Pictured: Alison Monaghan
Following a Supreme Court decision which recently concluded a
man should receive only ten per cent of the value of a house he
owned jointly with his ex-partner, a leading county Family Law
specialist said the case highlights two important issues - Firstly,
the importance of making financial arrangements through correct
legal channels in cases where couples live together but are not
married or in a civil partnership, and secondly the need for more
clarity in the law.
Instead of receiving half the value of the property as granted
to him by the Court of Appeal last year, Leonard Kernott appealed
and lost £90,000. But Alison Monaghan, a Solicitor with GHP
Legal who have one of the largest family departments in the area
covering Shropshire, North Wales and the North West, said the
situation may have been very different if Mr Kernott and his former
partner had formalised their financial situation at the time of
purchasing the property and again when he left, rather than relying
on loose verbal agreements between themselves that may not have
suited one or other party later on.
"Mr Kernott and his ex-partner, Patricia Jones, purchased a
property jointly and had a joint mortgage," said Ms Monaghan.
"According to Mr Kernott, he paid all the bills and took
responsibility for substantial refurbishment of the property. But
when he moved out of the family home after eight years he did not
make any formal arrangements about the house in case the
relationship problems could be resolved.
"Ms Jones paid the mortgage after Mr Kennett moved out and he
allowed that situation to remain for thirteen years so as not to
disrupt the couple's children. When Mr Kernott finally decided he
wanted his money, a split of 90% and 10% was imposed by the county
court, in favour of Ms Jones. Mr Kernott appealed and last year the
Court of Appeal decided that he 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. The case then went to the Supreme Court, which overruled the
Court of Appeal's decision and left Mr Kernott with only 10%
again.
"Unfortunately, many of the two million plus co-habiting couples
in England and Wales are unaware that the law still does not
recognise that they have rights and obligations to one another
despite not being married. If they separate, either can claim
against the other for economic disadvantages suffered by them, or
for economic advantages gained by the other. Having financial
arrangements legally set up at the outset can minimise financial
loss in the event of a break-up."