Earlier drafts of this paper were presented at the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, University of Oxford in October 2003, and in the Family Law and Policy stream of the Annual Conference of the Socio-Legal Studies Association at the University of Glasgow in April 2004. I am extremely grateful for the comments and contributions of participants in both events. This paper also benefited from the helpful comments of Anne Barlow, Roger Smith, David O'Mahony and the anonymous referees. All opinions and errors remain my own.
Creditors and the concept of ‘family home’: a functional analysis
Article first published online: 27 APR 2006
DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-121X.2005.tb00613.x
Additional Information
How to Cite
Fox, L. (2005), Creditors and the concept of ‘family home’: a functional analysis. Legal Studies, 25: 201–227. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-121X.2005.tb00613.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 27 APR 2006
- Article first published online: 27 APR 2006
The concept of home has attracted considerable critical attention in recent decades across a broad range of social science disciplines. Analysis of ‘home meanings’ provides important evidence of the values which people attach to property that they occupy as a home. This evidence could be utilised to argue that home represents a site of special significance, deserving some additional protection in law, over and above other property types. Where such arguments have been considered in English law, the tendency has been to confer special status on the family home rather than on home per se. This article identifies several weaknesses, both practical and conceptual, with the application of ‘family home’ analysis in the context of creditor/occupier disputes. The article proceeds to consider whether ‘family home’ is sufficiently attractive as a central organising concept in policy discourse to outweigh the specific criticisms outlined. An alternative and, it is argued, more desirable solution would be to approach the issue of security of tenure in the owner-occupied home from a more individualistic, rather than family-centric, perspective.

1748-121X/asset/LEST_left.gif?v=1&s=1e289c185d0087cd5208721f679f627f40e77b1e)
1748-121X/asset/LEST_centre.gif?v=1&s=a26a3bda0f9a5a7a82d137689a652cfab8d81169)
1748-121X/asset/cover.gif?v=1&s=bda8fb41142439b784385916ea5672ac1abcddc6)