Muetzel v Muetzel
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE SALMON |
| Judgment Date | 25 November 1969 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1969] EWCA Civ J1125-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 25 November 1969 |
[1969] EWCA Civ J1125-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Salmon and
Lord Justice Edmund Davies
Appeal of wife from decision of Mr. Registrar Caird on 4th December, 1968.
In the Matter of the Married Women's Property Act 1882
Mr. J. EDWARDS (instructed by Messrs. Austin Ryder & Co., Enfield) appeared on behalf of the appellant wife.
Mr. J.J. DAVIS (instructed by Messrs. Breeze & Wyles, Enfield) appeared on behalf of the respondent husband.
This case raises another interesting point as to the matrimonial home. The parties were married on the 26th January, 1957. He had come from Germany, and she from Sweden. They had four children, of whom one died in infancy, leaving three now living.
Soon after they married, they bought a house No. 50 Church Lane, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire. The purchase price was £3,150. The husband had not got the money to pay the deposit or the legal fees. The wife obtained a loan from a friend of hers in Sweden, a Dr. Hassler. It was £500. She also put in about £100 of her own savings, and later another £50. With these moneys they bought the house and left the rest on mortgage. The conveyance was taken in the husband's name.
The husband was working as a research chemist employed by a big firm. He was not getting a big salary. In order to help with their commitments, the wife took in a paying guest, who paid some £6 or £7 a week. The husband took the money and allowed his wife £1.10s. Od. out of it. She had to get the meals for him, and so forth. They started a business too. They had a formal partnership agreement. That may have beer, for tax reasons. But it was a genuine business. They were trying to sell microscopes, and the like. The wife did a good deal of the bookkeeping. She sent out invoiced and samples, and kept the ledger. She answered the telephone. The turnover was only £20 in the first year - 1957. It sent up to £69 in 1958; £516 in 1959; £1,000 in 1960; nearly £1,500 in 1961; and since then it has gone up by leaps and bounds, so that it has now reached £26,000. As the business increased they had to get extra help. In 1962 they got a full-time secretary, and thereafter the wife did not do so much.
I must mention one further matter. In 1963 they determined to add on to the house. The extension was made at a cost of £3,000. It was raised on mortgage. It is now a fine house with a value of £10,000 or £12,000. The outstanding mortgage is in the region of £3,000.
In 1966 the parties fell out. Although they were living in the same house, they ceased to have any personal dealings with one another. They wrote notes from one to the other. In 1967, still living under the same roof, she took proceedings against her husband for cruelty. He put in a cross-answer charging cruelty against her. In January 1969 she left the house and went into attic rooms with the children. The husband remained in the house, In April 1969 Mr. Justice Faulks held that the husband had treated the wife with cruelty. He granted a decree nisi to her on the ground of the husband's cruelty and gave her the custody of the three children.
Now we have this summons under section 17 of the 1882 Act to determine their interests in the house. The Registrar declared that the wife's only interest was the sum of £100 which she put in in the beginning in 1957J and an additional £50 she spent on the house. He said that the house then cost about £3,000. £150 is 5% of £3jOOC. lie ban took the present value of the house without the extension. He said it had increased in value to £6,000. He gave the wife S% of £6,000: that is £3CC only. He held that that was her entire beneficial interest.
I am afraid that the Registrar was in error. He did not have the benefit of our recent decision in ( Hixon v. Nixon 1969 1 W.L.H. 1676). That shows that the Court does not look only at the direct money contributions. It looks at all the contributions, direct and indirect, which the-wife makes. To my mind it is clear that the original house was obtained by the efforts of both jointly. The wife played a most important role in finding the money. She got her friend to lend the £500, out of which to pay the deposit and the legal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kellier (Martin O'Keith) and Stephanie Kellier Stephanie Kellier v Martin Kellier and Kenneth Kellier
...see nothing contrary to ordinary legal principles in holding that the spouse who makes the improvement has acquired such a right." 28In Muetzel v. Muetzel [1970] 1 All E.R. 443, it was held that a wife's beneficial interest was not restricted to the proportion that her initial financial co......
-
Ming, Hilda v Donald Ming
...$32,000 of this amount. 65 In regard to whether or not this affects the parties beneficial interests, I am guided by the decision in Muetzel vs Muetzel (1970) 1 ALL ER per Lord Edmund Davies at page 445 where he stated: "If one postulates that the matrimonial home has been acquired by joint......
-
Wallace, Raymond v Ruth Wallace
...the extension work that was done and there she alone is entitled to interest in it. 29 The decision of Muetzel vs Muetzel 1970 All ER 443 per Lord Edmund Davis at page 445 does provide guidance in this regard:- 30 "If one postulates that the matrimonial home has been acquired by joint effor......
-
Chin (Lascelles A.) v Chin (Audrey Ramona)
...support the following cases, Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] A.C. 77, Gissing v Gissing [1971] A.C. 886 Nixon v Nixon [1969] 3 All ER. 1133; Muetzel v Muetzel [1970] 1 All ER. 443. 60 It is sufficient to elaborate on the statement of principle relied upon by 61 the learned trial judge by referri......