The press has been full recently of the fall-out from the separation of several high-profile unmarried celebrity couples. In particular, the most recent news has been the separation of Love Island stars, Molly Mae Hague and Tommy Fury. It may also have been hard to miss news of the court room drama between Manchester City footballer, Kyle Walker and ‘influencer’ Lauryn Goodman. Within 48 hours of their second child having been born, Lauryn had filed an application for financial support with the Judgment in that case being made public.
As neither couple were married, some may ask what claims were available to them and whether such claims are just for the rich and famous.
TOLATA
In terms of any shared property, any disagreement in relation to this would be referred to as a “TOLATA” claim. This is an acronym of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 and is the legislation we currently have which deals with disagreements relating to how property or land is owned.
Unlike Kyle and Lauryn who did not live together, if Molly Mae and Tommy’s social media profiles are anything to go by, Cohabitation is a consideration and there will be property assets to divvy up following their separation.
In a situation where any property was purchased jointly and it is evident from the title deeds how the property is owned, there is less room for disagreement. However, if one of their names were not on the title deeds, or if one of them were saying the title deeds did not accurately reflect the correct ownership, it can become more complicated and how the property would ultimately be shared would depend upon the specific facts of the case.
Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989.
Schedule 1 enables the family court to make financial provision for children and is most commonly used in cases where parents have not been married to one another and therefore cannot look to matrimonial law for provision for themselves or the children. It is usually made by the parent with whom a child lives.
Provision can cover housing, kitting out a home, lump sums for more ad-hoc expenditure like cars, educational costs and disability related costs along with additional maintenance (called ‘top up’ maintenance) where the other parent is a high earner (earning a gross income of over £3,000 per week).
In Molly-Mae and Tommy’s case, it is not yet known where their young daughter is going to spend most of her time to know what possible claims either party may have but again, if the media is to be believed, both are fairly wealthy in their own right with Molly Mae perhaps being the wealthier party. Their respective capital claims may therefore be limited but there may still be claims for ‘top-up’ child maintenance.
In the case of Lauryn Goodman and Kyle Walker, there was much more of a disparity in their financial circumstances.
Much was made in the press of some of the more aspirational elements of Lauryn’s application which may seem detached from reality to most, but as a result, the headlines perhaps overlooked the substantial provision the court did make for the benefit of the children.
The court considers several factors when deciding on such claims, including but not limited to:
- Income and earning capacity;
- The financial circumstances of each parent, to include their financial resources and obligations, both now and in the future; and
- The financial needs of the child
On this occasion, the Judge had to consider these factors in the context of a high-profile individual with substantial financial resources as against the more limited resources and earning capacity of the other.
There is a misconception, however, that a Schedule 1 application can only be made where one parent is extremely wealthy, but case law dictates that a child is entitled to be brought up in circumstances which bear some sort of relationship to the wealthier party’s standard of living and therefore, what is considered reasonable, will vary on a case-by-case basis and in the context of the available resources.
With the number of children being born to unmarried parents rising, added to the fact that earning capacities have evolved meaning more individuals are earning more than £3,000 gross per week, the number of Schedule 1 cases will likely continue to increase. Applications under Schedule 1 are therefore no longer just going to be for the most well off amongst us.
We should highlight, however, that unlike claims which can be made by a divorcing parent, under Schedule 1 claims can only relate to the needs of the child and therefore any property made available to meet housing need, will generally revert back to the wealthier parent when the child reaches 18.
The future – TOLATA and Schedule 1
Despite clear changes in relationship trends and calls for reform from various sectors, legislation which provides for the needs of unmarried couples and parents remains some way off. In particular, and despite some initial enthusiasm for reform at the Labour Party conference in October 2023, the subsequent labour manifesto contained no solid mention of the rights of cohabiting and unmarried couples.
As such, and despite their drawbacks, TOLATA and Schedule 1 are seemingly going to be the tools available to us for the foreseeable future.
Both TOLATA and Schedule 1 claims can often be complex and require specialist legal advice and therefore, if you require any advice in these areas, then please contact Helen Davies at helen.davies@dtmlegal.com
