Case Law: Stack V Dowden, Jones V. Kernott, And More Essay.

1. Sophie is a defacto partner of Harold having lived together in which a clear definition can be sourced under the Family Law Act 1975, in which the relationship is presumed to exist or it exists between two people (who are not legally married or related by family) who, having regard to all of the circumstances of their relationship,lived together on a genuine domestic basis for a period exceeding two years in the union. Having lived together for a period exceeding 2 year and having children together as a couple, Sophie is entitled to a share of the house as a de facto partner, the law provides that one is entitled to a 50% share of the property including the house that they have and thus, she has a right to claim 50% share of the house as it was a family house even though it was bought solely by Harold, her stake in the house in terms of mortgage contribution and being present as a de facto partner makes her to be entitled to a share of the property.
2. Secondly, she has taken care of the house in terms of paying for mortgages that the house was supposed to be paid for in which in the course of doing her small house chore duties and her art works, all the revenue that she has raised in the past she used it cumulatively towards maintenance of the house while leaving nothing to chance nor investing in another asset for her own as she thought that she was going to live in this property forever. It’s also a disappointment that after all the sacrifices that she had towards establishing the family up to the stage in which it is right now has been met with utter disgracefulness by her husband who has failed to acknowledge the efforts and give her part of the property to settle on as they had an agreement. In the course of their stay as cohabiting partners, she never had a second though that her partner would later on change his mind regarding the house ownership after sacrificing her time to give him children and waste her resources to modify the house to suit their needs.
3. A surviving de facto partner in a qualifying relationship is entitled to share in the relationship property under the Property act. After Harold moved to London to take care of her ailing sister, he promised Sophie that they were in a partnership and they will always be together. A statement that clearly indicates that if he acknowledged them to be in a partnership relationship then the assets in their custody the were supposed to divide them equally among themselves as it is done in the partnership whereby partners contribute capital according to their abilities and when it comes to sharing the profits made, they share it based on contribution. But when it comes to a marriage setting, acknowledging that they were partners implies that they were bound to share the property and assets that they had accumulated together during the period of their stay to make the partnership a success.
4. In addition, the stay that Harold has stayed in London for more than 5 years while Sophie was back taking care of the family assets while she was aware that the property was for her family since she has children with Harold. Having stayed back to take care of the property in good faith calls for the need for a fair settlement so that the parties can get a fair share that represents their efforts and sacrifice that they have place in the property to the extent in which they have managed to raise the property value to the current price.
5. On the other hand, the efforts that she has placed to the construction and repairs of the property with her little income deserves to be granted and awarded as it is the efforts that has made the house to be able to stand and have an effective outlook contrary to the anticipations of her de facto partner who does not acknowledge the efforts that she placed to make the house a habitable unit. In addition, Harold had promised Sophie that she should not bother with contribution in which she can later on contribute when she completes her golf course of which when it was done, she contributed some of her small income towards establishment of the unit and modification of the unit to make it to look more appealing and appreciate in value.
6. Sophie’s stay at home as a house wife while taking care of the family five children while doing small maintenance work at the property with the occasional money that she earned from her golf drawing courses makes her  to be regarded as a house wife in literal terms and as such, having spent her life at the family house doing all these chores in the name of being married should be awarded by being provided with a share that a house wife deserves to be provided during separation, settlement of a will or disposal of a family asset as she also contributed to the maintenance of the property unit the point it is now.
7. The income that she got and contributed to the improvement of the family house deserves to be paid back if they were to settle and therefore, the separation should first of all be conducted in a manner that she will be made aware on how she will collect her share as her efforts are also evident in the way in which she has toiled for betterment of the house. Moreover, her efforts in modification of the house cannot be computed since they moved in together and therefore, she deserves a fair share of the house of which even if her name is not registered in the property as one of the legal owners, she should be able to be given a share equivalent to that of a wife or de facto partner would receive which in this case could be 50% of the current value of the house.

1. Harold can also defend his actions and decision to throw Sophie from the house by first of all claiming that they never formalized their cohabitation relationship rather, they used to reside together as partners. The term he used as we are partnership relates to sharing of house chores but there is no point where they had a written agreement that they were going to share the property ownership rights. In regards to this defense, Harold can seek the court to interpret the relationship as partners who did not have an agreement on settlement of the property hence there is no point in contemplating and making Sophie to be an heir to the property when she was not written neither in his will nor on the ownership of the property.
2. The maintenance and extension construction costs that Sophie has erected on the property was not agreed and it was done while he had travelled to London hence he was not aware of the arrangements to such extent. Sophie had done such maintenance operations out of goodwill she was not coerced or forced to use her money to make any extension to the property and therefore, Harold can argue that such arrangements he is not aware of them and therefore, there is no point for her to lay claim on a property that she does not have right to as he did not have an intention nor communicate that he had an intention of including her to the sharing of the property.
3. The property was purchased by him alone and he has been paying mortgage debt alone and there was no point in time that he authorized Sophie to join in paying the mortgage debt nor any maintenance costs that are associated with maintenance of the product from start to completion. It is therefore evident that Sophie did all these maintained out of goodwill and there was no time that she was compelled to do that hence Harold is not intending to share the property with her as a partner in the relationship.
4. Harold can also argue that he had not yet introduced Sophie to any of his family members nor did he had an intention of having her as his wife hence there was no such an agreement that she was going to inherit part of the property. Moreover, there was no any will settlement that has been done or is intended to be done in relation to the property share hence the act of compelling him to release the 50% property to Sophie is unwelcomed as he has not yet declared his will nor intention to either include or exclude Sophie from the will.
5. Telling Sophie to pack and get out of the house is because he is intending to settle with his new partner and there is no way in which the two women can reside in the house together. Sophie therefore has a right to look for another property to reside on or in the extension that she built at the back of the house and await the time when I will write a will for settlement to determine whether the will recognize her or not as the heir of the property.
6. Property ownership documents and the mortgage application that he applied for the construction of the house is that the property is entitled to him alone and no other partner who is not entitled to be recognized as the owner of the property.  
7. In addition, there is no written or oral agreement that Sophie and I made in regards to how the property will be shared in case of demise of one partner, separation of the partners or any other circumstance that will make the partners to consider changing the relationship. One cannot be forced to settle an amount that they do not agree on even though there is a need to settle the partnership mutually without force or intimidation. There is no way in which I can be forced to comply and implement a plan of 50/50 share to the property while the property is acknowledged. Hence, there is no way in which I can be forced to acknowledge the share that Sophie is seeking without justification of the costs sought as such costs are not justified on what ground they should be implemented. Settlement of a property dispute is inherently a function of the partners and not merely an agreement or intimidation to allow settlement of the property without goodwill.
8. I still acknowledge Sophie as a cohabiting partner and at the time of declaring my will, that is the time that I will share the property with her but not right now that I can be forced to share the property equally because am still residing in the property and have not died for the property to be divided 50/50 as claimed by Sophie. Settlement of the property will incorporate a share of Sophie and the five children and not right now when have not yet decided to settle the property because this is a challenge that seeks to be solved. With time, I will be able to make proactive decisions regarding settlement of the property but not be coerced on the same.

Case law.

Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17

Jones v. Kernott [2011] UKSC 53

Lloyds Bank plc v. Rosset [1990] UKHL 14

Oxley v Hiscock [2004] EWCA Civ 546

Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777

SM v Entry Clearance [2018] UKSC 9

S v. J and others [2016] EWHC 586 (Fam)

Jones v Kernott [2012] 1 All ER 1265, [2011]

Coman v Inspectoratul General pentru Imigr?r[2018]