Eleven Years, One Name on the Deeds, and £60,000 from an Inheritance
Jade (41) and Marcus (44) began living together in 2013 and separated last month. They never married and there is no written agreement. Their son Leo is 7. In 2014 they bought a house in Marcus's sole name for £250,000. Jade paid £60,000 from an inheritance towards the deposit and paid £450 a month towards the mortgage for six years until Leo was born, after which she reduced to part-time work as a nurse and continued paying £200 a month from her own earnings. Marcus paid the mortgage instalments directly from his account most months and paid for a new kitchen in 2018. Jade decorated throughout and project-managed the renovation, taking six months off work to do so. The house is now worth £560,000 with £140,000 outstanding. Jade has no savings and cannot afford local rents; Leo is settled at the village school and does not want to change. Marcus has moved to a flat, earns £85,000 a year and says Jade has no legal interest and must leave within two months.
1. What claims does Jade have, and what is she not entitled to?
Read the worked answer
Start with what is absent. Jade is not married and has no claim for a financial remedy on divorce, so there is no discretionary reallocation of Marcus's income, pension or capital on the basis of needs and fairness. She cannot ask the court to 'do what is fair' between them as it could between spouses. A cohabitant's claim is a property claim, proved or lost on evidence.
What she does have:
A beneficial interest in the house. Either an express or inferred common intention constructive trust, or a proprietary estoppel claim. Her £60,000 deposit from inheritance, her monthly payments over six years, her unpaid labour on the renovation and the six months off work are all capable of establishing both a common intention that she would have a share and the detriment she suffered in reliance on it.
An order under the applicable trusts of land legislation for the property to be sold or for a declaration of the parties' respective shares, with an account of occupation rent if appropriate.
Child maintenance for Leo, through the statutory child support agency or the court where the agency has no jurisdiction. This is Leo's money, not hers.
A possible schedule of expenses for Leo under the Children Act 1989 Schedule 1 in England and Wales (or equivalent), which can include a lump sum and a housing fund for the child, though capital orders are exceptional.
2. How would you build and quantify the constructive trust claim?
Read the worked answer
Establish common intention. Look for an express discussion - texts, emails, messages about 'our house', 'our deposit', 'when we sell'. Ask Jade to search her phone and email before they are wiped. Absent an express agreement, the court infers intention from conduct. Two features help enormously: the £60,000 was her entire inheritance, paid at the point of purchase, and both parties behaved as if the property were shared - she paid monthly for six years, took six months off work for the renovation, and Marcus paid for the kitchen in a way consistent with a joint project.
Establish detriment. Her deposit, her mortgage payments, and the lost earnings from the renovation period are all quantifiable. Keep a precise schedule with dates and bank references.
Quantify the share. The court does not simply repay the deposit. It asks what share the parties intended. Common approaches are a percentage of the equity, or a 'money-purchase' calculation - the proportion her contribution bears to the purchase price, applied to the current value. Warrants of calculation: deposit £60,000 plus six years of £450 payments plus later £200 payments against a £250,000 purchase price. Expect Marcus to argue the contributions were rent or a loan; the absence of any rent book, loan agreement or repayment is powerful rebuttal.
Do not overreach. A claim to half the equity is ambitious where the deposit was 24% of the price and Marcus paid most instalments.
3. Marcus demands that Jade leave within two months. What is your immediate strategy?
Read the worked answer
Do not leave voluntarily, and say so. The single most damaging step Jade could take is to move out, because a court asked to order a sale will weigh who is caring for the child and whether he has a home. Her continued occupation is the lever that produces a negotiated outcome.
Assert the claim in writing. A solicitor's letter should set out the beneficial interest claim, note that Jade is not a trespasser and that any attempt to change the locks or remove her would be unlawful, and propose a standstill. Warn that self-help eviction could expose Marcus to an injunction at his own cost and, in many jurisdictions, to a criminal offence.
Consider Leo's position. Marcus's own child lives in the house. Any application to sell will be resisted on the basis that Leo needs a home, and the court will consider the effect on him. This is a reason to seek an interim declaration of Jade's interest and to postpone sale, not to abandon the claim.
Financial survival. Confirm child maintenance immediately; apply to the agency if Marcus does not pay. Check Jade's entitlement to welfare benefits and to legal aid or a litigation loan.
Protect evidence. Freeze the messages, bank statements going back to 2013, the inheritance paperwork and the renovation invoices. Also check whether Marcus has remortgaged or taken a charge against the property since separation.