Supreme Court upholds county ruling in cohabitation case

  • Print
  • Comments (9)

Readers' comments (9)

  • This is great news. I have been paying a mortgage and supporting my children for 4 years on my own with no financial support from my ex partner and yet he wants 50% of the house, why should he, he pays nothing. Hopefully this will change things going forward.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I haven't read the judgment, but the key consideration in apportionment in a case such as this should be financial contribution and so the decision would only be 'fair' if the woman's financial contribution to the expenses and mortgage repayments amounted to 90% of the value of the property.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree with anon above - a great outcome - my ex partner has been trying to claim 50% of the house, because it was bought in joint names, despite me paying all the mortgage!
    This is an important legal precedent!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • My ex partner left in 1989. I have brought up our 2 children who have both gone to uni with no financial help from him AND also paid the mortgage on our house bought in joint names and maintained it without any help from him.
    He has refused, for 22 years to come to agreement about seperating our ownership of the house unless he has 50% of the equity.
    Hopefully this ruling will help to end this ridiculous situation eqitably.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I hate to put a damper on things but this was a very extreme case. involving a very long period of separation, the purchase of a new house by Mr Kernott and a lack of child support over the years.
    It does not mean that whenever one party moves out and the other party pays the mortgage and other bills the party who stays in the house will automatically get more than 50%. The only safe way is to decide from the outset what the shares are to be and what is to happen (a) if one party dies and (b) if they split up. By and large the "factory" conveyancers either ignore this completely or else pay lip service to it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • As I see it it doesn't make any difference if you are married or not in these cases. My husband and I had been married for seven years when we separated in 1993. We had bought a house in joint names, had a joint mortgage and both worked full time in identical professions. When we separated I brought up our three children, paid the mortgage, bills and maintained the home. Meanwhile he bought a six bedroom house, of which he rented out five bedrooms to lodgers, meaning that the children could not stay with him. Fifteen years later we divorced, he was awarded half of the marital home and I was not entitled to anything in relation to the property he had purchased. I fail to see how fairness was applied in my case. I could not afford to appeal against the decision as I risked losing everything.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Hopefully Parliament will continue to shy away from dealing with cohabitation. Otherwise it will no doubt create a whole new industry for lawyers and misery for those who, if they wanted lawyers and judges carve up their assets and income on their relationship breaking down, could have got married.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I find all of this a little hard to fathom. I agree entirely with comments above that if after seperation, one individual pays all the mortgage for a number of years from a previously joint ownership, then theoretically they should be deemed as the sole owner.

    I have a case of where I bought my own property 3yrs ago in my own name and I have always paid all the mortgage & utilities bills, whilst allowing my partner (not married & have no children) to live in my house for free out of generosity.

    However because she loaned me approx 40% of the deposit (which has since been paid back & some), I get told there could be a possibility in the event of a break up she would be entitled to a certain amount of money from the value of the house!!. Ie the amount left to pay on the mortage minus the property value & the difference being halved.

    Sometimes the law simply doesn't make sense. People go on about "what is fair" but often these stories you hear are anything but fair!!.

    Any thoughts?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I live in Ky I was awarded temp maintenance of 750. My real maintenance is 1906.
    my ex is saying im cohabitating...which in court it was proven Im cohabiting 50% of time...how on earth does a judge come up with that? I have a boyfriend and that is all we are, my friends and family testified I stay with them about 20-25% of time.....because I cant live by myself on 750.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (9)