The Daily Mail
4 May 2011
Couple who split nearly 20 years ago await Supreme Court ruling on sale of the home they shared
Leonard Kernott and Patricia Jones ended their relationship nearly 20 years ago but their fight for the home they shared could change the legal landscape for unmarried couples.
Five Supreme Court justices are to decide whether Ms Jones’ ex-lover was entitled to half the value of their £245,000 house, even though they split in 1993 and he never made a mortgage payment on it.
One appeal judge, Lord Justice Wall, said last year the case was a ‘cautionary tale’ which all unmarried couples contemplating buying homes should study.
The Supreme Court, sitting in London today, heard that Mr Kernott and Ms Jones split up in 1993 after sharing a house in Thundersley for eight years.
Mr Kernott moved out, leaving Ms Jones to pay the mortgage, maintain the house - valued at £240,000 in 2008 - and bring up the couple's two children, the panel heard.
Had the couple been married and split up, their assets would have been divided in a divorce settlement overseen by the courts.
Last year the Court of Appeal decided that Mr Kernott was entitled to half the value of the house because the couple owned equal shares when they separated and neither had done anything to change the situation since.
Today, Ms Jones was appealing against the Court of Appeal ruling.
In 2008, a County Court judge sitting in Southend ruled that Ms Jones should get 90 per cent of the value of the house and Mr Kernott 10 per cent.
That decision was upheld by the High Court in London in 2009 but overturned on a majority by three appeal court judges in London in 2010.
Marilyn Stowe, a senior partner at the firm Stowe Family Law, said some lawyers thought the case could be ‘groundbreaking’ and ‘alter the landscape’.
‘At present, unmarried couples are unable to apply to the court for regulation of their financial affairs, in stark contrast to married couples and couples who have entered into civil partnerships,’ she said.
‘What cohabiting couples have at present is a hotchpotch of outmoded and outdated property law.’
The Supreme Court justices will reserve judgment to a date to be fixed after hearing argument from lawyers representing Mr Kernott and Ms Jones.
After the Appeal Court’s judgement in May 2010, Ms Jones appeared resigned at losing part of the house’s value, saying: ‘I feel like crying, especially as I won the first two cases, where he was awarded 10 per cent.
‘He’ll want me to sell up now so he can have his money. That’s what he’s wanted from day one.’
Mr Kernott said last year he did indeed want Ms Jones to sell the house, so he could pay for renovations on the bungalow where he now lives with his new partner.
He insisted he was the breadwinner when they lived together, but claimed he was ‘kicked out’ of the Thundersley home after he discovered Miss Jones had had an affair.
‘She’s making it sound like I deserted her and then came back for my share of the house,’ he said.
‘It’s nothing like that. She wasn’t working when I lived there and I put money into her account which she used to pay for the mortgage and everything. I’m just getting my fair share.
'It shouldn’t have gone this far. It’s just one of those sad things you have to go through.
‘I’m pleased with the result but I’m not going to gloat. She is the mother of my two children. The only winners are the lawyers.’
The couple’s son Dean said both his parents were at fault, adding: ‘They’re wasting a lot of money fighting each other. They’re both stubborn.’