A recent case has examined what is ‘fair’ in regard to former cohabitees’ property.
Graham-York v York and Another
Case background
In Graham-York v York and Another, the claimant, K, had cohabited with her partner N for 32 years, until N’s death in 2009. They lived for 24 years in a property which N had purchased and was registered solely in his name.
On N’s death, K continued to live in the property but mortgage arrears built up and the building society sought to repossess the property. K alleged that she had a beneficial interest in the property, due to the length of her relationship with N and also that she had endured years of abuse from him, causing her to suffer post-traumatic stress disorder. K also suffered from Asperger’s syndrome.
Legal proceedings
The Court found that K’s entitlement was limited to 25% of the property’s value subject to the mortgage, meaning that the mortgage would have to be redeemed from the sale of the property for K to receive 25% of the remaining balance.
K appealed against this decision, arguing that she had a 50% interest in the property which should not be subject to the mortgage. She claimed this was fair as she had contributed ‘as much to the household as she reasonably could’, and that occupying the property gave her an overriding interest in it.
As there was relatively little evidence for K’s case, the Court had to base its decision on what was ‘fair’ in relation to the dealings between the two parties concerning the property. It found that K had made limited financial contributions to the household, and there was no express agreement between herself and N as to her interest in the property.
K argued that this ‘fairness’ was challenged due to the long, abusive relationship she had endured, but the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed her case.
It found that while many would be sympathetic to K’s situation, ‘fairness’ could only be considered in relation to the couple’s dealings over the property, and the Court could not issue ‘redistributive justice’ for the abuse she had suffered.
Comment
This case is a reminder that when dividing cohabitees’ assets, the Courts will only consider what is ‘fair’ in relation to the particular assets under discussion – in this case a property – rather than looking at the situation as a whole, and that wider factors such as the length of time cohabited and the nature of the relationship may not therefore be taken into account.
How Nelsons can help
Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our expert Inheritance Disputes team.
Should you have any queries relating to cohabitation issues, please do not hesitate to contact Kevin or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online form.