My House? Your House?

Background

The recent Scottish appeal court decision in the case of Chalmers v Chalmers (27 October 2015) concerned an appeal by a mother who was asking the court for a judgment reducing a disposition in favour of her estranged son that transferred ownership of a flat to him.

The case started after the conclusion of divorce proceedings between Mrs Chalmers and her husband. During the course of those proceedings it was stated that Mr and Mrs Chalmers had operated a partnership that bought, sold and managed various residential properties. The Pursuer's husband had bought one of these properties, a flat in Glasgow, and put the title her name without her knowledge.

Title to the flat was then transferred to the couple's son who was the Defender in the latter case. However, in order to make this transfer of title, the Pursuer's husband had forged her signature on the disposition.

When the case called at first instance, the judge found in favour of the Defender and refused to grant a judgment for reduction of the disposition. This was because a minute of agreement had been signed by the Pursuer during the course of the prior divorce proceedings. In this minute she admitted to knowing about the forged disposition, dissolving the partnership with her then husband and renounced any further right of action she might have stemming from her involvement in the partnership. The judge took the view that Mrs Chalmers was therefore personally barred from seeking the judgment that she was asking for. The judge also exercised his discretion in examining the evidence before him and deciding that this was not a circumstance in which he should grant the order that the Pursuer was asking for.

Discussion

The Defender had argued that he had thought that his father had bought the property and that he did not know why the title had been into the Pursuer's name. He had thought that although the Pursuer had held some of the partnership properties in her name or jointly with her husband, they were held in trust for the partnership. In addition, the Pursuer had renounced any further claims she had in relation to the partnership and could not validly seek a judgment of reduction in relation to the disposition.

This argument was maintained when the case was appealed. Further arguments were put to the Court and pointed out that the Defender was now using the property as his home and that he would be inconvenienced by a judgment granting reduction; the Pursuer had never paid...