The plaintiff and defendant had lived together in a house held in their joint names. The woman left the home as a result of the man’s violence, and he kept up the mortgage payments.
Held: If in order to do equity between the parties an occupation rent should be paid, this would be declared and the appropriate inquiry ordered. Only in cases where the tenants in common not in occupation were in a position to enjoy their right to occupy but chose not to do so voluntarily, and were not excluded by any relevant factor, would the tenant in common in occupation be entitled to do so free of liability to pay an occupation rent. He held that the woman was not a free agent. She was caused to leave the family home as a result of the violence or threatened violence of the defendant. She fell within the category of person excluded from the property ‘the basic principle that a tenant in common is not liable to pay an occupation rent by virtue merely of his being in sole occupation of the property does not apply in the case where an association similar to a matrimonial association has broken down and one party is, for practical purposes, excluded from the family home.’
Judges:
Purchas J, Sir John Arnold P
Citations:
[1982] Fam 63
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Byford v Butler; In re Byford deceased ChD 10-Jun-2003
The house was owned in joint names. The husband became bankrupt, and the wife continued to pay the mortgage as to interest and capital. The trustee sought a declaration as to the ownership of the interests in the house. After the husband died, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Equity
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.183864