Burns v Burns [1984] Ch. 317; [1984] 2 WLR 582; [1984] 1 All ER 244

KEY POINTS

• The concept of trust for sale in the family home arose when a man acquired a house in his sole name. 

• Although not contributing directly to the purchase or mortgage, the woman lived in the house for 17 years, performing domestic duties and caring for the children. 

• The issue was that there was a common intention for the woman to have a beneficial interest in the property. The legal system evaluated the circumstances, considering factors such as implied agreements or shared understandings between the unmarried couple regarding property rights. 

• The resolution required carefully examining legal and equitable principles to ensure a fair outcome for all parties involved.

FACTS

• In 1961, Valerie Burns ("Plaintiff") and Patrick King Burns ("Defendant”) established their home in rented accommodation, where their first child was born.

  • Two years later, in 1963, anticipating the arrival of their second child, Defendant opted to invest in a house, purchasing it solely in his name.

  • Defendant funded the acquisition using his own money and a mortgage, with Plaintiff making no direct contributions to the purchase price or mortgage payments.

  • From 1963 to 1975, Plaintiff dedicated her time to childcare and domestic duties, unable to contribute financially until she commenced working as a driving instructor in 1975.

  • Despite Defendant continuing to provide a generous housekeeping allowance and not requiring her to contribute to household expenses, Plaintiff utilized her earnings to cover rates and telephone bills and acquire fixtures, fittings, and certain domestic chattels for the house. She also redecorated the interior.

• In 1980, Plaintiff left Defendant and initiated legal proceedings, asserting her entitlement to a beneficial interest in the house due to her contributions over the 17 years they cohabited.

• However, the judge ultimately dismissed the Plaintiff's claim.

JUDGEMENT

• On appeal by the Plaintiff, the court, in dismissing the appeal, held that as the Plaintiff had not made a substantial financial contribution to the acquisition of the house, the court could not impute a common intention that she should acquire a beneficial interest in it. 

• The Plaintiff's contributions to the family's welfare by performing domestic duties and bringing up the children were deemed irrelevant in determining whether she had acquired a beneficial interest in the house.

• Consequently, the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of any trust in her favor.

COMMENTARY

• The case related to the ownership and distribution of beneficial interests in family homes, particularly unmarried couples.

  • The central issue revolves around financial and non-financial contributions, such as maintaining the home or caring for children. 

• The case emphasizes that when a home is taken in joint names, both parties are generally entitled to a share in the beneficial interest. The extent of their respective shares depends on their financial contributions, and in cases of mortgages, a broad assessment is required. 

• The case guides determining beneficial interests in various scenarios, and the appeal in the specific case discussed was dismissed based on the Plaintiff's lack of substantial financial contributions.