The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jones v Kernott is likely to have far-reaching implications for cohabiting couples and the ownership of property.
Mr Kernott and Ms Jones bought a house in their join names in 1985. They separated in 1993 following which Ms Jones was solely responsible for meeting the mortgage repayments. In 2006 Mr Kernott sought to realise his interest in the property which he claimed was 50%. Ms Jones argued she should be the sole beneficial owner of the property.
No declaration had been made as to who owned what at the time of the purchase. The question arose as to whether the conduct of the parties in the period following their separation was sufficient to change the shares of ownership in the property.
When the matter first came to court, the judge decided that it was and awarded Ms Jones a 90% share. Mr Kernott successfully appealed the decision in 2010 when the Court of Appeal indicated that ownership was equal.
Ms Jones then appealed to the Supreme Court which has now reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal and reverted to the decision of the original judge by awarded Ms Jones a 90% beneficial interest in the property, with Mr Jones having just 10%.
The Supreme Court decision has provided us with guidance on how the courts will approach a dispute of this nature. The starting point is still to consider what the legal ownership of the is (whether in joint names or one party’s sole name). However, whilst there is a presumption that the beneficial shares of ownership should follow the legal documentation, that presumption can be rebutted by evidence that it was not, or ceased to be, the common intention of the parties to hold the property in that way.
Where there is no clear evidence of the parties’ intentions with regard to ownership, the court will seek to infer a common intention by looking at the parties’ conduct and dealings with each other. However, the court will now go even further. In cases where the court is satisfied that the parties had a different intention as to ownership than the legal documentation suggests (either at the outset or subsequently) but there is no evidence to clarify what the shares of ownership should be, the court will determine what those shares are on the basis of what is fair having regard to the whole course of dealings between the parties so far as the property is concerned.
The decision has been hailed as a return to common sense and certainly provides more flexibility when there is a disagreement between couples as to who owns what. However, given that the court will now effectively impose intentions on parties who may well not have had them, does this go too far? Certainly, whilst there is now more flexibility there is certainly increased uncertainty in such cases and it is worth bearing in mind that Ms Jones and Mr Kernott have spent 6 years fighting this case through the court. They are not wealthy individuals and the property itself was of modest value.
The case certainly highlights the need for reform of the legislation to provide us with a clear framework in which to work. Couples should also think very carefully when they purchase a property how they wish to own it and ensure that they are given appropriate advice at the time of purchase. I would also strongly recommend entering into a cohabitation agreement to define the parties’ intentions clearly and concisely. The cost of doing so is a fraction of the costs of bringing court proceedings and will also provide peace of mind.
If you would like more legal advice on cohabitation agreements contact our family law solicitor Altrincham on 0845 0738 445 or email firstname.lastname@example.orgGoogle+
Latest MLP Solicitors News
- March 10th, 2014Why you should have a Lasting Power of Attorney
A woman who sold her elderly mother’s house without any formal authority to do so has been ordered to pay costs by the Court of Protection. This is something that … Read more
- March 7th, 2014Employment law round up
We want to keep all of our clients and contacts aware of changes in legislation or news that could affect them or their own clients in some way. So, here’s … Read more
- March 7th, 2014Mandatory Early Conciliation A Month Away
- March 3rd, 2014Sanctimonious Sanctions: Your Litigation Friend
- February 27th, 2014Going up – from Ghostbusters to growth forecasts
- February 24th, 2014What we’ve learned from Sochi 2014
- February 20th, 2014Spring in the air?
Apologies that my Wednesday blog is a little late this week. A burglary at home on Tuesday evening put me back somewhat. Still the wonders of modern technology means I … Read more
- February 12th, 2014Does your business need Director’s Service Agreements?
- February 12th, 2014Go big or go home!
- February 5th, 2014The future is online – so what are the risks?
I don’t do my Wednesday blog as often as I should (i.e. every Wednesday!) I will do my very best from now on. My 3 pointers for the week:… Read more
- February 3rd, 2014Wills valid despite wrong signature
Wills Valid Despite Error The Supreme Court ruled this week that a couple’s Wills should still stand, despite them signing the wrong ones. Alfred and Maureen Rawlings prepared mirror Wills … Read more
- January 29th, 2014What to expect in employment law in 2014
Another year, another round of employment law reform! But what are the changes we are expecting in 2014 and how might these affect your business? Amendments to TUPE and collective … Read more
- January 20th, 2014TUPE changes 2014
Changes to TUPE and collective redundancy rules – 31 January 2014 Tucked away in the haze of the New Year is the introduction of changes to TUPE 2006 and the … Read more
- January 15th, 2014How will HS2 affect my property value?
- January 9th, 2014Why Making a Will Should Be Your New Year’s Resolution
The start of a new year is often the time when we make resolutions and think more about the future. One of the most important parts of planning for the … Read more
- January 7th, 2014Is it worth putting a Shareholders’ Agreement in place?
The value of a Shareholders’ Agreement We often have to consider the value of a shareholders’ agreement when discussing planning with our clients. Why do you need one? Too often … Read more
- January 3rd, 2014Dare To Litigate?
Resolving non payment issues All businesses aim to build good relationships with customers and flexibility around chasing payment can sometimes be tempting when looking to establish favour. However, business is … Read more
- December 10th, 2013Poorly performing Doctor in your partnership?
Top tips for dealing with a poorly performing partner. How do you deal with a poorly performing partner? This is a question we have had to address a number of … Read more
- December 5th, 2013Small Business Saturday
- December 4th, 2013How much inheritance tax will I pay?
The number of estates affected by Inheritance Tax is set to double from the current level of 21,000 per year to 42,000 in 2016/17. According to accountancy experts, this increase … Read more
- November 29th, 2013Always Read the Fine Print
US citizen Jen Palmer recently found herself subject to a $3,500 fine for posting a negative online review. In 2008 Jen Palmer ordered some items from KlearGear.com. After the items … Read more