Covid-19 Update: We are continuing to provide our usual services whilst maintaining the safety of clients and colleagues. Read our latest update here.

Complete the form below to ask us a question or make an enquiry. We’ll get back to you via phone or email as soon as possible.

Insights

When your partner owns your family home

Posted on 12th January 2021 in Dispute Resolution

Posted by

Martin Laver

Partner and Solicitor
When your partner owns your family home

Do you own your own home?

We see many situations where the family home is owned by only one individual in a relationship. Whilst not anticipated, separation causes significant problems for the individual who has lived in the family home but has no formal legal ownership of it.

In some cases, the Court will recognise the parties had reached an informal arrangement about the home.  This recognition is called a common intention constructive trust (catchy, we know).

In November 2020, the Court of Appeal provided a helpful judgement on the constructive trust doctrine in the case of O’Neill v Holland. This case concerned a common intention constructive trust and provided some helpful guidance to parties as to the need for detrimental reliance, and, what may amount to detrimental reliance.

Specifically, O’Neill v Holland concerned a long established relationship of an unmarried couple and their family home together with a portfolio of 12 properties owned solely by Mr Holland. The unique aspect of this case is that Ms O’Neill’s father purchased the family home in his sole name and subsequently transferred it to Mr Holland without receiving any payment or consideration for it. It was alleged that Ms O’Neill’s father purchased the property for the purpose of it being a home for Ms O’Neill and her family.

The Court accepted that Ms O’Neill did rely on assurances to her detriment. Specifically, the Court inferred that Ms O’Neill’s father would not have transferred the property to Mr Holland without a clear understanding that his daughter would have a beneficial interest in the property. It was determined that detrimental reliance was satisfied by Ms O’Neill’s understanding of this (and assurances made to her) and the fact that she would be able to live in the property rent free as a family home.

This case highlights two important issues.

Firstly, that it is essential ingredient to a claim that the person claiming an interest, acted to their detriment in reliance on the common intention.

Secondly, that these non-standard arrangements are complicated, expensive and time consuming to prove. The case went through 3 hearings, up to and including the Court of Appeal, and 5 judges. 

The better course of action for parties is to get things in writing and avoid these sorts of issues altogether. 

For any advice on constructive trusts/beneficial interest, please contact our dedicated team.

Contact the team


 

Paper plane

 

Get the latest news straight from our legal experts.

Subscribe to our newsletter to recieve current, dedicated, suppport and guidance from our solicitors straight to your inbox, wherever you are.

Company & Industry

Related Insights

Insights

What to do when a loved one has lost the mental capacity to deal with their own affairs

Posted on 15th October 2021 in Safeguarding Vulnerable Clients

When a person loses mental capacity, they cannot usually put a Power of Attorney in place. Instead, in order to appoint someone to make decisions for them, an application needs to be made to the Court of Protection to appoint a deputy.

Posted by

Emma Ruttley

Solicitor
Insights

Is a glamping pod or shepherd’s hut a building?

Posted on 15th October 2021 in Planning and Licensing

In a recent decision issued by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) it was confirmed that a shepherd's hut and a glamping pod met the definition of ‘caravan’.

Posted by

Amy Cater

Partner and Solicitor