Proprietary estoppel — Property purchased in joint names — Mortgage repayments shared — Whether conditions for operation of proprietary estoppel fulfilled — Appeal dismissed
The defendant was the daughter of the plaintiff and her husband (P). In 1971 they moved to a house purchased in the sole name of the defendant. P paid the deposit and the defendant took out a mortgage for the balance. In 1972 they moved to a house purchased in the names of the defendant and her parents using the net proceeds of sale of their former house and a mortgage taken out for the balance. Between 1972 and 1975 the defendant was the only one in regular employment and paid all effective outgoings including mortgage repayments and rates. The parents provided food. In 1975 they moved to 798 Walsall Road, Birmingham, purchased in their joint names for £8,975 of which £3,475 was provided out of the net proceeds of sale of their home and the balance by mortgage. The defendant paid the mortgage instalments, rates, water rates, ground rent and other outgoings, except for food. In 1981, the defendant married H and left her parents’ home to live in rented accommodation. The defendant continued to pay the mortgage on Walsall Road so that her parents would have a roof over their heads.
In 1983 P was injured and asked the defendant and her husband to move into Walsall Road on the basis that the house would be theirs after the deaths of himself and the plaintiff. The defendant and her husband paid one-third of the mortgage and the parents paid two-thirds. In addition the defendant and her husband paid the cost of repaying moneys raised to build a garage. In 1989 P died. There was a dispute between the parties and the plaintiff gave notice severing the joint tenancy of the property. The defendant refused to accept this and the plaintiff left the property and lived elsewhere but continued to pay two-thirds of the mortgage repayments. The plaintiff subsequently instituted proceedings seeking an order for sale of the property and division of net proceeds of sale. In reply the defendant sought an order preventing any sale and to have her right of survivorship reinstated. The plaintiff’s application was dismissed. The defendant was permitted to reside in the property so long as she made the mortgage repayments. She was also ordered to refund to the plaintiff an amount equal to the mortgage repayments since the plaintiff gave notice severing the tenancy
Held The plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed.
1. The estoppel which bound the plaintiff was based on statements made to the defendant that the house would be hers on the death of her parents.
2. The parties had never directed their minds to what would happen if their joint enjoyment of the house became incompatible.
3. A court of equity in giving effect to equitable rights of the parties had to consider not only the contributions and expectations of the defendant but those of the plaintiff as well: see Dodsworth v Dodsworth (1973) 228 EG 1115.
4. The court had a wide discretion to do what was best in the interest of the parties generally.
5. The circumstances for proprietary estoppel to operate were fulfilled to make good the expectation of the defendant which the plaintiff had encouraged. The defendant had provided the plaintiff with a home for life or for so long as she wished to lived there.
6. The judge was entitled to take the view that it was sufficient to reimburse all payments made by the plaintiff.
Stephen Eyre (instructed by JY Holt & Sellars) appeared for the plaintiff; Donald McConville (instructed by Shepherds, of Birmingham) appeared for the defendant.
