Unmarried couples must share house proceeds

poppy10_2

Oh dear, this doesn't sound good.

COUPLES who live together and buy a home must now split the proceeds equally if they break up.


A landmark legal ruling yesterday laid down clear new rules for the four million unmarried couples who plough their life savings into property.

In a judgment paving the way for thousands of similar claims, a man was ordered to sell his home and divide the proceeds with the partner who dumped him after a 23-year relationship.

Retired fireman Carl Barron, 73, was told his former partner was entitled to half the £150,000 property – even though she did not pay a penny towards the mortgage.

Daily Express
24th April 2008

LillyJ

No it doesn't. Does this apply to tenants in common as well?

mkbean

Reading the article the house was in joint names, and they brought up their 2 kids there.

So its not like she just moved in and later took half the house.

LillyJ

Ok cos me and my partner are buying in tenants in common, so was just wondering.
It seems OK in some ways as she seemed to pay for the kids, but I imagine if it was tenants in common then they would have been set in law what each owned?

Jaine

And if the house wasn't in joint names & there were no kids?

trashman1965

Reading the article I think you'll find nothing has changed - if you live together and both names are on deeds, house is split according to contribution (as in this case), even if one person is not named on the mortgage. |Contribution can be paying bills instead of paying towards mortgage formally, again as in this case.

If the deeds are in sole name and the mortgage also (which is what should be done by solicitors when preparing/amending the deeds) then the house belongs to the person named. Normally, partners, even if they don't formally contribute, are named on the mortgage and the deeds.

Of course this only applies to unmarried couples.

arthur_dent_2

I would imagine that this is a typical newspaper scare story. I would also imagine (although I do not know) that she did many other things in the relationship like pay other bills or bring up children. I cannot imagine that she spent the entire 23 years they were together sat on her bottom doing nothing. Also how much was the house worth when he or they bought or from when she moved in. I suggest that a £150,000 house now wasn't then worth anywhere near that amount.

neverdespairgirl

This isn't legally new at all, there are cases like this going back to the 1970s.

kunekune

It's a bit different from the 1970s cases, actually. If anyone's interested, here is what the court actually said:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/377.html

The newspaper reports, as might be expected, have sensationalised something that isn't sensational at all ... well, except in the sense that it confirms the approach of the HL in Stack v Dowden last year, and repeats the point that these cases should not be handled under resulting trust principles.

Trashman, sorry, but that isn't what it says. That's what the original judge had said: despite the house being in joint names, the original judge said that they should get back what they put in, and the woman had not made any contribution to the purchase price. The appeal court said this was wrong: resulting trust bad, common intention constructive trust good. The important thing was what they intended when they bought the house. His intention might have secretly been that she should not have a share but he never communicated that to her, so it didn't count. The evidence, which included putting joint names on the deeds and the mortgage and making wills in each other's favour, was that they each had an interest. Since the documentation gave her a half-share, the burden was on Mr Barron to establish that wasn't actually intended; he did not manage to do that.

I doubt Mr Barron will appeal; in one sense he was unlucky. The trial judge did not have 'the benefit' of a decision that had not come out when he was deciding the case. So in a way, it was a retrospective change in the law. On the other hand, the rules were very unfair. Ms Fowler might have got more if she wasn't on the title at all, as the judge wouldn't even have considered using a resulting trust analysis. Once the HL clarified how to approach 'joint names' cases, the outcome of this case was very straightforward indeed.

blue_monkey_2

I actually am a bit stunned that a man and women who have lived together, had children together and the woman has given her life to bringing up THEIR children that he can consider giving her nothing at all to start again.

!!!!!! happens. I'd say he retired and she found out what a cantancerous old git he was and could not stand it for a moment longer (I dread the day my husband retires and I have to listen to his moaning all day, LOL!!) but at the end of the day her 'job' was being a full time housewife - a job which goes unpaid so she could not have contributed financially - so I am pleased that is taken into consideration. Being a housewife and all Not that we have a house anyway

Kavanne

What if you break up and the other party doesn't demand 50% of the house? Is it OK then? Or do you HAVE to divide it equally?