A common misconception is the legal existence of the “common law wife”. It is an urban myth that someone who co-habits with their partner obtains rights or obligations similar to married couples after a period of time. A woman (for the sake of argument) who lives with a man as husband and wife but without formally marrying is afforded none of the financial protections of a wife. This is true even if she gives up her job to bring up the children and lives with her partner for many years although she may, of course, be entitled to maintenance for the children if they are still minors.

The “exception” to this rule is property that is either co-owned or in one partner’s sole name but the other has contributed financially to. There is a long line of cases dealing with the equitable interests in such properties. However, it has been thought to be settled law that an unmarried partner is not entitled to a beneficial interest in the family home if the property is in the sole name of her partner and she has made no significant financial contributions to the purchase price or outgoings. Until now…

Last month, in Southwell –v- Blackburn [2014] EWCA Civ 1347, the Court of Appeal upheld an award of £28,500 to Miss Blackburn even though the property was in Mr Southwell’s sole name and she had not made any significant financial contribution to the property.

The facts

The couple met in 2000. Miss Blackburn had two daughters from a previous marriage and had the benefit of a secure tenancy with a Housing Association in Manchester. She had spent approximately £15,000 on fixtures and fittings for her rented property.

Mr Southwell lived in Portsmouth when they met. 1n 2002 they moved in together, along with Miss Blackburn’s children, into a property in Worcester bought in Mr Southwell’s sole name. The property was funded by way of equity of approximately £140,000 from the sale of Mr Southwell’s previous home and a mortgage of approximately £100,000, which was paid by Mr Southwell alone.

Miss Blackburn maintained that the property was bought in Mr Southwell’s sole name purely for administrative purposes as it was inconvenient for her to travel to sign the papers. She claimed that it was intended that she would have an equal share in the property. Mr Southwell, on the other hand, claimed that he had agreed to provide Miss Blackburn and her daughters with the security of a home for as long as the relationship lasted.

The couple separated in 2012, by which time the house was worth approximately £320,000. Miss Blackburn claimed that Mr Southwell held the property on trust for them in equal shares.

The Decision

The judge rejected Miss Blackburn’s claims of a trust but, instead, found that she was entitled to a stake of £28,500 by way of proprietary estoppel. In short, she had relied upon Mr Southwell’s assurances that she would always have a home to her detriment by giving up her secure tenancy in Manchester.

The value of her equitable stake was based upon the value she had invested in her secure rental property (£15,000), increased to take account of inflation.

The Court of Appeal upheld both the finding of an equitable interest and its value.

Comment

Although Miss Blackburn did not make any significant financial contribution to this property, she had given up a secure tenancy that she had invested financially in. A claim for proprietary estoppel does require some form of detrimental reliance and it will be interesting to see whether the courts uphold a claim in which the detriment is not financial – or not so easily quantifiable.

If you live with your partner, and are not married, the best way to protect your interest in your home is to enter into a Cohabitation Agreement or Deed of Trust whether or not the property is in sole or joint names.