Parveen Lateef
Parveen qualified as a Solicitor in 1991 and joined Mace & Jones in October 2007. She ...  full profile

Blog

For Better, For Worse

(24th April | 16:44)

It seems that these words no longer only apply to couples that marry.

In April 2008 the Court of Appeal made a decision concerning a couple who had not been married. The couple, Lynne and Carl, bought a property together in their joint names. Whilst Carl paid the deposit Lynne made no financial contribution. Carl also paid the mortgage repayments, together with the utility bills. The couple lived together for a very long time. When they separated there was a dispute as to the share that they each had in the property.

During the initial Court proceedings Carl confirmed that notwithstanding the fact that the property was held in their joint names, he had only intended Lynne to have a share in the event of his death. He also confirmed that Lynne had either saved her money or spent it on her children. Against that background the Judge decided that Lynne did not have a share in the property. Not surprisingly Lynne appealed the decision.

The Appeal Judges made the following findings:

• In seeking to establish Carl and Lynne's intentions at the time that they bought the property it was wrong to concentrate on the financial contributions that each of them had made.
• Carl and Lynne's intentions had to be established in the light of the whole course of their conduct in relation to the property.
• As a matter of law when property is owned jointly there is a presumption that it should be shared.

It is essential therefore that in relation to any purchase or transfer of property you first obtain legal advice ...the alternative could be to find yourself NOT RICHER BUT POORER.

<< Back | Post a Comment

Comments

Post a comment