Disputes About Ownership: Understanding TOLATA Claims
Disputes about the ownership of land, especially homes, are a significant part of my practice. Ownership isn’t just about whose name is on the ‘deeds’ or legal paperwork. It involves two components: legal and beneficial ownership. While legal ownership is straightforward and usually tied to whose name appears on the paperwork, beneficial ownership often forms the crux of disputes.
To illustrate, imagine you have a bank account with money set aside for a child. You, as the adult, are the legal owner of the account. However, the money truly belongs to the child, and you hold it in trust for them. If you spent that money on yourself, it would breach that trust. Similarly, in property disputes, the beneficial owner might differ from the legal owner, leading to conflicts.
Understanding Trusts in Property Disputes
Disputes over land ownership often involve trusts, which can arise in various ways. There are several types of trusts, each with its own requirements and peculiarities:
- Express Trusts: Everyone agrees explicitly to the terms.
- Implied Trusts: Arise from the actions or circumstances of the parties.
- Constructive Trusts: Imposed by the court to prevent unjust enrichment.
- Resulting Trusts: Arise from contributions to the purchase price.
- Common Intention Constructive Trusts: Based on the shared intentions of the parties.
Trusts can be complex and aren’t something most people encounter regularly. However, they become crucial in cases of former unmarried couples who end their relationships. Often, one person’s name is on the deeds, but the other has a beneficial interest due to contributions or shared intentions.
Common Situations
Imagine a long-term boyfriend and girlfriend, John and Jane, who live together in a house solely owned by John. Over the years, Jane has contributed to the mortgage payments, renovations, and household expenses. When they break up, Jane believes she is entitled to a share of the property because of her contributions and their mutual understanding that the house was their shared home. Jane can make a TOLATA claim to have the court recognise her interest in the property.
Alternatively, consider a scenario where both John and Jane are on the legal paperwork as registered proprietors, but John contributed more towards the deposit. If they break up, a dispute might arise about what percentage of the property each owns.
Key Cases in TOLATA Claims
Stack v Dowden (2007)
This landmark case involved a cohabiting couple who owned a property together but in unequal shares. The court emphasised that the presumption of equal ownership can be rebutted if there is clear evidence of a different intention.
Jones v Kernott (2011)
In this case, the Supreme Court further clarified how the shares in a jointly owned property can change over time based on the parties’ intentions and contributions. It reinforced that the intention behind financial arrangements plays a crucial role in determining ownership shares.
My Cases Include
- M v M
- A dispute between a father and son regarding various properties, promissory estoppel, and constructive trusts with an international element. The matter started as a small claim and was transferred to the multi-track. Proceedings were settled after I drafted a Reply to the Amended Defence.
- DH v PP
- A dispute between a former cohabiting couple on whether there was a common intention constructive trust.
- SH v ZM
- A dispute between a former couple involving significant analysis of financial statements, taking of an account, and occupation rent.
- DY v MH
- A dispute between a former cohabiting couple where it was alleged that there was an engagement which was denied. There was an argument about whether a ‘garden office’ constituted a substantial improvement to the property. The matter was settled in a mediation in which I appeared.
- JF v MR and KR
- A matter concerning an express declaration of trust between a mother and son with the former girlfriend. Arguments surrounded running an equitable account before the relationship breakdown to consider significant unmet contributions made by one party.
- RM v PB
- A dispute about jointly held property and whether an unsigned declaration of trust constituted a ‘settled agreement’ between the parties. Satellite arguments over estoppel and whether there has been detriment. The property was in negative equity for most of the time since purchase.
How Can a Direct Access Barrister Help?
Disputes about property ownership can be complex and emotionally charged. As an experienced direct access barrister, I can provide expert advice and representation in TOLATA claims. Whether you are seeking to establish your interest in a property or defending against a claim, I am here to help you navigate the legal process and protect your rights.
If you are facing a dispute about property ownership and need legal advice, please contact me to discuss your case. Together, we can assess your situation and determine the best course of action to achieve a fair outcome.
Contact me to schedule a consultation and take the first step towards resolving your property dispute.