Eves v Eves
Where a man gave his partner an excuse for not putting the house in joint names, which showed that she would otherwise have been on the title, and she did heavy work on the house, she acquired a beneficial interest.
Facts
Mr Eves and Janet Eves lived together and had children, although they were not married. Mr Eves bought a house, which he put in his sole name, telling Janet that, because she was under 21, she was too young to have her name on the title, and that if she had been 21, the house would have been in their joint names. This was an excuse. Janet did a great deal of heavy work on the house and garden, including breaking up concrete with a sledgehammer and demolishing a shed. When they separated, she claimed a share in the house.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Janet was entitled to a quarter share of the house. Brightman J, sitting in the Court of Appeal, said that the excuse given by Mr Eves showed that there was a common intention that Janet would have an interest, and that her work on the house, which went beyond what a partner would normally do, was referable to that intention. Lord Denning MR reached the same result on the basis of a constructive trust imposed by law to do justice, an approach later rejected.
Related cases on trusts of the family home
- Abbott v Abbott [2007] UKPC 53
- Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317
- Capehorn v Harris [2015] EWCA Civ 955
- Curran v Collins [2015] EWCA Civ 404
- Fowler v Barron [2008] EWCA Civ 377
- Geary v Rankine [2012] EWCA Civ 555
- Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886
- Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638
Studying land law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
