Unmarried couples risk inheritance battles without cohabitation agreements, case shows

A Sunderland inheritance dispute involving a nonmarried couple has become a high-profile reminder that living together outside marriage offers fewer protections when a partner dies or a relationship ends. Sharon Rate, who died in 2023 at 53 after a diabetes-related illness, reportedly wanted her assets and belongings, including a four-bedroom home, to go to her three children — Kirsty Armstrong and her siblings, Sarah Pilton and John Hammerberg. But after Rate’s death, her partner of eight years, Jason Stewart, refused to leave the house, triggering a legal battle that has cost the siblings about £260,000 in legal fees and months of stress.

Rate’s death set in motion a dispute over who should hold rights to the property. Sharon Rate was not married to Jason Stewart, a forklift driver, and she did not leave a will specifying ownership. In cases like this, couples who live together without marrying typically have fewer protections, but Stewart’s actions illustrate how a loophole in inheritance law can still let a cohabiting partner press for a claim. The family contends that Sharon had made clear she intended the house and belongings to pass to her children. The absence of a will, they say, left room for Jason to assert a stake under inheritance provisions, complicating the siblings’ hopes for a clean transfer of assets.

The case highlights the central question: what happens to a family home when a cohabiting partner remains in the property after a death, especially without a formal agreement? Sharon’s death left the house valued at about £130,000. The siblings say Jason argued that he contributed to the mortgage and thus should receive a share, while the children argued that Sharon’s stated wishes — to pass the home to her offspring — should govern. The dispute intensified when Jason changed the locks on the house and the family sent him a formal notice to quit. In January of the following year, the children, represented by Irwin Mitchell solicitors, served Jason notice to quit with an April deadline. When he did not leave, the siblings obtained a possession order, a legal tool that initiates eviction proceedings. Jason did not respond to the possession notice, according to court records. In the ensuing months, he invoked a provision of the Inheritance Act, claiming he was a “maintained person” who had been financially supported by Sharon immediately before her death. A maintained person can seek a share of an estate if they were not reasonably provided for in a will. He asked for roughly 90 to 95 percent of the estate, largely representing the house value, or about £120,000.

A legal back-and-forth followed, with the children offering a settlement of around £60,000, which Jason rejected. In June, the matter went to court. The judge rejected Jason’s maintenance claim, criticized the strength of the evidence he presented, and gave him two months to vacate the property. The court’s decision also ordered Jason to cover the substantial legal costs, which had spiraled to about £260,000. Kirsty Armstrong says the outcome was bittersweet. “It has been a very emotional, frustrating process. We have hit points where you think, ‘God, I just want to walk away.’ We are not millionaires, and our mother worked so hard to get that house. When she was alive, she was so proud and happy that she knew her children were going to get that house. But now we are barely going to benefit from it. It has been horrific.”

Jason Stewart’s legal team did not respond to requests for comment. The siblings’ fight is one of several high-profile cases that have tested how courts interpret cohabitation and property rights when a partner dies without a will that clearly allocates ownership. In another notable case, Jayne Hathway pressed her claim against her former partner Lee Hudson for their old family home, Picnic House. The two were never married nor did they specify ownership shares in the home they bought together in 2007. When Hudson left in 2009 and later remarried, he renounced his claim via email. Hathway ultimately gave up parts of his investments and pension in exchange for relinquishing possession of the home. Years later, when Hudson sought a share in Picnic House, the case reached the High Court and then the Court of Appeal. The rulings established that emails containing typed names could constitute a signed declaration of trust, a landmark finding in property ownership disputes. The decision, however, does not mean that such email correspondence should be relied upon as proof in most cases. It underscored the importance of a formal, written agreement to avoid disputes later on.

Experts emphasize that cohabitation agreements are not a luxury but a practical safeguard for modern families. Richard Shaw, a senior associate in family law at Irwin Mitchell, outlines practical guidance for couples considering such agreements. He advises couples to think carefully about what they want to protect, including whether one partner owned the home before the relationship began or contributed a larger share of the deposit or mortgage. The agreement should reflect changes over time as finances evolve, such as shifts in who pays the mortgage versus daily expenses. He stresses keeping the document straightforward: the more complex the agreement at the outset, the higher the cost and the greater the potential for dispute later. Flexible compromise is essential, since cohabitation agreements are voluntary and meant to be binding only when both parties sign freely and without duress. Professional legal advice is crucial to ensure the agreement is robust and not vulnerable to challenges, such as claims of coercion or undue influence. A cohabitation agreement applies to living arrangements and financial arrangements while the couple is together and can provide evidence of intentions posthumously, but a will remains necessary to deal with assets on death.

For Kirsty and her siblings, the Sunderland case is a stark reminder that a cohabitation agreement could have changed the outcome. Kirsty, 34, told The Mail on Sunday that her family’s experience is a warning to others. “Every day we wish that our Mam had done a cohabitation agreement,” she said. “This allows you to get everything in place to protect whatever it is that you want to give to your kids. We are not millionaires, and our mother worked so hard to get that house. When she was alive, she was so proud and happy that she knew her children were going to get that house. But now we are barely going to benefit from it. It has been horrific.” Sharon Rate’s children acknowledge that the outcome was not a total loss; the court’s ruling rejected the partner’s claim and required him to vacate. Still, the siblings have seen most of their mother’s estate eroded by legal costs and fees, a consequence that underscores the potential financial and emotional toll of such disputes.

The broader legal landscape shows that cohabiting couples are becoming more common in the United Kingdom. The number of cohabiting couples rose by about 144 percent between 1996 and 2022, making this family type the fastest-growing in the country. In 2024, roughly 6.5 million people lived with their partner outside marriage or civil partnership. Advocates say that this demographic shift makes a formal cohabitation agreement increasingly important. A will only comes into effect after the death of a partner and governs inheritance in that moment, not how property and finances are managed during life or what happens if the relationship ends. A cohabitation agreement, by contrast, can spell out who owns what and who pays for what during the relationship, thereby reducing a later dispute. The agreements are intended to cover property and financial support, but they should be drafted with careful legal advice to ensure there are clear expectations for how ownership is allocated should the relationship end or a partner dies.

The stories from Kirsty and from Jayne Hathway together reflect a cultural moment in which more couples are managing complex financial and living arrangements without the safety net of marriage. The Sunderland case also highlights how the law can still be navigated by a determined partner, even when a couple has no formal agreement. The lessons are clear: if a cohabiting couple hopes to avoid a future inheritance dispute, the time to act is before a crisis hits. A cohabitation agreement can be a practical, enforceable tool to specify who owns what and who is responsible for what, and to spell out the arrangements that should stand if the relationship ends or if one partner dies. Without it, families may find themselves locked in expensive, protracted battles that strain relationships and exhaust resources. In today’s evolving social landscape, the importance of formalizing living arrangements is increasingly recognized as a normal, prudent step for couples who live together without tying the knot.