Family Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Family Law - Essay Examplean equitable portion of the property.4 This try will examine these inequities. Marital and Cohabitation Law Before White v. White White v. White5 was a part that focused upon married persons. In this case, the court mulish that financial need was not a basis for the distribution of finances. Moreover, the case was the first to establish that the distribution of property upon divorce should be divided up equitably, without discrimination. That way, the wage earner would not be authorise to more than the child-carer. In other words, the non-financial contribution of the parent who cares for the children is recognized in property division. The White case represented a landmark, in that the court was ordered to divide marital property equitably, regardless if one contributed financially towards to home or not. Before White, the cases in the UK were decided against the non-working partner who did not contribute financially towards the house, either towards the purchase price or towards the mortgage. For instance, in the case of Pettit v. Pettit,6 the couple was married and the economise did not work outside the home. Therefore, he did not contribute financially. Moreover, the home was in the separate name of the married woman, and the wife used her own funds to buy the home. The save contributed labour towards the home decorating the home, building a wardrobe, laying a lawn and constructing an ornamental wall and garden side wall. However, the Pettit court found that the husband was not entitled to a beneficial interest in the home. Therefore, prior to White, the court presumptively did not award property to the non-working spouse. White represents an improvement upon this, as discrimination against the non-working spouse is not longer acceptable. That said, there is not a statutory provision that dictates that property needs to be divided equitably, although the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 states that, essentially, courts have ju dgement in that there is no determined order of priority in the distribution of assets in every case. Although the marital property law has evolved to give constitute rights to the non-working spouse, the law regarding co-habitating couples has not similarly evolved. Prior to the White case, the courts decided a number of co-habitation cases against the non-working spouse. For instance, in Gissing v. Gissing,7 the non-working spouse was the man, and the man did not contribute financially towards the home. The husband did buy furniture and also did chores, such as lawn-mowing. The husband did not have an interest in the home. This was the same case with Lloyds Bank v. Rosset.8 In that case, it was the wife that did not work. She claimed a beneficial interest in the property when the Lloyds Bank tried to foreclose on the home after the husband took a add against the home and defaulted. The Lloyds court found that the only way for the woman to have an interest in the home is if the p arties agreed that she would have interest, or if there