Man and mistress contribute £558 and £172 respectively towards purchase of house–Conveyance in joint names, both parties liable as mortgagors–Doctrine of Crisp v Mullings applied, man to have 2408/4430 of net proceeds of sale of house, mistress 2022/4430
This was a
claim by Ida Elizabeth Lawrence against Reuben McFarlane for an order that 4
Kings Road, Upton Park, London E6, be sold and the proceeds divided jointly
between the parties.
B Nathan
(instructed by Lesser & Co) appeared for the plaintiff, and R Wallington
(instructed by A H Page) represented the defendant.
Giving
judgment, JUDGE THOMAS said that the plaintiff and the defendant first met in
Birmingham in 1967. At the time they were both married, but they formed an
intimate association. Later in 1967 they moved to London and lived at various
addresses as man and wife. They at first intended to marry when free to do so,
but although they were both divorced in 1972 their relationship deteriorated
and they did not marry. In 1968 they saw the Kings Road house and
to hold as joint tenants beneficially. The plaintiff put up £172 towards the
purchase-price and the defendant £558, and the balance of the price of £4,300
and costs of £130, namely £3,700, was raised on security of a legal charge over
the property which was executed by both parties. The reason for that was the
familiar one that the parties’ combined earnings were adequate to cover the
repayments due under the terms of the charge, but the earnings of either singly
were not. At the time of the purchase the plaintiff was earning £12 a week and
the defendant £20; the defendant could not alone have met the repayments under
the charge, though shortly after the parties moved into the house they let
three single rooms on the first floor, and the rents received were sufficient
to repay the monthly instalments of about £26. In fact the instalments had
always been met out of the rents from the three lettings.
The parties
lived as man and wife until 1972. The plaintiff paid the housekeeping bills and
the defendant paid the rates, electricity bills and other outgoings. Although
in 1972 they ceased to live together as man and wife, they shared accommodation
until June 1973, when they occupied separate rooms and thereafter led separate
lives The plaintiff left the house in December 1975. It had been suggested that
on the evidence the plaintiff was a mere nominee, but he (his Lordship) thought
that the facts did not begin to establish that proposition. He thought that her
position must be considered in the light of Crisp v Mullings,
reported at first instance in 233 ESTATES GAZETTE 511, but before the Court of
Appeal only (so far) in the transcripts of judgments for July 1975 contained in
the Bar Library [see now 239 EG 119, [1976] 2 EGLR 103–Ed]. That decision did
not, however, establish that the plaintiff and the defendant were equally
entitled in equity. In his (Judge Thomas’s) judgment, they were entitled to
share in the proportions in which they contracted for the purchase of the
property. The plaintiff contracted £172 plus £1,850, being one-half of the
money borrowed on the legal charge. The defendant contracted £558 plus £1,850.
The property would be sold, the plaintiff being entitled to 2022/4430 and the
defendant to 2408/4430 of the net proceeds of the sale.
