Cohabitees Must Act Quickly
For Protection
In this article, specialist disputes lawyer Nicola Turner looks at why cohabitees must act quickly to protect themselves following a relationship breakdown
When couples decide to commit to a life together, their first step is often to move in or purchase a home, without considering what may happen if the relationship does not work out. Many choose not to marry, but may not be aware that less legal protection is afforded to cohabitees compared to married or civil partner couples. This is the case even where the parties have gone on to have children together, although the court will always consider the best interest of any children in a property ownership dispute.
According to the Office of National Statistics, in 2017 there were 12.9 million married or civil partner families in the UK, but the cohabiting couple family remained the fastest growing type of family, rising to 3.3 million.
Ideally, couples should consider the legal ramifications of a break up at the outset of the relationship. Measures can be put in place to enhance their protection, such as a written cohabitation agreement or a declaration of trust (setting out the shares to be owned in any property). Drawing up a will and pension planning can also assist if the worst happens.
The recent Court of Appeal case of Wall v Munday (2018) has highlighted the need for parties to ensure that interests in matrimonial or jointly owned homes are dealt with sooner rather than later, to avoid what will seem like an unfair division of a couple’s main asset.
In this case, a married couple bought a house together as joint tenants but divorced shortly after. The wife moved out and the husband remained in the home for the next 40 years or so until his death. During his lifetime, the husband paid all of the mortgage payments and bills and fully maintained the property.
Despite this, following his death, the ex-wife argued that she should be entitled to 100 per cent of the property. The husband’s estate argued for a 86:14 split. The court found that the parties’ mutual dealings severed the joint tenancy so that the wife was entitled to a 50 per cent share of the property and not 100 per cent.
The result may seem unfair in light of the lack of financial contribution made to the property by the ex-wife. However, there had not been any communication between the husband and wife during the long period after divorce to show an intention to vary the share in which the property was purchased.
The result may have been very different if the husband had sought legal advice and taken action before his death.
Many mistakenly think that by continuing to reside in the house and paying all the bills that they effectively take over ownership of the home. This is rarely the case and so it is important to ensure that formal arrangements are made. Anyone in this situation should seek legal advice to protect their position.
Nicola Turner is an associate solicitor specialising in inheritance and probate disputes, based in our Preston office
www.napthens.co.uk
