NASSAU, BAHAMAS: The appellate court has ruled that a man must bear the full burden of a failed family business and make significant payments to his ex-wife, in a decision upholding a lower court’s finding that he had mismanaged funds and failed to disclose key financial information during divorce proceedings.
The appellate court largely affirmed Supreme Court Justice Diane Stewart’s ruling that Ernest Williams was solely responsible for the debts of Sunshine Deli—a business jointly owned by he and his ex-wife, Ingrid Williams—during their 15-year marriage and must reimburse her for monies misused.
The court found that while matrimonial assets are typically shared equally in long marriages, Mr. Williams’ deliberate mismanagement of the deli’s finances and his “egregious” non-disclosure warranted a departure from that norm.
Evidence before the court revealed that Mr. Williams exclusively handled the deli’s finances, including all supplier dealings and bank transactions. However, key records—including point-of-sale reports and receipts—were missing, hampering proper financial assessment. Despite court orders, he failed to provide a full accounting of the business’s operations or cooperate with his own accountant. Both his and his wife’s financial experts confirmed that significant business funds were used for his personal expenses, with little to no record-keeping.
Justice Stewart had previously ruled that Mr. Williams should repay his ex-wife $77,062.08, representing half the business funds he used for personal expenses; pay her one-third of unaccounted transfers from the business, originally calculated at $191,344.41; and share equally the value of a joint British American Financial (BAF) annuity.
On appeal, the court agreed with most of these findings but reduced the $191,344.41 figure to $141,344.41, concluding that the trial judge had inadvertently factored the same $100,000 business debt twice in her assessment— which resulted in double compensation.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Williams’ claims that he was unfairly treated or that his personal financial contributions to the business should have warranted greater consideration. The judges noted that over the course of the long marriage, any such contributions would have become matrimonial property. Likewise, allegations of mismanagement by the wife were found to be unsubstantiated and lacking in evidential support.
The appellate court noted that the trial judge had been entitled to rely on the accountant’s reports and affidavits presented, and that Mr. Williams had repeatedly failed to comply with court directives to produce financial records in a timely manner.
The court concluded that there was no merit to any of Mr. Williams’ complaints, save the correction of the overcompensation
