Burns v Burns

Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317, [1984] 1 All ER 244) is a case in English property law dealing with the beneficial entitlements of unmarried cohabittees.

Facts

The plaintiff, Valerie Burns, lived with the defendant for 19 years, Patrick Burns, whom she never married. The house had been bought in the name of the defendant who also paid the purchase price with the plaintiff making no financial contributions to the purchase price or mortgage installments and had acted as a homemaker performing domestic duties.[1] She had however made financial contributions to the household with regards to household bills and redecorating.

Judgment

The judgment of the case was that in the absence of a financial contribution which could be related to the acquisition to the property such as mortgage installments there is no right to a beneficial entitlement to a family home. This decision was affirmed by the Lords Justice Waller, Fox and May in the Court of Appeal.

Notes
  1. Full text of opinion Archived November 18, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
gollark: Imagine requiring food to survive, as opposed to becoming a superior machine lifeform.
gollark: Also, vaccines have been going to older/more vulnerable people first.
gollark: That looks like significantly below half as many cases in vaccinated people, even though vaccination is at 68.1% (at least one dose). Which isn't *great* but isn't "doesn't even seem to work".
gollark: Jesus is within Site 2-Alpha's anomalous theological entity containment units, yes.
gollark: Obviously, this is because all scientific publications ever censor anything which governments might not want talked about.

References


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.