Merritt v Merritt [1970]
Share
Merritt v Merritt [1970] EWCA Civ 6 is an important extension of the principles established in Balfour v Balfour [1919], illustrating how the courts may treat agreements between spouses differently when they are separated or in the process of separation.
Mr and Mrs Merritt jointly owned a house. Mr Merritt left to live with another woman, and the couple reached an agreement, documented in writing and signed, stating that Mr Merritt would pay Mrs Merritt a monthly sum of £40. In return, Mrs Merritt would use that sum to make monthly mortgage payments, and upon the completion of the mortgage repayment, Mr Merritt would transfer the house to her sole ownership. After Mrs Merritt fulfilled her part of the agreement, Mr Merritt refused to transfer the house.
The Court of Appeal, led by Lord Denning MR, held that the agreement between the Merritts was legally enforceable. The court distinguished the case from Balfour v Balfour by highlighting the fact that the Merritts were separated when they signed their agreement. Lord Denning emphasised that when spouses are not living in amity or are in the process of separating, the presumption against legal relations in domestic agreements, as seen in Balfour, does not necessarily apply.
Lord Denning argued that when spouses are separated or about to separate, they often bargain keenly and do not rely on honourable understandings. In such cases, it may be presumed that they intend to create legal relations. The court looks at the situation in which the parties were placed and asks whether reasonable people would regard the agreement as intended to be binding.
The court rejected arguments that the agreement was uncertain or lacked consideration. The wife's act of paying off the outstanding mortgage amount was considered ample consideration, and the arrangement for £40 a month maintenance was not found to introduce uncertainty. The court clarified that the paper signed by Mr Merritt dealt with the beneficial ownership of the house and was intended to belong entirely to the wife.
Merritt v Merritt is significant as it provides further clarification on the enforceability of agreements between spouses, particularly in the context of separation. It demonstrates that, in situations where spouses are separated or in the process of separation, the court may be more inclined to find that the parties intended to create legal relations, even in domestic agreements. This case, along with Balfour v Balfour, contributes to the understanding of when domestic agreements between spouses may be legally enforceable.
Mr and Mrs Merritt jointly owned a house. Mr Merritt left to live with another woman, and the couple reached an agreement, documented in writing and signed, stating that Mr Merritt would pay Mrs Merritt a monthly sum of £40. In return, Mrs Merritt would use that sum to make monthly mortgage payments, and upon the completion of the mortgage repayment, Mr Merritt would transfer the house to her sole ownership. After Mrs Merritt fulfilled her part of the agreement, Mr Merritt refused to transfer the house.
The Court of Appeal, led by Lord Denning MR, held that the agreement between the Merritts was legally enforceable. The court distinguished the case from Balfour v Balfour by highlighting the fact that the Merritts were separated when they signed their agreement. Lord Denning emphasised that when spouses are not living in amity or are in the process of separating, the presumption against legal relations in domestic agreements, as seen in Balfour, does not necessarily apply.
Lord Denning argued that when spouses are separated or about to separate, they often bargain keenly and do not rely on honourable understandings. In such cases, it may be presumed that they intend to create legal relations. The court looks at the situation in which the parties were placed and asks whether reasonable people would regard the agreement as intended to be binding.
The court rejected arguments that the agreement was uncertain or lacked consideration. The wife's act of paying off the outstanding mortgage amount was considered ample consideration, and the arrangement for £40 a month maintenance was not found to introduce uncertainty. The court clarified that the paper signed by Mr Merritt dealt with the beneficial ownership of the house and was intended to belong entirely to the wife.
Merritt v Merritt is significant as it provides further clarification on the enforceability of agreements between spouses, particularly in the context of separation. It demonstrates that, in situations where spouses are separated or in the process of separation, the court may be more inclined to find that the parties intended to create legal relations, even in domestic agreements. This case, along with Balfour v Balfour, contributes to the understanding of when domestic agreements between spouses may be legally enforceable.
