Family Financial Claim Case

The Problem

Our client and his partner had purchased three properties. They had no children but had lived together for some years.

Two of the houses had been purchased jointly but one of the houses was in the woman’s sole name.

Our client’s former partner had contributed more money to the purchase of the properties, but our client was a builder and had done a lot of work on all of them and what he could not do he had contributed to the cost of other work.

The couple had lived together on one of the properties but had tenants in the other two properties.

When they separated our client’s partner claimed that she was entitled to most of the money from the sale of the two jointly owned properties and that our client had no interest in the property she owned.

Our client’s former partner was granted an Order which excluded our client from entering the property and she refused to move out.

The Solution

Our client believed he had an equal share to all the properties. On investigation we came across evidence that showed that all three properties were always intended to belong to them both and the only reason the woman had put one of the properties on her sole name was because she could save on stamp duty.

We also gathered documentary evidence of all the work our client had carried out on the properties, and this was consistent with our client’s case that they had always intended to own all the properties together.

The Outcome

The matter went to Court, and it was held that the parties always intended that the three properties belonged to them both in equal shares based on the evidence presented at Court.

To try and settle the case before going to Court we advised our client to make a part 36 offer to settle. At trial the Court ordered his former partner to pay all his legal costs in addition to her own. His former partner’s interest in all three properties was taken away, and this enabled our client to gain control of them.

The former partner was then forced to vacate the property she initially refused to vacate.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

Key Facts

FACT 1
Disputed Ownership Structure:
Although one property was in the woman’s sole name and she had contributed more capital, the client (a builder) contributed significant labour and costs to all three properties

FACT 1
Evidence of Common Intention:
The Court found that all three properties were intended to be owned equally, uncovering evidence that the sole-name arrangement was merely a tactic to save on stamp duty.

FACT 1
Total Legal Victory:
Through a Part 36 offer and trial, the client gained full control of all properties, while the former partner was forced to vacate and pay all legal costs for both sides.

Family Financial Claim Case

Key Facts

Other Case Studies

Pension scheme in the purchase of a mixed-use commercial property

Long-term partner of the deceased.

Get a callback or quote