The Dublin Circuit Court has ordered the sale of a former couple’s home and directed that the net proceeds be divided equally between them.
In a judgment delivered on 1 April 2020, Judge John O’Connor declared that Geraldine McGrane and Ciaran O’Foghlú held the property as tenants in common in equal shares. They had been registered as joint tenants. The court found no sufficient reason to award the defendant a larger share.
The judgment said the parties bought the dwelling in 1996 for £83,000, funded by a deposit and a joint mortgage. They were in a relationship from 1995 until August 2015 and described themselves in evidence as a family unit. They had a son together and each had a daughter from a previous relationship. The property was used as their family home.
Over the years, the parties borrowed against the property for a car, their move to Brussels and an extension. The mortgages were fully repaid in October 2016. The court noted that the parties used two joint bank accounts, with each having access to both. The plaintiff’s evidence was that she contributed 64% of their combined household and mortgage spending; the defendant estimated her contribution towards the purchase, mortgage and improvements at about 26%. He had offered her 30% of the net sale proceeds. She sought an equal division.
The judge treated equal beneficial ownership as the starting point because the property was jointly owned in law and there was no evidence that the parties had intended unequal shares when they bought it. The court considered their conduct and the overall course of their dealings, including their finances as a family unit. It concluded the defendant had not established a basis for a greater share. The judgment said the result would also have been equal ownership if assessed by the parties’ contributions.
The court said the parties continued living in the house after their relationship ended, though separately. As the mortgage had been repaid, it found no need to make an accounting adjustment under section 31(2) of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009.
The orders require the property to be sold under section 31(2)(c), with net proceeds divided equally. If the parties cannot agree on sale terms, either may apply to the court for directions. The plaintiff also has liberty to re-apply for an order allowing the County Registrar to execute documents for the defendant if necessary to give effect to the sale. The court did not determine costs; it said it would hear counsel’s submissions on the plaintiff’s costs application.