Cohabitation Agreements: A case study in safeguarding assets for children amid inheritance fights

A Sunderland family’s fight over who owns a four-bedroom home has exposed gaps in UK laws governing cohabiting couples. Sharon Rate’s death in 2023 left her two daughters and son contesting the estate while her partner of eight years, Jason Stewart, refused to leave the house, triggering a legal battle that ultimately cost the siblings about £260,000. Sharon Rate, who died after a diabetes-related illness at age 53, was not married to Jason. With no will naming beneficiaries, the house became a focal point for a dispute that courts would weigh against inheritance law, including a mechanism known as the Inheritance Act.

Sharon and Jason began living together in 2015 after she bought a house in Sunderland for both of them to share. He contributed toward the mortgage, but the property was never legally assigned as his alone. When Sharon died in September 2023, the home was valued at about £130,000. Sharon’s children — Kirsty Armstrong, 34; her siblings Sarah Pilton and John Hammerberg — say Sharon had clearly intended for the home to pass to their family. Yet Jason refused to vacate the property, raising a complex question: what happens to a home when a cohabiting partner asserts a stake in the property under the 1975 Inheritance Act, despite there being no will or formal agreement?

In the months that followed Sharon’s death, legal proceedings unfolded in which the children served Jason with a formal notice to quit in January of last year. That notice was part of eviction proceedings, designed to recover possession of the home. Jason did not respond to the notice, and in the summer he invoked a legal tactic to stake a claim on the property by sending Sharon’s children a Letter of Claim under the Inheritance Act, arguing that Sharon had provided him financial support and that he qualified as a “maintained person” who deserved a share of the estate. He sought an outsized portion of the value of the estate — about £120,000, or 90 to 95 percent of its total value — most of which was tied up in the house.

A protracted back-and-forth ensued, described in court documents as a game of legal cat and mouse. The siblings offered £60,000 to settle, but Jason rejected the offer. By June of this year, the matter had reached court. The judge rejected Jason’s maintenance claim for lack of evidence and gave him two months to vacate the property. He was also ordered to cover the vast bulk of the legal costs, which spiraled to about £260,000. Kirsty says the outcome was something of a Pyrrhic victory: Jason was penniless at the end, operating on a no-win-no-fee arrangement, and the family’s inheritance was significantly diluted. “It has been a very emotional, frustrating process,” she told The Mail on Sunday. “We have hit points where you think, ‘God, I just want to walk away.’ It is not something that we had brought upon ourselves, but we felt we had no choice but to fight it.”

The case is not isolated. It underscores a broader dynamic in the UK: many couples who live together without marrying have fewer protections when it comes to property and finances, particularly if a partner dies without a will. Sharon’s situation illustrates how the absence of a cohabitation agreement can leave surviving partners with leverage that legally complicated families must confront through court action. In Sharon’s case, her children argue that the home was intended for them and that a properly drafted agreement could have prevented the dispute entirely by clarifying ownership and rights before any death or dissolution of the relationship.

The broader message is not just about one family’s losses. It reflects a cultural shift: cohabiting couples have increased dramatically over the last few decades, with the 2024 estimate placing around 6.5 million people living with a partner without marriage or civil partnership. The rise in cohabitation has prompted renewed scrutiny from legal practitioners who say that cohabitation agreements are less a luxury than a necessity in modern relationships. A will governs assets after death, but it does not address how property, finances, and daily responsibilities are managed during a relationship or should be divided if it ends. The failure to document those terms can leave families fighting in court years later, with outcomes that are uncertain and expensive.

The case texts refer to earlier high-profile arrangements that shaped how such disputes are viewed. In the 2019-2020 period, Jayne Hathway and Lee Hudson were the subject of a widely watched ruling in which a constructive trust — a legal remedy used to prevent unfair outcomes when one party relies on a promise by the other — was recognized in a way that allowed a signed-like email to contribute to establishing ownership. The court highlighted that emails with typed names could, under certain circumstances, constitute a declaration of trust. Still, advocates caution that emails alone are not a reliable substitute for a formal, written agreement. They emphasize that formal writing, properly executed, is the strongest protection against later challenges.

For families considering the best path forward, Irwin Mitchell’s senior associate Richard Shaw outlines practical guardrails to make a cohabitation agreement “watertight.” First, think carefully about what you want to achieve. Identify who owns the home, whether it was owned prior to the relationship, and whether the other party contributed to a mortgage or major renovations. Consider how ownership might evolve if one party pays more toward the mortgage or improvements, and whether day-to-day living expenses should affect ownership. Second, keep the agreement simple. A more complex document can be costly and harder to untangle when the relationship ends. Third, avoid DIY templates and AI-generated agreements. These documents are binding precisely because they are tailored; an improperly drafted agreement can become a source of disputes rather than protection. Fourth, be prepared to compromise. Cohabitation agreements are voluntary, and their strength rests on mutual agreement and clear demonstration of intent. Fifth, obtain independent legal advice. Proper counsel helps enforceability and can prevent future challenges to the agreement. An agreement can still be challenged if signed under duress or undue influence; professional advice helps guard against such risks.

Beyond the practicalities, the discussion around cohabitation agreements touches on broader cultural and legal norms. Legal professionals emphasize that the agreement deals with life while both partners are alive; it can provide crucial evidence posthumously, but a will remains essential to settle assets on death. The upshot for many families is clear: establishing a clear, written framework at the outset can spare loved ones months or years of contentious litigation and significant financial strain. The consequences of not doing so, as the Sunderland case shows, can be steep—and rarely worth the risk for families who want to protect the next generation’s interests.

The growing prevalence of cohabiting relationships means more households may encounter similar questions. Some couples may assume that a relationship’s longevity automatically safeguards each party’s rights, but legal structures require careful documentation to ensure intentions are honored. For Kirsty and her siblings, the lesson is harsh but straightforward: a cohabitation agreement might have preserved Sharon Rate’s wishes and protected the family’s future, avoiding a costly legal battle that has reshaped their lives for years to come. In families across the country, lawmakers, lawyers, and families alike are increasingly considering how best to translate love and commitment into enforceable, clearly understood property rights that stand up to the test of time.

In sum, the Sunderland case serves as a cautionary tale about the gaps that can appear when unmarried couples share a home without a formal written agreement. It underscores the importance of planning, both for those wishing to protect a family home and for the broader culture that values stability for future generations. As the numbers show, cohabitation is not a niche trend but a defining feature of modern family life, and the legal tools to protect those arrangements are more relevant than ever for couples and their families.