The parties had lived together for many years but without marrying. The house had been put in joint names, but without specific advice on the issue or any express declaration of trust. In practice Mr Barron made the direct payments for the house and Mrs Fowler paid for household items. Mrs Fowler appealed a finding that there had been no intention to create equal interests, and that she had no interest in the capital.
Held: The judge had erred in concenrating so much on the respective financial contributions, and the respondent had not fully discharged the onus of negativing the intent that the parties should share the property equally. The appeal was allowed, and Mrs Fowler awarded a one half share in the house.
Waller LJ, Arden LJ, Toulson LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 377
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Stack v Dowden CA 13-Jul-2005
The parties purchased a property together. The transfer contained a survivorship restriction but no declaration of the beneficial interests. The judge had held the property to be held as tenants in commn on equal shares.
Held: In a case where . .
Cited – Stack v Dowden HL 25-Apr-2007
The parties had cohabited for a long time, in a home bought by Ms Dowden. After the breakdown of the relationship, Mr Stack claimed an equal interest in the second family home, which they had bought in joint names. The House was asked whether, when . .
Cited – Oxley v Hiscock CA 6-May-2004
The parties were not married, but had brought together their resources to purchase a home in the name of one of them. Nothing had been said about the respective shares on which the property was to be held.
Held: The shares were to be assessed . .
Cited – Malayan Credit Ltd v Jack Chia-MPH Ltd PC 1986
The Board considered whether there were only three situations in which joint owners of property could be found to be tenants in common, and whether there were other circumstances which could lead to a contrary conclusion.
Held: It was . .
Cited – Gissing v Gissing HL 7-Jul-1970
Evidence Needed to Share Benefical Inerests
The family home had been purchased during the marriage in the name of the husband only. The wife asserted that she had a beneficial interest in it.
Held: The principles apply to any case where a beneficial interest in land is claimed by a . .
Cited – Carlton v Goodman CA 29-Apr-2002
The defendant claimed an interest in a house. The deceased had been a sitting tenant, and wanted to purchase his house. He could not obtain finance alone, and she joined with him, becoming liable under the mortgage. She did not live in the house . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family, Land
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.267044