Burns v. Burns

Almost all family lawyers know of the case of ‘Mr & Mrs’ Burns.

They know it because the judgment from 1984 remains a correct statement of English law for cohabitees facing precisely the same circumstances as Mrs Burns did at the end of a long relationship.

Mrs Burns‘ case debunked the once very commonly held myth of a common law spouse having a legal standing. This myth is still commonly believed outside legal circles.

With the numbers of unmarried cohabitees on the rise, parliament has been frequently lobbied over the years to bring the law up to date but nothing has yet changed and the Burns’ case remains current law.

The everyday facts of the case make for compelling reading.

The facts of the case

In Summer 1961, aged 20, Valerie Burns, as she was later to be known, started a relationship with Patrick Burns.

At the time, she was working as a tailor (or tailoress as the judgment from 1983 has it) and left her parent’s to live initially in a rented flat with Mr Burns.

After falling pregnant with a son, born in the early 1960s, she gave up tailoring to become a full time mother and homemaker. Patrick Burns took the role as ‘breadwinner’.

Although they never married, ‘Mrs’ Burns changed her surname to his and they called themselves Mr. & Mrs.

Mr Burns was still married at the time they met – there was however no possibility of him divorcing so they lived together as husband and wife without going through the marriage ceremony – she made a statutory declaration of change of name, changed name on her passport and they held themselves out to be married to their friends and acquaintances.

Shortly before their 2nd child was born in 1963, Mr Burns purchased the family home  in Osidge Lane, Southgate, London. An end of terrace in a pleasant suburban area. In another sign from the times, it was bought for £4,900 subject to mortgage of £4,500.

Mr Burns’ paid the deposit and took out a mortgage in his sole name. Although the home was bought as the family home, Mrs Burns had no income of her own at that time and there was no doubt Mr Burns would pay the mortgage without financial any contribution from her.

As is still very common today, there were no legal documents drawn up at the time of purchase and there were no discussions between them about how the financial interests in the property would be held.

Mrs Burns lived for 17 of the 19 year relationship in this family home caring for the parties’ two children.

Mrs Burns was virtually entirely financially dependent on Mr Burns until the last five years of the relationship. At the end of the 1960s, she qualified as an instructor in flower arranging and gave some lessons although less babysitting costs did not earn much at all.

She also qualified as a pilot in 1973 but that did not take off and was really only ever a hobby, (which the judgment notes Mr Burns funded).

From 1972, she qualified as a driving instructor and earned on a small scale at first from 1975 but from 1977-80 was earning around £60 p.w. which was the same amount as Mr Burns was then paying her in ‘housekeeping allowance’. (Allowing for 327% inflation since 1980, this is £850 p.m. approx. at today’s prices). She put her income in with the housekeeping and spent her own money as she saw fit.

The children would have been around 16 and 14 when she started earning more from 1977.

During the relationship, Mrs Burns;

1. was the primary child carer;
2. performed all the usual ‘domestic duties’, cooking, cleaning, etc.;
3. bought various fittings and furnishings;
4. Redecorated the interior of the house; including wallpapering the house completely in 1978;
5. In the last five years of the relationship contributed from her own earnings towards household expenses including;

• Clothes and gifts for the children
• Paid the rates
• Paid the telephone bills
• Purchased a washing machine, dishwasher, tumble dryer, 3 armchairs, a bed and door furnishings

Mrs Burns ended the relationship in 1980 when the children were 19 and 17. She took her case to court soon after leaving in January 1981 for a declaration that she had a financial interest in the property.

The Court’s decision

In 1982, the Court held that as she had not made any direct contributions to the purchase price and that her other contributions made over the whole of the relationship were not sufficient to give rise to a legal interest in the property meant she was entitled to nothing. The Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal in July 1983 and she was ordered to pay costs.

The unfairness of it all was accepted by the court. One of the judges in the case, ended their judgment with;

“Nevertheless, she lived with him for 19 years as man and wife, and, at the end of it, has no rights against him. But the unfairness of that is not a matter which the courts can control. It is a matter for Parliament.”

It has remained a matter for Parliament ever since.

Summary

The case itself shows why it is vital to have the benefit of proper legal advice at the earliest opportunity. A professionally drawn deed in this case may almost certainly would have saved the day for Mrs Burns.

The Resolution organisation of family lawyers continue to lobby parliament for change in this field. Links to further information and to their work can be found here.

At Fisher Jones Greenwood, our team of family law experts have a wealth of experience in dealing with all aspects of financial matters and will provide clear advice to guide you through this process. If you know anyone would like advice, please contact our Family Team by calling 01206 700113 or email info@fjg.co.uk.