Unmarried couples must share house proceeds

neverdespairgirl

I really don't think this represents some massive "news story" shift in the law, as reported. The ratio decidendi of the case seem to be:

The legal technique that the court will use to ascertain whether both joint owners who had been co-habitees had a beneficial interest is that of the common intention constructive test, rather than that of resulting trust. This will enable the court to take a holistic view of the whole of the parties' conduct so far as it illumines their shared intentions about the ownership of the property. The court will not impose any particular allocation of property on the parties. It is not a question of the court deciding what is fair as regards the division of ownership but of determining what the co-owners' shared intentions were as regards beneficial ownership. This was a deliberate policy choice to make the law respond to current needs:

which is not that far removed from 1970s cases such as Eves v. Eves, in effect.

jammie*dodger

£75000 for 23 years. That's a house cleaner, laundress, cook, child minder not to mention bedroom companion for £3260 p.a. sounds like a bargain to me.

kunekune

At the risk of alienating non-lawyers, I think the main difference is the complete rejection of RT in favour of CT. Until Stack v Dowden, RT were being used in cases like this where A and B were both on the title but B didn't contribute; the result being that B lost out completely. Courts are now saying that you can't use a purchase money resulting trust in a domestic context. The common intention is established from the evidence of the title, rather than a financial (or concreting - was that Eves v Eves?) contribution.

Certainly, it's different enough that textbooks that are 2 years ago are now quite out of date on this point. The structure I've had to use to teach the topic has changed quite dramatically - and there are chunks of the books I am having to instruct students to ignore.

neverdespairgirl

kunekune wrote: »

At the risk of alienating non-lawyers, I think the main difference is the complete rejection of RT in favour of CT. Until Stack v Dowden, RT were being used in cases like this where A and B were both on the title but B didn't contribute; the result being that B lost out completely. Courts are now saying that you can't use a purchase money resulting trust in a domestic context. The common intention is established from the evidence of the title, rather than a financial (or concreting - was that Eves v Eves?) contribution.

Certainly, it's different enough that textbooks that are 2 years ago are now quite out of date on this point. The structure I've had to use to teach the topic has changed quite dramatically - and there are chunks of the books I am having to instruct students to ignore.

I agree that as a matter of law there is a real difference. But in effect, there is no new "unmarried couples now have to share proceeds of sale of joint home" as the news made out. What do you think? It's your area of law, not mine.

Eves v Eves was indeed the woman waving the sledgehammer about, from memory.

epz_2

out of interest what happens if someone bought a house last year and moved their partner in, if they split up in a couple of years after a predicted 30% drop does the partner now become liable to any negative equity?

kunekune

Absolutely, there is still no rule that unmarried couples will have to share the proceeds, although press reporting might increase the number who wrongy think they don't need to do anything to protect themselves because they have a 'right' to a share.

The newer cases might make it easier for some as they move away from focussing solely on the size of the financial contribution, but the ones in the worst position - no direct financial contribution, little evidence about what was intended, no name on the title - are still stuffed. The courts are adamant that their decisions are not based on perceptions of 'justice' or 'what the parties ought to have done' but on the application of 'principle' ...

kunekune

epz, I'm not absolutely sure what you mean by share of the negative equity, but basically, this is what would happen:

1. House is bought for £250,000 with deposit of 100,000 and a £150,000 interest only mortgage.
2. Court decides that they are entitled to shares, say of 25/75%.
3. The house is sold for £200,000 .
4. After the mortgage is paid off, there is £50,000.

It is the £50,000 that will be shared 25/75.

Interestingly, in cases where someone put in a lump sum, in this situation, they might try to argue that the lump sum was a loan rather than evidence of intent to share the ownership of the house. That way, they would get their loan back (possibly with interest) and would not lose in line with the loss in value of the house. I'm not sure the courts would be very keen though.

epz_2

say last year they buy a house for 200k with no deposit, house drops in value by 30% to be worth 140k and they split before getting repossesed.

does that mean the person with the name on the deeds could go to court, claim the partner paid 1/2 the bills and make them liable for half the 60k debt.

PasturesNew

Everybody should just get married. After a proper courtship.
That sorts it.

LillyJ

That's what I keep telling my OH. I reckon 7 years is a long enough courtship!
He wants to wait till we're 30. We will have been together 15 years by then!