Court rules on unmarried couples' property rights

BBC News - 09/11/11

A man who left his partner nearly 20 years ago is not entitled to half the value of the house they had shared, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The highest court in England and Wales decided Leonard Kernott was instead entitled to 10% of its value.

Patricia Jones was challenging a Court of Appeal ruling which gave Mr Kernott an equal share of the home's value.

The Essex bungalow was bought in joint names but, after separating, Ms Jones solely paid the mortgage for 13 years.

Lawyers said Tuesday's decision could alter the legal landscape for unmarried couples arguing over property after separating.

It is thought there are more than two million co-habiting couples in England and Wales.

Equal shares
During a hearing in May, the Supreme Court heard that ice-cream salesman Mr Kernott, 51, and Ms Jones, 56, broke up in 1993 after sharing the house in Thundersley for eight years.

The couple bought the house in 1985 in joint names and took out a joint mortgage. It was valued at £240,000 in 2008.

When Mr Kernott moved out, Ms Jones continued to pay the mortgage.

Last year the Court of Appeal decided that Mr Kernott was still entitled to half the value of the house because the couple owned equal shares when they separated and neither had done anything to change the situation since.

But Supreme Court judge Lord Kerr said that the split of 90% and 10% originally imposed by a county court judge was "a fair one between the parties".

The long-awaited Jomes v Kernott outcome.

Thanks for posting this Mike

Where does that leave Stack v Dowden then ????

Seems to me that the Court of Appeal were only following that case - - - - - ( though I must say that most people would take the view that this particular outcome was fair ).

I'll have to await the learned verdicts on this one !!

LMM

For what its worth it seems sanity prevailed, TOLATA can be murky but at least beneficial interest tends to win out, this case was a bit extreme even with a deed of trust, for the vast majority the deed of trust defines the % share should it all go wrong.

This article in today's Solicitors' Journal explains more about the case and outcome;

Supreme Court awards female cohabitee 90 per cent of home's value

So, it's back to what the 'common intention' is between the parties.

Move along please - nothing to see here...

C

Well, there might be as it happens. I've blogged about this, so I'd be interested in your views on my last paragraph Charles.