Mauricio Handler-Ruiz v Michelle Diane Haydon

• Jurisdiction: British Virgin Islands
• Judge: ALLEYNE, J.A.,Justice of Appeal,Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
• Judgment Date: 16 February 2005
• Neutral Citation: VG 2005 CA 2
• Docket Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2003
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Virgin Islands)
• Date: 16 February 2005

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Hon. Mr. Brian Alleyne, S.C Justice of Appeal

The Hon. Mr. Michael Gordon, Q.C Justice of Appeal

The Hon. Mr. Ian D. Mitchell, Q.C Justice of Appeal [Ag.]

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2003

BETWEEN

Mauricio Handler-Ruiz

Appellant

and

Michelle Diane Haydon

Respondent

Appearances:

Ms. Loma Shelly-Williams and Mr. Akhail Khan for the Appellant

Mrs. Margaret Price-Findlay instructed by Ms. Susan Demers for the Respondent

ALLEYNE, J.A.

1 This appeal was against an order of the learned trial judge in an ancillary relief proceeding. The appellant, the petitioner in the court below, appealed against the order of the learned trial judge that (a) the respondent be granted custody of the two children of the marriage with access to the appellant in accordance with the schedule agreed by the parties; (b) the appellant pay a lump sum of $20,000.00 to the respondent as representing her share in the business, the boat and for the value of any benefits lost as a result of the divorce; (c) the appellant continue to pay the monthly rental of the apartment; (d) the appellant pay the children's school fees; (e) the appellant maintain the insurance policy on his life for the benefit of the maintenance benefits; (f) the appellant pay the annual airfare to the United Kingdom for the children.

2 The respondent cross-appealed against the ruling of the learned trial judge that (a) the appellant pay the sum of $500.00 (US) per month as maintenance for her until 31 ^st March 2004; the appellant pay a lump sum of $20,000.00 representing her share of the business, the boat and the value of any benefits lost as a result of the divorce; (c) both parties bear their own costs.

3 By the time the appeal came on for hearing the respondent, a citizen of the United Kingdom, had migrated to that country with the children and the circumstances had changed in a number of ways. The respondent is now employed on a part-time basis in England, earning £168.00 pounds sterling per week, and the children are enjoying free education under the British educational system. The respondent is an experienced banker, with a banking degree.

4 The parties were married on 20 ^th February 1992, and the children were born on 1 ^st July 1997.

5 The appellant has a degree in fine arts and has worked as a photographer and boat captain. The parties together established and ran a business in the Virgin Islands before the divorce. They earned a combined income of $50,000.00 to $55,000.00 per annum out of the business, and each paid approximately equally towards the household expenses. After the birth of the children the respondent stayed home to care for them.

6 At the hearing of the appeal the appeal against the order for custody was withdrawn, and the parties agreed that the respondent would have sole custody of the children, with the appellant having reasonable access and visitation rights, to be agreed between the parties. We are informed that no agreement on these details has been arrived at, but the appellant's requests to visit with the children have never been denied or resisted. Custody and access are not issues in the appeal.

7 The appeal against the order for the payment of rent for the respondent's apartment has also been withdrawn, the parties having agreed that since the respondent has migrated to the United Kingdom with the children and has made independent satisfactory residential arrangements, this aspect of the court's order be discharged by consent. The same applies in relation to the children's school fees in light of the fact that they have access to free education in the United Kingdom.

8 With regard to the learned judge's order that the appellant pay the airfare to the United Kingdom for the children annually, this order is also discharged by consent, in light of the fact that the children now reside in the United Kingdom with their mother. It was also agreed that the 1999 Mitsubishi Mirage car be awarded to the respondent, and it is so ordered.

9 The remaining issues for consideration in this appeal are therefore

• (a) The order for the payment of a lump sum of $20,000.00 to the respondent as representing her share in the business, the boat and for the value of any benefits lost as a result of the divorce. (Both the appellant and the respondent have appealed this order)

• (b) The order for the appellant to maintain the insurance policy on his life for the benefit of the maintenance benefits. As to this, the appellant says that the children are the beneficiaries of the insurance policy or policies on his life. He has undertaken to maintain the insurances and to retain the children of the marriage as the sole beneficiaries of...