The Court of Appeal has upheld a ruling that five properties covered by an elderly couple's divorce settlement, including their former family home, are held by them as tenants in common with separate 50% interests.
Ms Justice Faherty, with Ms Justice Pilkington and Mr Justice Binchy agreeing, dismissed the wife's appeal in its entirety on December 10. The practical effect is that the properties are not held under joint tenancies carrying a right of survivorship between the former spouses.
The couple married in 1969 and divorce proceedings began in 2021. They reached a settlement on January 11, 2023, when both sides were represented by solicitors, Senior Counsel and Junior Counsel. The agreement provided that each was entitled to a 50% interest in five properties and other assets.
A dispute emerged the following year over whether that wording had severed the existing joint tenancies. The wife argued that it merely confirmed the ownership position and that the settlement did not expressly state that the properties were to be held as tenants in common. The husband sought a declaration that each held a separate 50% share.
The High Court agreed with the husband in July 2024. The Court of Appeal has now upheld that interpretation, finding that the words "each entitled to a 50% interest", read in the context of the settlement as a whole and the circumstances of the divorce, indicated separate shares.
The court also rejected the wife's argument that the statutory provision used in the settlement could only declare existing property rights. It held that the legislation gave the court power to make orders concerning title, sale or partition of property.
The appeal against the High Court costs order was also dismissed. The Court of Appeal proposed that the husband receive his appeal costs unless either party sought a different order within 28 days.