Should the Law Continue to Threat Married Couples Differently from Essay

Should the Law Continue to Threat Married Couples otherwise from Unmarried Cohabitants in Property Disputes - Essay ExampleInstead, post-separation spot disputes between undivided cohabitants are resolve by reference to the law of trusts (George, 2008). The decision of the House of Lords in Stack v Dowden addressed superstar issue arising between unmarried cohabitants in a post-separation property dispute the correct division of the honorable interests in the absence of an express declaration of trust in a title deed where both(prenominal) cohabitants hold the legal title (Stack v Dowden, 2007). However, Stack v Dowden does raise some issues about the arrogate principles that should be applied to property disputes in the family contexts regardless of whether the family is comprised of a conventional married couple or not, however, those issues remain unresolved (Gardiner & Davidson, 2011). The direct issue is determining the interpretation of imputing or inferring the partie s leafy vegetable intention, which remains the primary method of resolving property disputes between unmarried cohabitants (Gardiner & Davidson, 2011). This paper considers whether or not it is realistic, given the favorable realities of the modern family to treat post-separation property disputes between married couples and between unmarried cohabitants differently. This paper is divided into both parts. ... on Property Division Between Unmarried Cohabitants There is no statutory authority for the courts to mend how to settle property or property rights relative to unmarried cohabitees who having cohabited for a significant period of time, pay come to the decision to separate. Unmarried cohabitees therefore have limited options. They may attack to have their property disputes resolved by engaging in civil suits if a contract of some sort exists (Deech, 2010). Alternatively, unmarried cohabitants may have the issues resolved by reference to the principles of equity and trusts (Singer, 2009). Under the current state of the applicable principles of equity and trust relative to unmarried cohabitants, the common intention of the parties is the primary method by which the courts attempt to imply a constructive trust in a fair division of the property (Dyson, 2008). The common intention of the parties was first referred to in the case of Lloyds Bank Plc v Rosset (1991). Essentially, the courts will seek to witness whether or not there was a common intention on the part of the parties to divide the property a specific way despite the descriptions rendered by the legal title and the declaration of beneficial interests. The result is the pain of a constructive trust. Thus a constructive trust imposed by evidence of a common intention is intended to avoid unconscionable consequences in circumstances where the title deeds do not reflect the realities of the acquisition and holding of the property (Pawlowski, 2006). Unfairness arises because, the principle of commo n intention seeks to determine matters of trust involved in relationships and has evolved as decidedly unclear and unpredictable, making it difficult for unmarried cohabitants to hunch and assert their property