Controversial ruling giving unmarried father 50% equity in property has been overturned

The Supreme Court has overturned a landmark decision in the ownership of property by an unmarried couple. Mr Kernott and Miss Jones got together in the 1980s and went on to have two children. They shared a home, now worth £250,000, together until they split up in 1993. Both names were on the title. They never married.

After their split Mr Kernott paid nothing towards the mortgage, or towards his children’s maintenance. Last year the Court of Appeal had ruled that he was entitled to 50% of the property. The Supreme Court has now overruled that judgement awarding him just 10%. Supreme Court judge, Lord Kerr said that the original split awarded by the County Court of 10% and 90% was a “fair one between the parties.”

Mr Kernott commented “I have been painted as this ogre who walked out on his family. I love my family, I didn’t want to leave but it was made unbearable for me to stay. It’s a sad day for men who are left in a similar position to me and it feels like the law will always side with the woman.”

The case has led to fresh calls for a change in the law to protect cohabiting couples. William Healing, a family lawyer at firm Kingsley Napley said “This case involved an ordinary couple who were forced to fight through four levels of court.”

It has been suggested that recommendations made four years ago, which would see couples who have children together or have cohabited for more than two years gaining automatic rights to make certain claims, should be revived.

Ramsdens Family Mediation Service

Is Family Mediation right for you….?

Many separating couples would like to be able to come to an agreement in relation to their children or financial affairs. They may not, however, be able to discuss the issues constructively between themselves. Mediation, creates the safe neutral space with highly skilled mediators to help you reach an agreement.

The aim of the service is to help couples avoid nasty, expensive and protracted courtroom battles. Instead, the lawyer mediator sits down with both, discusses the likely outcome of the case if it did go to court, and helps them to reach formal agreement.

The service also offers help with pre-nuptial agreements, grandparents’ rights, cohabitation agreements and child contact disputes.

Helen Thewlis, Head of Family at Ramsdens comments: “Family mediation is a voluntary process – you choose to attend because you want to deal with the unresolved issues between you and your former partner…..in a non-adversarial way and our Family Law Mediation service is complemented by the experience and expertise of our team.

The length of the mediation process is at your own pace but on average three to five sessions are required which potentially means that agreements can be reached within six weeks and is a cost effective way to resolve difficulties.”

Contact Ramsdens specialist Family Mediation service by calling our Family team on 01484 821 500 or email Helen Thewlis, who is a Resolution Trained Family Mediator helen.thewlis@ramsdens.co.uk to discuss any issues you may have or if you would like to book your free initial appointment.

Foreign spouse ruling upheld

The government’s efforts to ban foreign spouses aged between 18 and 21 from entering the UK in an attempt to curb forced marriages is unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.

Home Secretary Theresa May approached the highest court in the land to overturn a Court of Appeal decision which outlawed the ban. However, by a four to one majority, the Supreme Court rejected Mrs May’s claims that the ban was “arbitrary and disruptive”.

The decision follows campaigns from two couples – Diego and Amber Aguilar, and Shakira Bibi and Suhyal Mohammed. Under Mrs May’s ban, the immigration rules prevented the couples from reuniting as non-European under 21s could not obtain visas.

But four Supreme Court justices have agreed the ban could not stand as it infringed on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; the right of the couples to family and private life.

“The Secretary of State has failed to establish that interference with the rights of such couples under Article 8 is justified,” said Lord Wilson.

“First and foremost, although nobody knows the figures, it is clear that the rule will interfere with many more entirely voluntary marriages than it will prevent, deter or delay forced marriages,” added Lady Hale. “The scale and severity of the impact upon these unforced marriages has scarcely been considered.”

You can contact Ramsdens Family team to discuss Forced Marriages on 01484 821 500 or email family@ramsdens.co.uk

“No part of a personal injury award is sacrosanct” says wife’s QC in divorce case

The Court of Appeal has approved a divorce judgement which awarded a wife £285,000 of her husband’s £500,000 personal injury compensation. Mr and Mrs Mansfield met five years after Mr Mansfield was made the award in compensation for suffering the loss of a leg and serious spinal injuries when he was hit by a car in 1992. The couple split shortly after the birth of their twins, now four.

In making his judgement Lord Justice Thorpe agreed with the trial judge that the needs of the children were paramount. He stated “I have been of a fluctuating mind during argument, but have come to the conclusion that the judge went into the conflicting needs of the parties with considerable care and found that £285,000 was the minimum needed to meet the needs of the wife and children. £285,000 may be on the high side and it might be that the wife was fortunate to receive that quantification, but it would be unprincipled for this court to interfere.”

In one concession to Mr Mansfield a charging order was placed on the new property which his ex-wife will purchase providing that £95,000 must be paid back to him when the twins turn 18, or finish higher education or if she remarries to a partner who can provide for her and the children.

Mrs Mansfield’s barrister, Richard Todd QC, emphasised the significance of the decision for future cases saying “This case is going to be of huge importance to many other cases in future involving divorce and personal injury. It will now become the authority for
all such future cases and emphasises that personal injury is significant factor when looking at any damages in a divorce case.”

Would you use a high street shop to get a #divorce?

Check out Ramsdens latest Family newsletter

 

 

 

 

 

 

Check out Ramsdens latest Family newsletter.

Stories in this edition include:

Ramsdens launch family mediation service

Government to consider ‘Clare’s Law’

Civil partnerships dissolutions rise

Family law reforms given mixed reaction

You can contact Ramsdens family team on 01484 821 500 or email family@ramsdens.co.uk

Government to consider ‘Clare’s Law’

Hazel Blears, the former Home Office minister, is leading a campaign for a change in the law which would enable the police to warn women if a new partner had a history of domestic violence.

Clare Wood was murdered in 2009. She met George Appleton, her killer, through Facebook but did not know that he had a record of domestic violence against previous partners.

Ms Blears said: ”Women in Clare’s situation are often unaware of their partner’s previous relationships and this
can mean they start a relationship with someone with no idea if they have a violent past.

”Clare’s tragic death shows how vulnerable women aren’t always protected under the current law, and until women are given the right to know if their partner has a history of serial domestic abuse, they can’t be sure of the risk that they face.

”By changing the law we can empower women so that they can take informed action about their relationship and give them the chance to protect themselves and prevent domestic abuse from happening before it begins.”

What do you think…?  Click here to take part in our poll.

 

CHILDREN TO ‘BENEFIT FROM DIVORCE REFORMS’

Recent changes to UK divorce proceedings ‘will benefit the children of separating spouses’, that’s the view expressed by one expert this week in the wake of landmark governmental reforms.

As of April 6, any couple seeking divorce in England and Wales from the beginning of the 2011-2012 tax year, will be legally obliged to participate in an assessment based on mediation to see if a more amicable solution can be found without the intrusion of the courts.

The government claims such reforms will be cost-effective and avoid the occasional turmoil that divorce proceedings can inflict on family life.

And this week Keith Towler, Children’s Commissioner for Wales, told Walesonline.co.uk that the rules are a positive step for youngsters who often find themselves caught in the middle of battles between their mother and father.

“A skilled mediator can help a family to resolve things,” he added, while dismissing criticism that the process is “adversarial” and that spouses need to “think in the best interests of their children”.

However, the government’s plans have come under criticism in certain circles, with one legal expert telling Walesonline.co.uk:

“Although potentially a good way to keep unnecessary cases from reaching court-stage, how easy it will be for a warring couple to enter into a successful mediation – which requires goodwill and co-operation – remains to be seen.

“In practice, mediation is often fraught with tension, which has a very negative impact on any children involved in the dispute, and certain clients will feel that this is not an option for them.”

Whether you feel mediation is the right option for you or not, the government’s plans have made it a reality for all future divorcing couples. If you’re unsure over the changes, or need advice on divorce in general, contact Ramsdens family team on 01484 821 500 today and we’ll do all we can to help.

RIGHTS FOR COHABITEES

The Supreme Court is currently considering a case involving a previously cohabiting couple who split up nearly twenty years ago.

The dispute involves ownership of the former couple’s shared home, which they purchased as joint owners with a joint mortgage, in 1993.  After the man moved out, the woman took responsibility for the entire mortgage payments and lived in the house with the couple’s two children.

However, the couple have been in disagreement ever since about their entitlement to the property.  Earlier court decisions held that the majority of the property’s value should go to the woman who had maintained and funded it following the separation.  However, the Court of Appeal ruled last year that the man should be entitled to half of its value as he had been a joint owner at the time of the separation.  This is the normal position where married couples are concerned.

The final decision now lies with the Supreme Court, which has yet to give its judgment.  This is awaited with interest by many people as the issues raised are ones which are the subject of current uncertainty.  Firstly, cohabitees are currently unable to ask the court to regulate their finances following a separation, unlike married couples.  Secondly, it is currently unclear whether a court will intervene to re-adjust the parties’ shares in jointly owned property, where the conduct of the parties has shown that they should not be equal.  As these are complicated issues it is thought that the final judgment may take some time.

If you have any questions about cohabiting rights call Ramsdens Family team on 01484 821 500 or email family@ramsdens.co.uk.

LANDMARK RULING ON THE HORIZON FOR UNMARRIED COUPLES

Millions of unmarried couples throughout the UK could soon be welcoming a wholesale change in separation rights following the landmark case of a couple who broke up almost two decades ago.

The change in cohabitant rights hinges on an upcoming Supreme Court ruling, which will decide whether a man, Mr Kernott, is entitled to half the value of the property he shared with a former girlfriend.

According to the case details, the couple separated in 1993 after sharing a house in for eight years. Mr Kernott moved out of the property, leaving ex-partner Ms Jones to pay the mortgage, maintain the property and bring up the couple’s two children. But Mr Kernott claimed for his half of the property decades later, arguing that he was entitled to half the value of the property because the couple owned equal shares when they separated and neither had done anything to change the situation since.

Ms Jones disputed his claim and both the County Court and the High Court agreed, awarding her a 90% share of the property’s worth. But Mr Kernott has appealed successfully through the Court of Appeal and Lord Justice Wall has since said the case should serve as a “cautionary tale” for all cohabitants buying a house together.

Ms Jones has now launched her landmark case against the ruling of The Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court will decide whether a Court can infer that a couple have altered their respective interests in a property if there is no specific agreement or evidence confirming the same.

The case continues.