Husband’s WhatsApp message did not transfer house to wife
A wife has failed in her attempt to persuade the court that a message from her husband on the WhatsApp messaging service had the effect of transferring the husband’s interest in the former matrimonial home to her.
The case concerned a couple who were married in 2009 and had two children together. They lived in a £1.5 million property in London that they owned jointly.
The marriage broke down and the husband left the property in 2016. The wife and children continue to live there.
Divorce proceedings took place and on the 4th of March 2020 the court made an order that the husband transfer his half share in the property to the wife.
However, unbeknownst to the judge or the wife, a bankruptcy order had been made against the husband just one week earlier, on the 26th of February 2020.
The bankruptcy order had the effect of transferring the husband’s share in the property to his trustees in bankruptcy, meaning that the husband’s half share could not be transferred to the wife. Accordingly, the order for the transfer was set aside.
The trustees applied for an order that the property be sold. The wife defended the application, claiming that a WhatsApp exchange that she and the husband had had in December 2018 had the effect of transferring the husband’s interest in the property to her.
The court disagreed, but did find that there were exceptional circumstances, such that the sale of the property should be postponed until 2032.
The trustees appealed against this decision, and the wife cross-appealed, arguing that the judge was wrong not to find that husband had transferred his interest in the property to her prior to his bankruptcy, in the course of the WhatsApp exchange in December 2018.
The appeals were heard by Mr Justice Cawson in the High Court.
He found that the judge had been right to find that the husband had not transferred his interest in the property to the wife via the WhatsApp exchange. Whilst it was true that the husband had suggested in the course of the exchange that he transfer his interest in the property to the wife, the exchange did not indicate that he intended to make the transfer immediately. Further, such a transfer must be signed, and the message had not been signed by the husband (his name appearing in the message header did not amount to a signature).
As to the trustees’ appeal, Mr Justice Cowan found that the judge was right to find that there were exceptional circumstances, such that the sale should be postponed, but he considered a postponement of eight years to be too long. He therefore substituted it for a period of 18 months.
You can read the full report of the case here.
* * *
Family Law Cafe gives you the best strategy to achieve the right outcome for you and your family and keeps them informed and in control 24/7 through a unique and secure online portal. Family Law Cafe is your start-point for getting matters sorted with strategy, support and security.
Image: Asier Romero / Shutterstock.com
