Waiting for answer This question has not been answered yet. You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
I need some assistance with these assignment. family law problem question Thank you in advance for the help!
I need some assistance with these assignment. family law problem question Thank you in advance for the help! Although, Lucy contributed half of Jack’s contribution towards the purchase, her name is not among the co-owners because theirs was an informal arrangement. Therefore, she cannot validly claim a portion of the property based on her contribution upon their divorce2. Regardless, her interest to stay in the house is protected by the principle of joint tenancy, in which case, her shares are limited to the 25% of what Jack contributed towards the purchase the house3. What she needs is present written evidence showing her contribution in the purchase4. As such, Lucy she would be entitled to half of Jack’s appreciated entitlements upon divorce, considering that she did take part in improving the value of the Lees by setting up and maintaining the garden.
Jean is a valid co-owner of the property alongside Jack and Nick. Jean’s case is a bit different, however. She entered into an agreement to buy the house as a separate party before joining Nick in marriage. Jean’s attempt to sever the joint tenancy is valid as was held in Re 88 Berkeley Road, NW9 [1971] 1 All ER 254, where anything which provides the slightest indication of an intention to partition the property should be construed as a termination of the joint tenancy5. Unlike Lucy, Jean has a clearly distinct proportion of the property in her name6. She would forfeit any additional value of the house arising from the renovations, because she did not actively take part in it7.
The most effective way of granting Jean and Lucy their rightful shares of the property is to determine whether matrimonial property exists in each of the marriages. For Lucy, a court would disregard Jack’s attempts to end the relationship and possibly divide his shares equally between them whether or not she shows proofs of her shares as was evidenced in in the case of Jones v Jones [2011] EWCA Civ 418.
