The Dubai Civil Court of First Instance has ordered a man to pay his ex-wife Dh896,841, representing half the value of a villa registered in their joint names. The ruling came after an expert report found that the woman had covered the full down payment, mortgage, interest and related fees for the property. However, the court rejected her claim for Dh679,000, which she said was a loan to her ex-husband, citing a lack of evidence that the bank transfers were loans.
The dispute stems from a marriage that ended in divorce. During the marriage, the wife purchased a villa and paid the down payment, property financing and related fees from her own funds. However, ownership of the property was registered equally between the spouses, with each holding a 50% share.
The wife told the court that she had paid the full cost of the villa and all financing expenses. She said her ex-husband had not contributed his share towards either the property's value or the financing instalments, despite half of the property being registered in his name. She added that she expected him to reimburse the amounts she paid on his behalf.
According to a court-appointed expert committee, the wife paid the down payment, fees, the full mortgage amount and interest, as well as developer charges. The total amount she spent on the property, loan and related fees reached Dh1.793 million.
The report found no evidence that the husband had paid his share of the property’s value, any mortgage instalments, or the associated interest.
The court held that, since the property was registered equally between the two parties and the wife had proven that she paid all related costs, the husband was obliged to reimburse half of those expenses. It therefore awarded her Dh896,841, representing half of the total amount she paid towards the purchase, registration fees, loan, interest and service charges.
The court, however, did not grant the wife’s request for the return of Dh679,000, which she claimed her ex-husband had borrowed from her and which she had transferred from her bank accounts.
The expert report showed that there had been reciprocal transfers between the spouses. However, the bank statements did not indicate the reason or purpose of those transactions. Neither party presented contracts or declarations proving that the transferred amounts were loans.
The court said that proof of a bank transfer alone is insufficient to establish that an amount was a loan requiring repayment. It noted that the party making such a claim must provide evidence of the reason for the transfer and the obligation to repay it, which the wife failed to do.
The court also rejected her request to refer the case for witness testimony to prove the alleged loan, finding that the case documents and expert report were sufficient to resolve the dispute.
The husband, meanwhile, filed a counterclaim seeking Dh572,597 from his ex-wife. He said the amount represented fixed sums shown in account statements, in addition to his share of the villa’s alleged lost rental income.
The expert report found that the husband had transferred money to his ex-wife’s account and made payments on her credit cards. However, the court noted that the statements did not specify the reason for these transactions. As the husband failed to prove the existence of a debt owed by his ex-wife, the court dismissed his claim.
The court also rejected his claim for a share of the property's rental income after the expert report found no lease agreements, receipts or invoices proving that the villa had been rented out or that either party had received rental proceeds.
The court clarified that the dispute related to financial transactions and real estate investment between the spouses, rather than contributions towards the marital home. As such, it ruled that the matter fell under the jurisdiction of the civil court, in line with an earlier finding by the Personal Status Court in a previous case between the parties.
The court ultimately ordered the husband to pay the amount, along with 5% legal interest from the date the lawsuit was filed until full payment. It also ordered him to pay court fees, expenses and legal costs, while rejecting all other claims.