UK Land Law: Non-married Individuals (Research Paper Sample)

UK Land Law: Non-married Individuals
Student's Name
Subject
Date
The issue of couples living together and not legally married has attracted heated debate regarding what legal treatment should be applied when long-term relationships end. When couples are living together in an unmarried status, and they separate before they get married, the protection given to the legal property owner is perceived to be injurious to the other party who may have played a significant role in maintaining the property while the relationship lasted. From a moral perspective, the vulnerable party who leaves the relationship with nothing after it ends appears to require some protection, which is largely not available as far as UK land law is concerned. For this reason, there have been widespread calls for the protection of the partner who has no legal rights to the property they occupied in the course of the relationship. It is a major issue of concern in family life in the UK, where the legal owner of the property is allowed to retain the family home in its entirety. This paper presents a critical analysis of the issues relating to UK land law as it applies to non-married individuals with special emphasis on the need for legal reform to protect those who have no legal right to property occupied in a relationship end up being broken. In light of the current land law environment in the UK, there is an urgent need for reform to provide adequate protection for non-married individuals.
In the context of the legal environment in the UK, the question of reform in the treatment of cohabitants is a view that many hold strongly. While cohabitants may receive express statutory recognition in areas such as a financial provision in the event of death, there lacks a similar recognition when it comes to financial and property rights when separation occurs. In this regard, it is worth noting that the law applies ownership of assets with reference to legal provisions of contracts, property, and trusts. Consequently, UK law fails in terms of adequately protecting unmarried individuals who become victims of broken relationships with little regard as to the role they have played in relation to the property. The need for reform to protect non-married individuals is evident in the recommended approach by the 2007 Law Commission report, which suggested that consideration of how the law treats cohabitating couples be based on qualifying contributions, retained benefit depending on the input of the respondent and gifts, economic disadvantage, discretionary factors, available orders and the clean break (costs to care for children, impact of getting another partner, and liability as outlined in the Children Act of 1989). This recommendation has everything to do with increased protection for non-married individuals under the law and preventing the usual situation where one is left with nothing after the relationship ends, all because the other partner is protected by the law if they legally own the home or other property.[The Law Commission, 'Cohabitation: The Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown' (The Law Commission 2007), p. 17.] [Ibid, p. 76-92.]
When deciding the legal right of individuals to property of non-married couples, there needs to be a consideration for the role that each party played in the acquisition of the family property in question and what their intentions were in terms of holding beneficial interest jointly. Current law addresses the issue of how property should be treated when cohabitating couples separate. In Stack v Dowden, Ms. Dowden and Mr. Stack lived together, not married, but they had children together. The couple bought a house in their joint names, with Ms. Dowden contributing the largest share compared to her partner. When the couple finally separated, a legal dispute ensued regarding the property they had bought together, and this related to the equal ownership of the property in question where Ms. Dowden claimed to have 65% of the proceeds of the sale. Following a ruling by the high court that the two had equal shares in the property, appeals before the appellate court and House of Lords ruled in favour of Ms. Dowden and determined that despite the two being joint tenants, the woman had a greater share amounting to more than half the equity. In the words of Baroness Hale:[Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17.]
There cannot be many unmarried couples who have lived together for as long as this, who have had four children together… This strongly indicates that they did not intend their shares, even in the property which was put into both their names, to be equal… Before the Court of Appeal, Ms. Dowden contended for a 65% share, and in my view, she has made good her case for that.
The implication here is that UK land law should consider the issue of property ownership in cohabitating couples from the lens of what contribution each of them has made in the acquisition of the property. If the partners had not intended that the property be held equally share-wise, then the law should clearly stipulate how the property should be shared among the couples upon separation. In a separate issue, the House of Lords held that even where couples were married, the efforts of the wife in supervising builders and redecorations were not adequate to warrant entitlement to a beneficial interest in the property. Stack v Dowden is thus a crucial source of common law that points to the need for reform in UK land law that addresses rights to the property for non-married couples. There is a need for current legal provisions to reflect the intentions of couples at the time they acquired the property. Moreover, if a couple contributes significantly to the property in terms of its improvement, there should be a clear provision as to the benefits they get as a result. Otherwise, the land law in the UK would not offer satisfactory protection to individuals who do not own the property on which cohabitation occurs. It is important that the true intentions be based on financial contributions, advice, or discussions that point to the couple's intentions, the reason for acquiring the home and why this gets done in the couple's joint names, the existence of children for whom the parties need to provide a home, initial and subsequent financing for the home's purchase, and the arrangement of finances among the parties (separate, together, or a mix of both).[Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset [1990] UKHL 14.] [Stack v Dowden [2007], at [69] and [70].]
The Matrimonial Causes Act is the primary law in the UK that addresses issues relating to how marriage can be ended and the resulting benefits and consequences to married couples. This includes divorce, nullity, other matrimonial suits, financial relief for the married and children, and the protection and custody of children, among other miscellaneous and supplemental issues. All these issues that are addressed by this Act arise when relationships are considered from the context of non-married couples. Therefore, it is unfortunate and unfair to these individuals for the law to fail to address underlying issues relating to this segment of the population, which has remained vulnerable because of the absence of express legal protection.[Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.]
Land in the UK is drawn from common law and equity courts. Moreover, it also derives from legislation including the Law of Property Act 1925, Land Registration Act, which was enacted in 2002, and the Land Charges Act of 1972; others are the Settled Land Act 1925 and the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act of 1996. These laws address issues of acquiring property, the priority of rights, and the responsibilities of individuals. The laws expressly address how land may pass from one individual to another if there is a divorce. For example, the Law of Property Act provides that severance inequity in relation to land can be achieved where a statutory notice gets served to other joint tenants. This issue was addressed in Harris v Goddard where Mrs. Harris had filed a divorce petition requesting an order towards severing her share of the matrimonial home. It was held that Mrs. Harris's wish to sever her share through the request did not bear express instructions that the order is made immediately, and this allowed her to inherit the entire home as a joint tenant after her husband's death at the expense of the children born out of Mr. Harris' first marriage. However, the existing laws do not have provisions for people living together in an unmarried status. If issues arise when such people part ways in relation to property rights, there lacks a clear mechanism that they can pursue to get financial justice after their long-term relationship.[Law of Property Act 1925, s.36.] [Harris v Goddard [1983] 1 WLR 1203.]
Non-married couples in the UK have remained vulnerable largely because there is no legal provision that recognizes such unions even where a couple has lived together for a long time and possibly had children. Common law marriages are not legally valid in the UK, and as such, when people move in together, they do not get automatic rights in relation to the property of each other irrespective of the period of time they have been together. This means that the owner of the property has exclusive rights to it, and they can make all decisions without consulting their partner, including selling the property and even kicking the partner out of the home. Parental responsibility is also limited to the mother unless her partner meets requirements set out under the law, such as being named on a child's birth certificate. Clearly, the lack of legal disadvantages non-married couples compared to those who are married under UK law, and this calls for changes to the law so that it can address some of the arising issues. For ...