial home to the extent of one third its value and in Hector v. Hector [1973] 3 All E.R. 1070 the same principle was used in apportioning, except that the wife remained in the matrimonial home. 25 In view of a......
-
Moze v Moze et Al
...consideration and similarly stated one-third of the gross income to a wife was virtually unsatisfactory, it was no longer helpful. 34 In Hector v. Hector [1973] 3 All E.R. 1070, which concerned the transfer of property and financial payments to the wife, the Judge had ordered the husband to......
-
Ottley v Ottley
...home, to wit, $3,040.00 per month as a periodical payment, with liberty to apply if and when such instalment is varied. 38 Hector v Hector [1973] 3 All E.R. 1070 at p. 1073 and Burridge v Burridge [1982] 3 All E.R. 80. 39 Likewise, I propose to order that the sum of $59,052.37 which is o......
-
Jones (M.A.) v Jones (W.)
...vesting the whole of the beneficial interest in the wife. 19 Reference was made in his argument by counsel for the wife to the case of Hector v. Hector (1973 3 All England Reports 1070), I cannot derive assistance from that case for the present purposes. It was a case in which the wife was ......