Mechanic awarded 25% stake in ex-partner’s home

A mechanic who lived for several years at his now-ex-partner’s St James home and helped expand it while she was abroad has been granted a 25 per cent interest in the property after challenging her for a 50 per cent stake.

In a written judgment, Supreme Court Justice Tania Mott Tulloch Reid ruled that Scott Anthony McKnight, who is also a car salesman, acquired an equitable interest in the upgraded Marine Time Place, Bogue Village, home through substantial financial and physical contributions to its expansion.

“I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant contributed to the improvement of the house and is to take a portion of it. Given the fact that both he and the defendant contributed to the improvement of the house and that it was the defendant who acquired the house, I am of the view that he is not entitled to a 50 per cent share in the property,” the judge said.

McKnight had argued that he invested significant funds and labour based on promises from his former partner, Georgina Smith, also known as Georgina Chin, that they would marry and he would be added to the title. Smith denied any such promise, insisted she alone financed the extensive upgrades, and claimed that McKnight was unemployed and financially dependent on her.

The pair met in 2012, and Smith purchased the two-bedroom house in 2013. They lived together until Smith returned to the United Kingdom.

Beginning in 2018, the modest home – now valued at $36 million – was transformed into a multilevel residence with several new bedrooms, verandas, bathrooms, a garage, balcony, enlarged living areas, and a walk-in closet. This occurred two years after McKnight proposed, at a time when Smith was still legally married – something McKnight said he did not know.

McKnight claimed that he spent more than $15 million on materials, labourers, draughtsmen, roofing specialists, and furnishings. Smith countered that she was the main financier, sending McKnight about £400 “practically every week” for construction. She also said that she routinely supported him because he had no steady income.

Their relationship deteriorated in 2022, and Smith allegedly sent people to remove furniture, asserting sole ownership of the home and its contents.

Produced receipts

In court, McKnight’s attorney, Craig Carter, argued that Smith’s own admissions undermined her credibility, noting that she acknowledged that McKnight supervised the entire project and that she could not confirm whether the money she sent was used for construction or for his personal expenses.

Carter also pointed out that Smith could not state the total cost of the expansion despite claiming to have funded it, even though she admitted sending about £27,000 between 2015 and 2022.

McKnight produced receipts – some illegible – supporting his contributions though they did not total the sum he claimed.

Smith, for her part, provided only two credit card statements and some bank transfers and could not offer a comprehensive figure for her own spending.

Her attorney, Leroy Equiano, argued that Smith never intended McKnight to benefit from the property and that he was merely a licensee permitted to live there. He also contended that McKnight provided no evidence of income or savings to fund the building works.

Justice Mott-Tulloch Reid rejected much of Smith’s evidence, describing her as evasive and inconsistent, especially regarding whether she had been engaged to McKnight. In contrast, the judge found McKnight credible and supported by documentary evidence.

“To hold that the owner on title is the only owner in circumstances where someone else contributed substantially to the extension of the house would be unjust, and equity must step in in these circumstances.

“The doctrine of implied, resulting, and constructive trust does not apply only to a husband and wife or common-law relationship but also to persons living together who have decided together to set up their homes and live together in much the same way spouses do,” the judge said.

According to Justice Mott-Tulloch Reid, the parties’ actions suggested that there was a common intention that McKnight should have a beneficial interest in the property.

The judge concluded that the parties jointly decided on the expansion and that their conduct created a shared intention that the home would be for both of them.

While acknowledging contributions from both sides, the court ultimately awarded McKnight a 25 per cent beneficial interest in the upgraded property.

Among the orders was for McKnight’s lawyer to prepare an instrument of transfer to effect the transfer, which is to be lodged at the office of the Registrar of Titles, with the Registrar of the Supreme Court authorised to execute the transfer if Smith fails to comply.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com