Just tell me what you think of the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v Kernott, and I’ll tell you how old you are (roughly).
Answer the poll, now!
Now that the profession has
had time to digest the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v Kernott, which was handed down in November 2011, opinion appears to be
divided as to whether the outcome was a step forward in the protection of
cohabitees’ property rights or an unhelpful precedent that muddies the
traditional property law rules. In my
experience of discussing this topic with other practitioners, those more
recently qualified tend to favour the former position while the more experienced
generation take the more cautious line.
In a nutshell (and it is a
big case to squeeze into a small nutshell, perhaps a coconut would suffice),
the couple, who were never married, bought a house in 1985 in joint names and valued
at approximately £30,000 but made no express declaration of trust. In 1993, Mr Kernott moved out and ceased all
contributions to the mortgage and upkeep.
Fast-forward 14 years to 2007, and Mr Kernott wants to realise his
interest in the property prompting Ms Jones to make an application under TOLATA 1996 for
a declaration that she was the sole beneficial owner. What the Supreme Court decided was that there
could be an intention inferred and/or imputed from the parties’ actions that
can affect the way they hold the property, even if no express intentions can be
shown. On that basis, they decided that from
the time that Mr Kernott moved out the couple no longer intended to hold the
property as joint 50/50 owners and awarded Mr Kernott a meagre 10% interest.
I’m simplifying things of
course but there is a bigger picture I am trying to look at here.
Experience
versus Youth
The younger generation
appear to analyse the Jones v Kernott problem from a more idealistic view
point. They respond more to the facts of
the case and in particular Ms Jones spending 14 years funding the mortgage and
household and see the SC decision as a fair outcome, giving her the larger
share of the jointly owned property.
Those more experienced tend to dwell more on the specific application of
the law and express concern at the idea of asking the court to impute an
intention that might not have been there.
Perhaps this comes from
their increased familiarity in dealing with such issues or disinclination on
the part of the youngsters to get beyond the basic facts and really analyse the
decision (the case, and the Supreme Court decision is not easy reading). That said, the five Supreme Court Justices who
made the decision were none of them spring chickens and they unanimously
decided (alright Baroness Hale differed on the reasoning) that the property was
not to be treated as 50/50 in these particular circumstances. I don’t think anyone would argue that they
did not give proper consideration to the law.
Evolution
of Social Ideals
Cohabitation is on the rise. People are choosing not to marry or are marrying much later in life. To some people cohabitation is as acceptable,
if not preferable, to marriage, and they put no stock in the idea that the
quality of the relationship is in any way contingent on its status. Strengthening the rights of cohabitees might
be seen as a logical step to bring the law in line with this evolution of
social ideals and consequently is much more palatable to a generation that has
grown up in a world where non-traditional relationships are socially acceptable. To those more traditionally inclined the
decision in Jones v Kernott could be viewed as legitimisation of the
non-married couples status beyond that of simply two people who purchased a
property together. One wonders if the
decision would have been any different if there had been no children involved
(there were) and so the property was, to some extent, considered as a family home.
I’m not suggesting that all
newly qualified family lawyers are pro-cohabitation and anti-marriage (I
qualified last year and got married this year).
Nor am I suggesting that the elder generation of practitioners frown on
everyone living together outside of wedlock.
I am simply commenting on a trend that has caught my attention and would
like to extend the debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment