Family home in joint names: the starting point (Stack v Dowden; Jones v Kernott)
Ifeoma and Callum, an unmarried couple, bought a house in Nottingham, England, as their family home in 2014. It was transferred into their joint names, and both are liable on the mortgage. The transfer contains no declaration of their beneficial interests. Ifeoma provided 70% of the deposit. For twelve years they pooled their earnings in a joint account from which all household bills and mortgage payments were made. They have now separated, and Ifeoma claims a 70% share.
What is the starting point for deciding how the beneficial interest in the house is shared?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer B: Equity follows the law, so they are presumed joint tenants in equity unless Ifeoma shows a different common intention.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
Where a family home is in joint names with no express declaration, the starting point is beneficial joint tenancy, displaced only by proof of a different common intention.
Family home in joint names: the starting point (Stack v Dowden; Jones v Kernott)
In Jones v Kernott the Supreme Court summarised the principles where a family home is bought in the joint names of a cohabiting couple who are both responsible for the mortgage, with no express declaration of their beneficial interests. The starting point is that equity follows the law and they are joint tenants both in law and in equity. That presumption can be displaced by showing that they had a different common intention when they acquired the home, or later formed one, deduced objectively from their conduct. Stack v Dowden described this as a heavy burden on the party asserting unequal shares. Lady Hale and Lord Walker also said the resulting trust presumption is not appropriate to the family home. So the starting point is beneficial joint tenancy, and Ifeoma bears the burden of proving a different common intention. On these facts, with twelve years of pooled finances, a larger deposit contribution is unlikely to be enough.
Why A is wrong: Jones v Kernott (para 53) said resulting trust assumptions are not appropriate to beneficial interests in a family home.
Why C is wrong: Fairness comes in only to quantify shares once the joint tenancy presumption is displaced and actual intention cannot be found.
Why D is wrong: Unequal contributions do not automatically override the presumption of joint beneficial ownership.
Why E is wrong: The court considers the whole course of dealing; financial contributions are relevant but not the only factor.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Quantifying shares after a change of intention: the 'fair share' rule (Jones v Kernott)
How should the court decide the parties' beneficial shares?
Family home in one party's sole name: is there any beneficial interest at all?
Which of the following best describes how the court will approach Amara's claim?
Requirements of proprietary estoppel: assurance, reliance and detriment
Which of the following best describes Owain's position?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.