Ms Jones and Mr Kernott bought a property, 39 Badger Hall Avenue, in 1985 and the property was conveyed into their joint names. The purchase price was £30,000 of which £6,000 was contributed by Ms Jones. The remainder was financed by an interest only mortgage, supported by an endowment policy. The mortgage and endowment policy payments were shared between the couple. The following year a further loan of £2,000 was taken out against the property for the purpose of building an extension and this was built and paid for largely by Mr Kernott. This is estimated to have enhanced the value of the property by almost 50%, from £30,000 to £44,000. Ms Jones and Mr Kernott shared the household expenditure (including bills and mortgage repayments) until the couple split up and Mr Kernott moved out of the property in 1993 (some 8 years later). Thereafter, Ms Jones made all of the interest only mortgage payments together with the payments against the endowment policy and met all expenditure in relation to the upkeep of the property. There were two children of the relationship who remained with Ms Jones. Mr Kernott made little or no contribution to their maintenance and none had been sought by Ms Jones.

Some time after the relationship had ended a life insurance policy was cashed and the proceeds split between the parties. In part this was to enable Mr Kernott to purchase a property for himself which he did in 1996, acquiring 114 Stanley Road, which he then financed alone. It is undisputed that Ms Jones never acquired any interest in the Stanley Road property. It is also undisputed that until the couple split up and Mr Kernott moved out of the property in 1993, the beneficial shares in the property were owned equally. The question for the court was whether, following the couple’s separation in 1993, the beneficial shares in the property were altered. At first instance the judge held that they had altered and concluded that Ms Jones was entitled to a 90% beneficial interest in the property on the basis that it was “fair and just”.

The leading judgment in the Supreme Court was, unusually, a joint judgment by Lord Walker and Lady Hale. Inevitably there was much reference to the applicability of the principles set out in Stack -v- Dowden [2007] UKHL 17. The crucial question at the heart of this particular case was whether, following Mr Kernott’s departure from 39 Badger Hall Avenue, an intention between the parties could be found which would rebut the presumption of joint beneficial ownership (which presumption generally arises where there is joint legal ownership and no express declaration of trust that the co-owners should own in anything other than equal shares). Reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal and restoring the determination of the trial judge (upheld in the High Court on appeal) the Supreme Court concluded that the facts in the present case did give rise to an inference that the intentions of the parties (to own the property in equal beneficial shares, consistent with their legal ownership) did change when Mr Kernott acquired his own property independently of Ms Jones. That finding, said Lord Walker and Lady Hale, was a finding made by the trial judge and there was, therefore, no need to impute any intention. This seems to me to fail to recognise that there was no evidence of such an intention referred to by the trial judge in his judgment (as was, in my view, implicitly recognised in Lord Walker and Baroness Hale’s judgment where, at para [48], it is said that “[the parties] intentions did change significantly. [The judge] did not go into detail”) and that this was the intention which he imputed to the parties. At para [47] it is explicitly recognised that the court cannot impose on the parties a solution which is contrary to the evidence of what the parties actually intended.

However, where the court cannot deduce from the evidence what the intentions of the parties were as to shares it was said that the court would have to ask what the parties intentions would have been as reasonable and just people had they thought about it at the time. At para [48] the abortive attempts to sell the jointly owned property, the cashing of the life insurance policy to, amongst other things, help fund Mr Kernott’s acquisition of a new property in his own name and the fact that he would not have been able to afford to do this had he still had to contribute to the property at 39 Badger Hall Avenue all gave rise to the “logical inference” that Mr Kernott and Ms Jones intended Mr Kernott’s interest in the Badger Hall Avenue property to crystallise then. Still looks like “imputed” intention to me, whatever the label given to the exercise…

Postscript: Inevitably, there has been a significant level of interest in this decision and there are lots of other interesting posts (adopting various views) which can be viewed at the following links (my apologies if I have left any out – if you would like links to your posts included please contact me):

http://www.marilynstowe.co.uk/2011/11/10/kernott-v-jones-on-bbc-breakfast/

http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2011/11/jones-v-kernott-ending-the-big-debate/

http://obiterj.blogspot.com/2011/11/cohabitation-what-about-house-part-2.html

http://www.familylaw.co.uk/articles/HayleyTrim10112011-632

http://www.familylore.co.uk/

http://hklandlaw.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/jones-v-kernott-in-the-supreme-court/

For what it’s worth, I agree with those who denounce the lack of enthusiasm for introducing legislation to deal with the distribution / allocation / re-allocation of property rights upon the breakdown of relationships between co-habiting (non-married) couples – my objection is concerned with the use of property law principles for dealing with the same which, in my view, distorts and makes inappropriate use of well established principles (even if the outcome reached might, on the face of it, seem “fair”).

The first issue which arises for determination in a case such as this is clearly articulated in Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 – where property is jointly owned at law, from which it follows that there is a presumption that the beneficial interests in that property are equal, can that presumption of equal beneficial ownership be rebutted? It is, quite logically, only necessary to address the question of the amount of the parties’ shares if this presumption is first rebutted. However, this is a high threshold to meet as was made clear in Stack – only exceptionally will it be possible to establish that the property is intended to be owned in anything but equal shares. In the present case the Court of Appeal, reversing the decision of the lower courts, concluded that there was no evidence from which it could be determined that the parties had, at some time after their separation, intended that their beneficial shares should be held other than equally. Lord Wall said this:

55. …This is not a case under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, and the government has not implemented the Law Commission’s proposals relating to unmarried couples. This court must resolve this appeal under the law relation to trusts as explained in Oxley v Hiscock and Stack v Dowden.

57. The critical question is whether or not I can properly infer from the parties’ conduct since separation a joint intention that, over time, the 50-50 split would be varied so that the property is currently held 90% by the respondent and 10% by the appellant…

58. …I simply cannot infer such an intention from the parties’ conduct. In my judgment, the conveyance into joint names, following Stack v Dowden created joint beneficial interests, and the parties agreed that when they separated they had equal interests. There has to be something to displace those interests, and I have come to the conclusion that the passage of time is insufficient to do so, even if, in the meantime, the appellant has acquired alternative accommodation, and the respondent has paid all the outgoings. In my judgment, the appellant has a 50% interest in the property, and both the judge and the deputy judge were wrong to conclude otherwise.

Not surprisingly the relevant authorities were examined at length. This was, it should be noted, a majority decision, Lord Justice Jacob dissenting. The judgments highlight, once again, the folly of unmarried couples purchasing property jointly and failing to contemplate the possibility of their later separation and the proper division of their property interests should such an event occur. In close personal relationships such discussions seem particularly unpalatable. However, they would probably have been more palatable than the three hearings to which Mr Kernott and Ms Jones have subjected themselves, together with all of the associated costs. From the perspective of the lawyer who has to advise parties who now find themselves in this position, it should make the likely outcome a little more predictable, thankfully…

For a more extensive discussion of this decision see Nearly Legal’s post here.

In HSBC v Dyche property was conveyed to Mr and Mrs Dyche in 1994. The property had belonged to Mrs Dyche’s parents, Mr and Mrs Collelldevall, who had lived there since 1976. In 1988 Mr Collelldevall was made bankrupt. At that time he and his wife owned the property as beneficial joint tenants. The bankruptcy had the effect of severing that beneficial joint tenancy. Following Mr Collelldevall’s bankruptcy his Trustee in Bankruptcy obtained, in 1992, an order for sale of the property which order was not enforced. The then mortgagee subsequently obtained a possession order in 1993. That order was also not enforced. Mr Collelldevall was discharged from his bankruptcy at some time in early 1994.

In January 1994 the property was transferred by Mr and Mrs Collelldevall to Mr and Mrs Dyche with the agreement of Mr Collelldevall’s Trustee in Bankruptcy (“the 1994 Transfer”). The mortgage outstanding at the time was discharged upon completion of the transfer. A sum was also paid the Mr Collelldevall’s Trustee in Bankruptcy, thereby increasing the dividend in the bankruptcy. The purchase price was set to meet the Collelldevall’s immediate financial needs and commitments and bore no relation to the actual value of the property which was, at that time, much more than the £25,000 apparently paid by Mr and Mrs Dyche.

At the time of the transaction Mr and Mrs Collelldevall were unable to secure a mortgage against the property in their own names as a result of his bankruptcy. Hence, it was argued, and accepted, that the Dyche’s acquired the property on their behalf. The Dyche’s obtained a mortgage of £17,000 from Lloyds Bank and Mr Dyche was said to have borrowed the balance of £8,000 from a friend. However, the judge accepted Mr Collelldevall’s evidence that it was he who had borrowed the £8,000 from a friend. There was an agreement that Mr and Mrs Collelldevall would pay Mr and Mrs Dyche in monthly installments amounts which corresponded with the amounts due under the Lloyds mortgage. The judge accepted that following the 1994 Transfer the property was held on constructive trust for the Collelldevalls.

Later in 1994 Mrs Collelldeval died and the judge accepted that her interest in the property passed to Mr Collelldeval under the right of survivorship. Whilst the bankruptcy had had the effect of severing the joint tenancy the judge concluded that the effect of the 1994 Transfer was to put the Collelldevalls, as far as possible, back into their pre-bankruptcy position. Thus it was concluded that the Dyches held the property on trust for the Collelldevalls as beneficial joint tenants.

In 1995 Lloyds Bank advanced more monies to the Dyches which sum was repaid with later borrowings from HSBC. Lloyds did not take a further charge against the property in respect of this advance. In 2002 the property was transferred into the sole name of Mrs Dyche by herself and her husband in connection with divorce proceedings (“the 2002 Transfer”). This was said to be pursuant to a court order under which Mrs Dyche had paid to her husband the sum of £5,000 (the only consideration which passed in relation to the 2002 Transfer). On the same date as the 2002 Transfer Mrs Dyche gave HSBC a first legal charge over the property in order to secure an advance against that property. In order to obtain the mortgage Mrs Dyche had provided HSBC with what purported to be an assured shorthold tenancy agreement naming herself as landlord and Mr Collelldevall as tenant. The judge accepted that Mr Collelldevall’s signature was a forgery. Mr Collelldevall knew nothing of this mortgage and had not authorised it. A further advance was acquired by Mrs Dyche under a second mortgage from HSBC in 2003.

Mr Collelldevall gave evidence that he knew the property was going to be transferred into Mrs Dyche’s sole name but that she had promised to transfer the property to him thereafter. The judge found that Mrs Dyche had clearly perpetrated a deception upon her father; she was unable to transfer the property so long as monies remained outstanding in respect of the HSBC mortgages. Mrs Dyche had, it was concluded, acted in breach of trust. Whilst it was not established that Mr Dyche had anything to do with the forgery of Mr Collelldevall’s signature on the tenancy agreement the judge concluded that he must have known that he too was acting in breach of trust in transferring the property to his wife in return for £5,000 given that the property was beneficially owned by Mr Collelldevall, pursuant to the agreement at the time of the 1994 transfer.

The question for the court, therefore, was whether Mr Collelldevall’s beneficial interest in the property was overreached by HSBC’s interest under the terms of the mortgage(s). The judge reviewed the relevant provisions of the Law of Property Act 1925 (section 2(1)(ii) regarding the effect of a conveyance of land by trustees; section 205(1)(xxi) regarding the definition of a purchaser in good faith; and sections 2(1)(ii), 2(2) and 27, which require the conveyance to be made by at least two trustees) and, applying the law to the facts of the case, determined that the doctrine of overreaching did not here apply (for detailed analysis and reasoning see the judgment, paras [37] – [46]). It was held that Mr Collelldevall had a beneficial interest which overrode the registration of the HSBC mortgages pursuant to Paragraph 2, Schedule 3 to the Land Registration Act 2002.

The judge concluded that “HSBC could have avoided the present position by making inquiries of Mr Collelldevall, but, though a Letter of Consent was considered, they chose not to proceed down that route, as the documents appeared to be in order … By not making inquiries of Mr Collelldevall direct, they assumed the risk of the tenancy agreement turning out to be a forgery. The risk may have seemed remote, but has now come to pass, and HSBC misses out because of it”.

Once again, this is a clear reminder of the consequences of mortgage companies not making sufficient inquiries of propsective mortgagors where there is evidence that there is someone else occupying the property concerned. However, there is nothing in the facts to suggest that HSBC was or could have been aware that Mr Collelldevall and Mrs Dyche were related. On the face of it he was no more than a tenant with the benefit of an assured shorthold tenancy. It would have been plain from the nature of the tenancy agreement what rights Mr Collelldevall would or would not have had as a consequence of his shorthold tenancy. Without any reason to suspect that there was a familial relationship between Mrs Dyche and Mr Collelldevall this decision seems to suggest that any potential lender should make inquiries of shorthold tenants in order for their lending to be secure. This does, on the face of it, seem to be a particularly onerous obligation to impose upon all lenders, particularly given the recent increase in the acquisition of  ‘buy to let’ properties together with a tendency for property owners to switch their mortgages much more frequently, reflecting an inclination to always be in pursuit of the best deals on offer.

Postscript: For another view on this decision see here.

In this case, Mr Barron, a retired fireman, and his partner, Miss Fowler, purchased a property in Bognor Regis in 1998. They had an unmarried relationship from 1983 to 2005 and had two children together. The couple consciously decided to put the property into joint names but there was no agreement or discussion between them as to how the property should be held. The (unsigned) transfer document did not contain any declaration of trust but stated that the survivor of them could give a valid receipt for capital money arising on the disposition of property, implying that the right of survivorship was intended to apply. However, the declaration was held not to be dispositive.

Mr Barron paid the mortgage repayments and other house related expenses out of his pension. He also paid for most other things including the weekly shopping bill. While Miss Fowler went out to work Mr Barron looked after the children. Her income was spent largely on herself and the children. Eventually the relationship broke down and the couple separated.

It will be recalled that in Stack v Dowden the presumption of joint tenancy was rebutted on the basis that the evidence showed there had been unequal financial contributions to the property. It is perhaps a little ironic that in this case, where one party has made no obvious contribution to the property she should find herself better off, enjoying a 50% share, than Mr Stack who had contributed financially to the acquisition of the property. This is, of course, a gross over simplification of the case, but serves to illustrate a slightly curious result.