By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune News Editor

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

A SUPREME Court judge has warned that divorcing couples cannot privately alter deadlines set by the court, after a woman lost her chance to retain the matrimonial home because mortgage delays and informal agreements pushed her past the legally binding cutoff date.

Justice Hope Strachan delivered the ruling in a family dispute in which a divorced mother sought more time to buy out her former husband’s share of their home. Although both sides had agreed to delay the timeline while obtaining a new appraisal, and although the woman had already begun the mortgage process, the judge ruled that their informal arrangements could not displace the strict deadlines imposed by an earlier court order.

The judge found that the woman’s three-month window to purchase her former husband’s 40 percent interest had expired, regardless of whether time was counted from the date the ruling was delivered or from when the order was formally filed. By the time she applied for an extension, the husband had already secured loan approval to buy her out.

Justice Strachan stressed that once an order is perfected — signed, sealed, and filed — the court’s decision is final and cannot be varied under the Re Barrell principle. She found that any attempt to revisit the timeline months later would be outside the court’s jurisdiction and amount to an abuse of process.

The ruling highlighted the practical consequences of relying on mortgage approvals that take months to complete. The woman argued that her lender, the Bahamas Mortgage Corporation, had required additional documents and moved slowly, leaving her unable to complete the purchase before the time expired. But the judge noted that delays at financial institutions did not entitle litigants to unilaterally extend court-mandated deadlines, and she found that the woman had not properly sought an extension before her time ran out.

The judge also pointed out that the parties’ decision to privately treat the appraisal date as the new starting point for the buyout period created a situation the court could not fix after the fact. Because the court was not part of that agreement, it could not rewrite the consequences once the agreed timeline slipped.

As a result, the husband is now free to purchase the woman’s 60 percent interest in the home. The judge also accepted his claim that the wife had fallen behind on her portion of the existing mortgage and ordered that any arrears be deducted from the amount he must pay her. Costs of the application were awarded to him.