Separating after 12 years, who gets house?

bovysbabe

Hi, My partner and I have been together for 12 years, have a gorgeous toddler, but have decided to part. Amicably.

Just wondering if anyone can advise about the house.

When we bought the property 7 years ago, it was cheap and due to his bad luck (having been in his overdraft a few times) only my name was put on the deeds, so the house is just in my name.

So, although i will stay in the house with the little one, what rights does he have? Would i have to give him half the value as he has been contributing, or do his contributions just act the same way as renting? The mortgage is only £145 a month so would be daft for me to sell and rent at £500!

RAS

Are you married?

maypole

Unfortunately for him, if you are not married, he has no legal right. Doesn't matter how long you live together, you do not have the same rights as a married couple.

Take proper advice though, especially as he has contributed to the household in other ways.

antrobus

bovysbabe wrote: »

....
When we bought the property 7 years ago, it was cheap and due to his bad luck (having been in his overdraft a few times) only my name was put on the deeds, so the house is just in my name....

So you're saying that you bought the house together?

bovysbabe wrote: »

....
So, although i will stay in the house with the little one, what rights does he have? ...

Why are you asking? You parted "Amicably", what does your partner think is fair? There's no point in going legal over the property if you can sort it out between you. Go talk to him.

aneres

I would think the decent thing to do would be to give a share of the equity. If you have both paid in then I think it would only be fair.

Person_one

aneres wrote: »

I would think the decent thing to do would be to give a share of the equity. If you have both paid in then I think it would only be fair.

She's not selling, she'll be living in it with their child.

DylanO

If he can prove his contributions then he can, in theory, sue you for them.

keith969

If you're not married, then he does not have any 'rights'. You can go on living in there house and you do not have to give him anything. In theory he could take you to court but this is unlikely as (a) its expensive and (b) as the house is in your name and you have to care for your child, you hold all the aces.

Foggy

Just do the right thing. It sounds like he has no rights at all so it's up to you...

duchy

Legally or morally ?

Legally he has a claim but it would be expensive possibly prohibitively so

Morally -You could sit down and work out what he has contributed and what you both feel is fair and affordable.

As your son is so young and you'll be dealing with him as the father of your son for years yet it would be sensible to come to an agreement that you both feel is fair

Bluemeanie_2

Sorry Duchy, Legally it is more than likely he does NOT have a claim if you are not married. Burns v Burns (1984) established that. There were a couple of cases where dear old Lord Denning tried to establish a form of "constructive and implied trusts" to effectively do the right thing and award equity. (I can't remember these ones without digging out my land law books, but Gissing v Gissing and Roscoe spring to mind). However the costs of legal advice, going to court and working your way up to the House of Lords would not only take around 10+ years, it would also cost thousands more that the equity (unless it is a mansion). Plus it is highly unlikely they would say the same as in Burns v Burns.

However as others have said, morally is another thing. I totally agree it is silly for you to sell and then rent at 3 odd times the cost. So maybe eventually if you feel bad you could give him a share of the equity. However if he knew he never owned the house, he would have had to have lived somewhere in this time, so in theory would have been paying rent and bills elsewhere, so will leave the morals between you and your conscience.