Many couples choose to live together without getting married or entering into a cohabitation agreement. In many cases, the home they share is legally owned by only one of them. When the relationship comes to an end, a common question is whether the non-owner can claim a share of their ex-partner’s house, even where their name does not appear on the title deeds. Determining whether someone has acquired a beneficial interest in a property owned solely by their former partner is one of the most common types of cohabitation dispute.
Take Wallace and Gromit as an example. Wallace purchases a property in his sole name, and the couple move in together. Alternatively, Wallace already owns a property before entering into the relationship and Gromit later moves into Wallace’s home.
In either scenario, could Gromit claim a share of Wallace’s property?
Possibly. Many people assume that, if their name is not on the title deeds, they have no right to claim a share of a house owned by their former partner. However, that is not always the case. In certain circumstances, a person may acquire a beneficial interest in property despite not being the legal owner, meaning they may still be entitled to a share of the property’s value following a separation.
Where a property is held in one person’s sole name, the law may nevertheless recognise that another person has acquired a beneficial interest in that property. This commonly arises through what is known as a common intention constructive trust. Common intention constructive trusts frequently arise in disputes between unmarried couples where one party claims a share of a property despite not being named as a legal owner.
In broad terms, a common intention constructive trust can arise where the parties shared an understanding that both of them would have an interest in the property and the non-owner acted in reliance on that understanding to their detriment. If established, the court may conclude that the non-owner is entitled to a beneficial interest and therefore a share of the property, even though their name does not appear on the title deeds. This is one of the main legal routes by which unmarried couples seek to establish ownership rights in a property owned solely by their former partner.
Claims of this nature are highly fact-specific and there is no automatic formula for determining whether a beneficial interest exists or, if it does, what that interest may be worth. Each case will depend upon its own facts, including the parties’ discussions, financial arrangements, contributions to the property and wider course of conduct throughout the relationship.
Disputes concerning a beneficial interest in a property owned in a sole name are commonly referred to as sole name cases and are typically pursued under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA). Such claims are often brought by unmarried couples following the breakdown of a relationship, where one party seeks to establish a share of a property legally owned by the other.
What is a TOLATA claim?
A TOLATA claim is a court application brought under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. It is commonly used to resolve property disputes between unmarried couples, former partners and family members. A TOLATA claim can be used to establish whether a beneficial interest exists, determine the size of a person’s share in a property, or obtain an order requiring a property to be sold. It is often used where one party claims a share of a house that is legally owned by somebody else.
When assessing whether Gromit may have a beneficial interest in the property, one of the first steps would be to obtain the Land Registry documents, including the title register and transfer deed, to establish how the property is owned. This allows us to identify whether the property is held in a sole name or joint names and whether any declarations of trust or ownership provisions have already been recorded.
Where a property is held in a sole name, there is generally an assumption that beneficial ownership follows the legal title. If the Land Registry documents confirm that Wallace is the sole legal owner, it will be presumed that Wallace is the sole beneficial owner too. As such, Gromit will not automatically have an interest and will have to establish a beneficial interest by proving that a trust arose in their favour.
The burden of proving the existence and extent of any beneficial interest rests with Gromit.
To assess whether such a trust may exist, we would typically ask questions such as:
- Were any declarations of trust entered into, whether in the transfer deed itself or separately?
- How was the purchase funded?
- What discussions took place between Wallace and Gromit when the property was purchased? Was there a particular reason why the property was purchased in Wallace’s sole name?
- Is there any documentary evidence of those discussions or agreements, such as emails, text messages, Facebook messages or WhatsApp messages.
- What was Gromit’s understanding regarding ownership of the property at the time of purchase?
- Are there any children of the relationship, and was the property intended to be the family home?
- Is there a mortgage and, if so, is it a capital repayment mortgage or an interest-only mortgage, and who has made the mortgage payments?
- How were the parties’ finances managed during the relationship?
- Have any improvements or renovations been carried out to the property and, if so, what were they and who paid for them?
The above is not an exhaustive list, but it illustrates the type of information that is required in order to build a complete picture of the parties’ intentions and dealings. In beneficial interest claims and TOLATA proceedings, documentary evidence can be particularly important, including bank statements, mortgage records, correspondence and messages which shed light on the parties’ intentions regarding ownership of the property.
What does Gromit need to prove?
In most sole name cases, Gromit would need to establish that:
- Wallace and Gromit shared a common intention that the beneficial ownership of the property would be held otherwise than in accordance with the legal title; and
- Gromit acted in reliance upon that common intention in a way that was detrimental.
Evidence of substantial financial contributions towards the purchase price, mortgage or improvement of the property will often assist in establishing a beneficial interest claim. However, there is no requirement that every contribution be financial in nature, and the court will consider the parties’ entire course of conduct when determining whether a common intention constructive trust arose.
If Wallace refused to recognise Gromit’s claimed interest in the property, court proceedings may be required. Through a TOLATA claim, the court can determine whether Gromit has acquired a beneficial interest in the property and, if so, the percentage share to which they are entitled. Commonly, the court may also be asked to order the sale of the property.
The Birketts view
If your ex-partner owns a property in their sole name, that does not necessarily mean that you have no claim against it. Depending on the circumstances, you may be able to establish a beneficial interest and claim a share of your ex-partner’s house, even if your name does not appear on the title deeds.
Whether such a claim succeeds will depend on the evidence available, including any discussions about ownership, financial contributions, mortgage payments, improvements to the property and the parties’ conduct throughout the relationship.
Claims involving beneficial interests, common intention constructive trusts and TOLATA proceedings are highly fact-specific. If you believe you may have a claim against a property owned by a former partner, it is important to obtain specialist legal advice as early as possible.
Our specialist home ownerships disputes team has extensive experience advising and representing clients in beneficial interest disputes, TOLATA claims and other property disputes between unmarried couples, whether bringing a claim to establish an interest in property or defending one.
Key Contacts
Audio versions of this article are autogenerated and occasional errors in interpretation may be made. The content of this article is for general information only. It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice. If you require any further information in relation to this article, please contact the author in the first instance. Law covered as at September 2026.