WHEN Patricia Jones moved into her little bungalow with her partner Leonard Kernott she was so in love, she was happy to sign a document granting him shared ownership of the property.

The couple weren’t married.

But Ms Jones trusted her partner to support and care for her just as she intended to care for him in the years to come.

She happily provided a £6,000 deposit for a joint mortgage on the property obtained from the sale of her mobile home.

Moving into their new home, which they bought for £30,000 in 1985, Ms Jones believed it would be the start of long, loving relationship during which they would transform their bungalow into a cosy nest together.

Instead, it was the start of a nightmare that would reach a climax in the Supreme Court last week when an earlier court ruling entitling her partner to a 50 per cent share of her home, 18 years after he left her, was overturned.

Relieved at the ruling and the end of her lengthy court battle, she said: “It’s been a nightmare.

It was my home, but I put his name on the deeds because I was in love and I wanted us to have the best start together.” She branded the earlier court decision to grant Mr Kernott half the value of the house as “ridiculous”.

Ms Jones said: “I didn’t begrudge him having something back and I always offered him a generous amount of money to recompense any work he may have done, but he wouldn’t accept it.

“This was a victory for common sense and I’m just so glad it’s over.”

After moving into their home in Badger Hall Avenue, the couple went on to have two children, but they split after just eight years.

Ms Jones stayed in the property with the children, continuing to pay the mortgage and maintenance costs.

She never expected that years after her partner moved out, a court would rule that even though the couple weren’t married, Mr Kernott, 51, was entitled to half the property.

Supporting her appeal, the panel of Supreme Court judges ruled he should only receive 10 per cent of the £240,000 value of the property The ruling will set a precedent for future disputes over homes bought by unmarried couples. Ms Jones hopes the case will help other women in a similar position.

She said: “If you would like to get a place together and you’re not married, you should do it properly.

“Get a solicitor and get something in writing, so whatever you put in you get out.”

The couple had shared the house and all the associated costs from 1985 until the relationship ended in 1993 and Mr Kernott moved out.

Ms Jones claimed she had to pay the mortgage, without support from her former partner, ever since.

However, in 2008 Mr Kernott said he wanted a share of the home’s value. A three-year legal battle followed, which saw the couple’s lawyers arguing in the County Court, High Court, the Court of Appeal and finally the Supreme Court.

Mr Kernott hit back at claims he had been greedy.

He said: “When I lived there I paid for everything and I completely refurbished the place. I had to leave and she said I would get my share when she was ready. I approached her a couple of times, but decided I should wait until my boy turned 18 and became an adult.

“I then asked for 25 per cent, but she said no and I had to go to court.

“Over a period of time I spent £50,000 on the house easily, including my time. I paid the mortgage, she bought a bit of shopping.

“When I left in 1993, the agreement was that she lived in the house until my boy was 18. I thought I was doing the right thing and didn’t want my kids to go through the upheaval. I was stupid and naive.”

Mr Kernott added the ruling was a kick in the teeth for all men in a similar position.

He said: “It feels like the law will always side with the woman. I have been painted as this ogre who walked out on his family.

“I love my family. I didn’t want to leave but it was made unbearable for me to stay. I’m battling a serious illness and that is more important to me right now.

“I accept the ruling and hope to move on with my life. I just want to put all of this behind me.”