PERSONAL LEGAL FAMILY LAW

View all Family Law blog entries

COHABITEES BEWARE!!

In 2006 Mr Kernott indicated that he wanted to claim his share in the property which by then had increased significantly in value. 

Mr Kernott’s assertion was that he had contributed to the original purchase price of the property and that it was purchased in joint names, should lead to the presumption that the parties intended to jointly share the beneficial ownership of the property. 

Miss Jones’s argued that over the years the common intention of the parties had changed; Mr Kernott had vacated the property and stopped making contributions towards the running of the house.  It was during the latter period when Miss Jones was the sole occupier and paying all outgoings herself, that the property increased in value. 

The County Court Judge who originally heard the case, agreed that the parties’ original intention to own the property in equal shares had changed and since there was no clear evidence as to the division of ownership of the property, the Court imputed a division which it deemed to be fair and reasonable.  The Court decided that Mr Kernott would be entitled to a 10% share, with Miss Jones being entitled to the remaining 90%. 

The case was appealed to the Court of Appeal which decided that an intention to vary the beneficial interest in the property could not be imputed to the parties.  There must be sufficient evidence to justify an inference of intention to vary the interests.  The Court of Appeal decided that the passage of time and Miss Jones’s payment of all household outgoings was insufficient in itself to vary the ownership of the property.  The result being that Mr Kernott and Miss Jones should each be entitled to a 50% share in the property. 

Miss Jones appealed to the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court unanimously restored the order of the County Court and decided that where the parties’ intention as to how they should own property is unclear, the Court is entitled to divide the ownership of the property in a way that it considers fair, having regard to all the facts of the case. 

Prior to this judgement it had been the case that if a property was purchased in joint names, with no documentation having been drafted to alter the beneficial interest held by them; both parties would own the property equally in law and equity. 

This judgement therefore, alters this position so that if there is no documentary evidence to rely upon or any common intention, the Court can now impute a common intention.  This gives the Court opportunity to find a fair solution. 

In 2010 the Law Society issued a statement warning unmarried cohabitees to seek legal advice when combining assets, so they understand the implications of what they are entering into.  For further information about the issues raised above, please contact one of our Family Law Specialists, who will be pleased to help you. 

Should you require any legal advice in relation to these matters – separation, cohabitation and property claims or any other legal matter please do not hesitate to contact Tollers Solicitors.

View all Family Law blog entries