Couple stuck for 3 years under same roof as they fight over £1.5m home

A couple who split up three years ago are still stuck living under the same roof in a legal tussle over ownership of their £1.5 million home.

Kim Springall and Gary Paice both refused to budge from the five-bedroom property in Purley, south London, when they broke up in 2016.

Instead they have each taken over parts of the detached home, “divvying up” the space until the court fight has been settled.

They pair were together for 32 years and have three children, aged 15, 19, and 20, but never married.

Primary school secretary Miss Springall, 53, says she bought the house in 2007 in her name and was determined to keep it that way while she did not have the “comfort” of a wedding ring.

But Mr Paice, a surveyor and property developer, insists they agreed to share the house and he put hundreds of thousands of pounds towards the purchase.

Miss Springall told Central London county court she had paid off the large mortgage herself. “I needed to make sure I could survive on my own and that’s why I purchased the property,” she said, claiming she “drew a line in the sand” in the merging of their finances and assets.

Mr Paice, 59, says that their money was “intermingled” in the purchase of the house and that he has a legitimate claim to a share of it.

The court heard they got together in 1983, began living together in about 1999, and had jointly invested money in property development. Mr Paice says they bought the house under a similar arrangement, with him contributing £660,000.

Giving evidence, Miss Springall said: “I needed to make sure I could survive on my own. It was all planned. It wasn’t until we split up that he decided he had a beneficial interest. When I bought my house, that drew a line… I paid everything on it. I wanted the house for the children’s future.

“I wasn’t married to Gary and I had to make sure I was secure with the children.”

Luke Barnes, representing Mr Paice, argued that the “close-knit” couple had an “informal partnership in relation to all the properties”, arguing he should receive 42 per cent of the profits from the sale of the home because of the money he claims to have contributed to its purchase.

Her barrister, Michael Horton, told Judge Richard Roberts that the former couple “continue to reside under the one roof at the property”.

He said outside court that they still live together as “neither of them for various reasons wanted to move out after the end of the relationship. There have been proceedings in another court whereby Miss Springall sought to get Mr Paice to move out, but he resisted that, so they have in effect divvied up the house temporarily … They are waiting for the result of these proceedings before they can separate properly.”

The hearing continues.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in