News / National
Court blocks estranged wife's claim to hubby's estate
2 hrs ago | Views
A United Kingdom-based woman, Joyce Charlie, has lost her bid to be recognized as the surviving spouse of her late husband, Martin Charlie, after a lengthy legal battle in the High Court. Joyce, who had been married to Martin since 1978, sought a declaratory order stating that the sole asset of his estate, an immovable property in Ardbernie, should be classified as matrimonial property and that she be named the sole beneficiary.
Joyce approached the court after an issue arose during the winding up of Martin's estate. The executor of the estate, Mativenga Lloyd Mhushi, and the Master of the High Court argued that the property did not constitute matrimonial property and should be divided among all beneficiaries, including Martin's four children from previous relationships.
In her application, Joyce claimed that she was the surviving spouse, arguing that the property in question was the matrimonial home they had shared and the only asset of the estate. She further claimed that despite relocating to the United Kingdom in 1999, she had maintained financial ties to the property, sending money to ensure its upkeep. Joyce also argued that since she had been the only spouse during the acquisition of the property, it should be solely hers.
However, the executor contended that Joyce had abandoned the matrimonial home by leaving Zimbabwe and residing in the UK for more than 16 years, which he argued amounted to a de facto divorce. He also pointed out that Joyce had sent her relatives to collect her belongings from the house after Martin's death, further supporting his claim that she had severed ties with the property.
Justice Gladys Mhuri, in her ruling, acknowledged that Joyce was indeed the surviving spouse of Martin. However, the key issue was whether she had lived in the property immediately before his death. The judge noted that Joyce had been absent from the matrimonial home for over 16 years, failing to return even during Martin's illness or funeral.
The judge highlighted that Joyce did not provide sufficient evidence that she had sent money for the maintenance of the house or the care of their children during her absence. Furthermore, she had not returned to the house, nor had she made efforts to care for her husband in his final years.
"Joyce never returned to this house since her departure in 1999, not even to come and see her ailing husband, not even to come and attend his funeral and burial," Justice Mhuri stated. "Thus, I conclude that even applying the purposive approach, it cannot be said applicant lived in the house immediately before deceased's death."
In light of these facts, the judge concluded that Joyce had failed to meet the requirement of living in the matrimonial home before Martin's death, and as such, she was not entitled to inherit the property.
The case has highlighted the complexities of property ownership and inheritance in situations where couples have been living apart for extended periods. Despite her lengthy marriage, Joyce's absence from the property for more than 16 years ultimately played a pivotal role in the court's decision.
Joyce approached the court after an issue arose during the winding up of Martin's estate. The executor of the estate, Mativenga Lloyd Mhushi, and the Master of the High Court argued that the property did not constitute matrimonial property and should be divided among all beneficiaries, including Martin's four children from previous relationships.
In her application, Joyce claimed that she was the surviving spouse, arguing that the property in question was the matrimonial home they had shared and the only asset of the estate. She further claimed that despite relocating to the United Kingdom in 1999, she had maintained financial ties to the property, sending money to ensure its upkeep. Joyce also argued that since she had been the only spouse during the acquisition of the property, it should be solely hers.
However, the executor contended that Joyce had abandoned the matrimonial home by leaving Zimbabwe and residing in the UK for more than 16 years, which he argued amounted to a de facto divorce. He also pointed out that Joyce had sent her relatives to collect her belongings from the house after Martin's death, further supporting his claim that she had severed ties with the property.
Justice Gladys Mhuri, in her ruling, acknowledged that Joyce was indeed the surviving spouse of Martin. However, the key issue was whether she had lived in the property immediately before his death. The judge noted that Joyce had been absent from the matrimonial home for over 16 years, failing to return even during Martin's illness or funeral.
The judge highlighted that Joyce did not provide sufficient evidence that she had sent money for the maintenance of the house or the care of their children during her absence. Furthermore, she had not returned to the house, nor had she made efforts to care for her husband in his final years.
"Joyce never returned to this house since her departure in 1999, not even to come and see her ailing husband, not even to come and attend his funeral and burial," Justice Mhuri stated. "Thus, I conclude that even applying the purposive approach, it cannot be said applicant lived in the house immediately before deceased's death."
In light of these facts, the judge concluded that Joyce had failed to meet the requirement of living in the matrimonial home before Martin's death, and as such, she was not entitled to inherit the property.
The case has highlighted the complexities of property ownership and inheritance in situations where couples have been living apart for extended periods. Despite her lengthy marriage, Joyce's absence from the property for more than 16 years ultimately played a pivotal role in the court's decision.
Source - newsday
