Family home in one party's sole name: is there any beneficial interest at all?
Rhys bought a house in Bristol, England, in his sole name in 2015, funding it with his savings and a mortgage in his sole name. His partner, Amara, moved in with him in 2017. Since then she has paid for some groceries and the occasional utility bill, but she contributed nothing to the purchase price or the mortgage. They never discussed who owned the house. They have now separated and Amara claims a half share. There is no written declaration of trust.
Which of the following best describes how the court will approach Amara's claim?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer C: Amara must first show a common intention, inferred from conduct, that she should have any beneficial share at all; only then is its size considered.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
In a sole-name family home case there is no presumption of shared ownership: the claimant must first prove a common intention to share beneficially, and only then is the share quantified.
Family home in one party's sole name: is there any beneficial interest at all?
Jones v Kernott explains that where a family home is in the name of one party only, the starting point differs from the joint names case. The first issue is whether the parties intended the other party to have any beneficial interest in the property at all. Only if so does the second issue, the size of that interest, arise. There is no presumption of joint beneficial ownership. The common intention must be deduced objectively from the parties' conduct, and if a common intention to share is shown but the shares are not, the court quantifies them under the fair share approach. Amara, as the non-owner, therefore bears the burden of establishing a common intention constructive trust. Paying for groceries and occasional bills, with no discussion of ownership and no contribution to the price or mortgage, may well not be enough. No signed writing is needed, because s.53(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 preserves constructive trusts.
Why A is wrong: Cohabitation alone raises no presumption of beneficial ownership in a sole-name case.
Why B is wrong: Resulting trust reasoning is not the approach to the family home, and household bills are not contributions to the price.
Why D is wrong: Common intention constructive trusts need no writing because of s.53(2) LPA 1925.
Why E is wrong: Equality is the starting point only where the home is in joint names.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Family home in joint names: the starting point (Stack v Dowden; Jones v Kernott)
What is the starting point for deciding how the beneficial interest in the house is shared?
Quantifying shares after a change of intention: the 'fair share' rule (Jones v Kernott)
How should the court decide the parties' beneficial shares?
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.