Common-law partner to get equal share

Judge also denies man’s claim for spousal support

A Cape Breton man’s bid to deny his common-law partner of 26 years compensation for her contributions to the home they shared has been rejected.

In addition, the man’s claim for spousal support was also denied.

In a recently released Supreme Court Family Division decision, Justice Lee Anne MacLeod Archer rebuffed a claim by John Lettice that his former partner Kimberly Fudge was not entitled to any interest in the home the couple shared in Sydney Mines.

“She provided many unpaid services including childcare, cooking, cleaning and home maintenance services. Her contributions were particularly important because Mr. Lettice worked away from home (in Alberta),” said the judge in her written decision.

“She was an equal partner in this relationship and should receive an equal share of the family wealth.”

MacLeod-Archer awarded Fudge a 50 per cent interest in the family home and both names are to appear on the deed.

“Should Mr. Lettice refuse to sign a deed, the local sheriff shall be empowered as trustee to sign on his behalf, at his expense,” ruled MacLeod-Archer.

The ruling gives Lettice 30 days in which to buy out Fudge’s interest in the home, pegged at $48,400, or the home is to be sold with the net proceeds being split equally between the two.

“I further find that Mr. Lettice is not entitled to compensatory support. He was the higher income earner during the relationship. He did not suspend his career aspirations to support Ms. Fudge nor did he prioritize family over career. In fact, the opposite is true.”

During the hearing, Fudge argued she contributed to the household expenses throughout the relationship even though the pair kept separate bank accounts. In addition to being primary caregiver to their son, she also worked outside the home, sometimes at two jobs.

Lettice countered, explaining the home was in his name and he paid the mortgage, insurance and taxes and that he further added to the value of the home by building a garage and installing a pool.

“I find that he was enriched by the tangible contributions and financial support of Ms. Fudge,” said the judge.

“Public policy does not support denial of compensation to a common-law partner of 26 years who spends her best years contributing to the family in the ways Ms. Fudge did. There is a basic unfairness about that arrangement which would offend a reasonable person’s standards.”

The judge ruled that without Fudge’s contributions over the years, it was doubtful that Lettice would own a home with a pool, garage, workshop along with other assets and little debt.