Click here. See the link. See Paragraph 62. In considering mortgage payments and the downpayment, Mr. Boswell's total contribution with downpayment and mortgage payments exceeded Ms. Johnson's by $368000.00 over four years of mortgage payments. But Ms. Johnson paid the JPS bills and maintained the property generally with cleaning, painting and general maintenance in Mr. Boswell's absence. The difference between the parties is minimal in terms of direct contributions. This is an inciteful case with an excellent review of resulting trust and constructive trusts. First, the resulting trust from direct contributions must be considered and Ms. Jennifer Johnson contributed to the down payment with $1,200,000.00 from her NHT benefit while Mr.Johnson contributed less at only $ 800,000.00. Mortgage contributions should be factored into Resulting trust direct contributions also. Then we can consider the renovations and any basis for a Constructive Trust analysis but there is sufficient cogent evidence to assess direct contributions for a resulting trust. A Constructive Trust analysis is not central to this case. The home was registered as JTIC(Joint Tenants In Common). From all the evidence, a 50/50 equitable division would be appropriate in all the circumstances as this is what the registration indicated. There would be no need to go beyond the evident intention in the registration of the property unless the parties made application to do so. They would have to satisfy the evidentiary burden on the course of their Court Application. In such Application, arguably a 50/50 division of the ownership and the beneficial interest with a payment of the monetary difference( the $368000.00 ) in actual contribution over four years to Mr. Boswell is an appropriate consideration. In other words, if the equity( see the calculation for equity) after sale is $1,000,000.00, both parties will receive 50%(that is $500,000.00) as the property register indicates while the application of the parties sought the Court's redress to ensure a result that satisfied their intention as it would not have been clear who would have paid most of the mortgage in the final analysis. This approach of transferring the difference in contributions should not be followed. It is not a loan and if the equity is only $500,000.00, it renders one party a debtor to the other while they shared the risk of the investment. In following that erroneous approach It could be argued that the Application for an equitable result beyond what the registration indicated is solved as follows: Mr. Boswell would receive as noted a payment of $368000.00 which is the additional monies he paid in excess of Ms. Johnson's mortgage and down payment contributions. $50,000.00 will be deducted from the $368000.00 in Ms. Johnson's favor to reflect her JPS light bill payments of $100,000.00 over eight years. $318,000.00 will be transferred from Ms. Johnson's share of the equity to Mr. Boswell. But, what equity is there? This approach should not be followed as they share the risk of success and the entire endeavour mutually. An Alternative and correct disposition is as follows and is the preferred approach; As we cannot say what the equity will be after sale and the entire transaction for profit is a speculative one, we leave the bargain the parties made. What if the equity after sale is only $390,000.00? A more fair, just and equitable approach would be to work out the total contribution to the acquisition and the percentage contributions of each party. A calculation on a resulting trust basis to work out equity percentages that reflect their contributions is helpful. The total contribution of both parties to the Acquisition amounts to $5,360,000.00. Mr. Boswell's contributions(mortgage and down payment) amount to 53% of the total and Ms. Johnson's contributions to Acquisition amount to 47 %. Mr. Boswell will owe Ms. Johnson half of the JPS light bill at $50,000.00. Click here: 2019] JMSC Civ 17 IN[2019] JMSC Civ 17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA IN CIVIL DIVISION CLAIM NO. 2016 HCV 00630 BETWEEN HORACE BOSWELL CLAIMANT AND JENNIFER JOHNSON DEFENDANT IN CHAMBERS. http://supremecourt.gov.jm/content/boswell-horace-v-johnson-jennifer [2019] JMSC Civ 17 IN[2019] JMSC Civ 17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA IN CIVIL DIVISION CLAIM NO. 2016 HCV 00630 BETWEEN HORACE BOSWELL CLAIMANT AND JENNIFER JOHNSON DEFENDANT IN CHAMBERS Mr. Hopeton Henry and Miss Kimberly Taylor for the Claimant Miss Olivia Derrett instructed by Messrs. Oswest Senior-Smith & Co. for the Defendant Heard: September 20, 2018 and February 7, 2019 Equity – Constructive and resulting trusts – Tenants in common – Whether the claimant is entitled to a greater interest in land than that endorsed on registered title A. NEMBHARD, J (AG.) INTRODUCTION [1] This matter concerns the property rights of the Claimant, Mr. Horace Boswell and the Defendant, Miss Jennifer Johnson, in the property located at Lot 5, White River in the parish of Saint Ann, being the land comprised in Certificate of Title registered at Volume 1172 Folio 45 of the Register Book of Titles, (“the subject property”). Mr. Boswell and Miss Johnson acquired the subject property together, which is registered in their joint names as tenants in common, in equal shares. THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA IN CIVIL DIVISION CLAIM NO. 2016 HCV 00630 BETWEEN HORACE BOSWELL CLAIMANT AND JENNIFER JOHNSON DEFENDANT IN CHAMBERS Mr. Hopeton Henry and Miss Kimberly Taylor for the Claimant Miss Olivia Derrett instructed by Messrs. Oswest Senior-Smith & Co. for the Defendant Heard: September 20, 2018 and February 7, 2019 Equity – Constructive and resulting trusts – Tenants in common – Whether the claimant is entitled to a greater interest in land than that endorsed on registered title A. NEMBHARD, J (AG.) INTRODUCTION [1] This matter concerns the property rights of the Claimant, Mr. Horace Boswell and the Defendant, Miss Jennifer Johnson, in the property located at Lot 5, White River in the parish of Saint Ann, being the land comprised in Certificate of Title registered at Volume 1172 Folio 45 of the Register Book of Titles, (“the subject property”). Mr. Boswell and Miss Johnson acquired the subject property together, which is registered in their joint names as tenants in common, in equal shares.

See Paragraph 62. In considering mortgage payments and the downpayment,  Mr. Boswell's  total contribution with downpayment  and mortgage payments  exceeded Ms. Johnson's by $368000.00 over four years of mortgage payments. But Ms. Johnson paid the JPS bills and maintained the property generally with cleaning, painting and general maintenance in Mr. Boswell's absence.  The difference between the parties is minimal in terms of direct contributions.     This is an inciteful case with an excellent review of resulting trust and constructive trusts.  First, the resulting trust from direct contributions must be considered and Ms. Jennifer Johnson  contributed to the down payment with $1,200,000.00 from  her NHT benefit while Mr.Johnson contributed less at only $ 800,000.00. Mortgage contributions should be factored into Resulting trust direct contributions also. Then we can consider the renovations and any basis for a Constructive Trust analysis but there is sufficient cogent evidence to assess direct contributions for a resulting trust. A Constructive Trust analysis is not central to this case.  The home was registered as JTIC(Joint Tenants In Common).  From all the evidence, a 50/50 equitable division would be appropriate in all the circumstances as this is what the registration indicated. There would be no need to go beyond the evident intention in the registration of the property unless the parties made application to do so. They would have to satisfy the evidentiary burden on the course of their Court Application.   In such Application,  arguably a 50/50 division of the ownership and the beneficial  interest with a payment of the monetary difference( the $368000.00 ) in actual contribution over four years to Mr. Boswell is an appropriate consideration.   In other words, if the equity( see the calculation for equity)  after sale is $1,000,000.00, both parties will receive  50%(that is $500,000.00)   as the property register indicates while the application of the parties  sought the Court's redress to ensure a result that satisfied their intention as it would not have been clear who would have paid most of the mortgage in the final analysis. This approach of transferring the difference in contributions should not be followed. It is not a loan and if the equity is only $500,000.00, it renders one party a debtor to the other while they shared the risk of the investment.  In following that erroneous approach It could be argued that the Application  for an equitable result beyond what the registration indicated   is solved as follows:  Mr. Boswell would  receive as noted a payment of $368000.00 which is  the additional monies he paid in excess of Ms. Johnson's mortgage  and down payment contributions. $50,000.00 will be deducted from the $368000.00 in Ms. Johnson's favor to reflect her JPS light bill payments of $100,000.00 over eight years.  $318,000.00 will be transferred from Ms. Johnson's share of the equity to Mr. Boswell. But, what equity is there? This approach should not be followed as they share the risk of success and the entire  endeavour mutually.   An Alternative and correct  disposition  is as follows and is the preferred approach;
As we cannot say what the equity will be after sale  and the entire transaction for profit is a speculative one, we leave the bargain the parties made.  What if the equity after sale is only $390,000.00?  A more fair, just and equitable approach would be to work out the total contribution to the acquisition and the percentage contributions of each party. A calculation on a resulting trust basis to work out equity percentages that reflect their contributions is helpful. The total contribution of both parties to the Acquisition  amounts to $5,360,000.00.  Mr. Boswell's contributions(mortgage and down payment)  amount to 53% of the total and Ms. Johnson's contributions to Acquisition  amount to 47 %.  Mr. Boswell will owe Ms. Johnson half of the JPS light bill at $50,000.00.

The above commentary  and analysis was written by Warren A. Lyon who was raised in Kingston and Spanish Town.

––
    Click here: 2019] JMSC Civ 17  IN[2019] JMSC Civ 17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA  IN CIVIL DIVISION  CLAIM NO. 2016 HCV 00630  BETWEEN HORACE BOSWELL CLAIMANT  AND JENNIFER JOHNSON DEFENDANT  IN CHAMBERS.

http://supremecourt.gov.jm/content/boswell-horace-v-johnson-jennifer

[2019] JMSC Civ 17
IN[2019] JMSC Civ 17
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA
IN CIVIL DIVISION
CLAIM NO. 2016 HCV 00630
BETWEEN HORACE BOSWELL CLAIMANT
AND JENNIFER JOHNSON DEFENDANT
IN CHAMBERS
Mr. Hopeton Henry and Miss Kimberly Taylor for the Claimant
Miss Olivia Derrett instructed by Messrs. Oswest Senior-Smith & Co. for the
Defendant
Heard: September 20, 2018 and February 7, 2019
Equity – Constructive and resulting trusts – Tenants in common – Whether the
claimant is entitled to a greater interest in land than that endorsed on
registered title
A. NEMBHARD, J (AG.)
INTRODUCTION
[1] This matter concerns the property rights of the Claimant, Mr. Horace Boswell
and the Defendant, Miss Jennifer Johnson, in the property located at Lot 5,
White River in the parish of Saint Ann, being the land comprised in Certificate
of Title registered at Volume 1172 Folio 45 of the Register Book of Titles, (“the
subject property”). Mr. Boswell and Miss Johnson acquired the subject
property together, which is registered in their joint names as tenants in
common, in equal shares. THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA
IN CIVIL DIVISION
CLAIM NO. 2016 HCV 00630
BETWEEN HORACE BOSWELL CLAIMANT
AND JENNIFER JOHNSON DEFENDANT
IN CHAMBERS
Mr. Hopeton Henry and Miss Kimberly Taylor for the Claimant
Miss Olivia Derrett instructed by Messrs. Oswest Senior-Smith & Co. for the
Defendant
Heard: September 20, 2018 and February 7, 2019
Equity – Constructive and resulting trusts – Tenants in common – Whether the
claimant is entitled to a greater interest in land than that endorsed on
registered title
A. NEMBHARD, J (AG.)
INTRODUCTION
[1] This matter concerns the property rights of the Claimant, Mr. Horace Boswell
and the Defendant, Miss Jennifer Johnson, in the property located at Lot 5,
White River in the parish of Saint Ann, being the land comprised in Certificate
of Title registered at Volume 1172 Folio 45 of the Register Book of Titles, (“the
subject property”). Mr. Boswell and Miss Johnson acquired the subject
property together, which is registered in their joint names as tenants in
common, in equal shares.