Separating after 12 years, who gets house?

Seanymph

He has no claim on the house - no ownership - no name on deeds.

I also dispute the 'morally' argument.

He paid a minimal amount a month, would have paid more to rent somewhere else to live, and for a small contribution lived in your property. You also no doubt have taken a career/earnings hit whilst having your toddler, and have many many years of arranging childcare to enable you to earn.

Whilst he may remain financially supportive, if you hand over your home or equity in it then you are more dependent upon his 'doing the right thing' for the next 16 years or so. And in only too many cases that fails to come across.

Nicki

Irrespective of whose name is on the title deeds or mortgage document, if he has paid part of the mortgage in the last 7 years, or if he has paid some or all of the cost of renovating or improving the property, he will have acquired a legal beneficial interest in the property and be entitled to a share. And it will not be necessary for him to go to the Supreme Court to establish this, nor would you be likely to get leave to appeal the lower court giving him his share of the equity to this level! However if you can't agree between yourselves a fair distribution, a court order will be needed which will incur costs. The existence of a child complicates matters too.

See here for quite a good summary of the law.

http://www.fool.co.uk/Your-Money/guides/Splitting-Up.aspx

You've had quite a lot of legally inaccurate advice so far, so perhaps best to stump up for some professional advice, rather than relying on lay people's opinions on the Internet, given it is your home and security at stake. At least if a solicitor steers you in the wrong direction, he will be insured to cover your losses!

duchy

Bluemeanie wrote: »

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.

.

If he was contributing to the mortgage -upkeep and maintainance of the property he may have a claim. Dependant on lots of things the OP hasn't stated like if they had financial links like joint accounts etc.

I'm with Nicki-it is something that needs proper advice -and IMO a lot of thinking about -ie if a clean financial break if there is a claim is healthier and easier for maintaining a decent "parental" relationship between the OP and her boyfriend. Things may be amicable now but things can change a lot in the fifteen or so years until the toddler turns eighteen.

chirpchirp

If you want him to have some of the equity from the house, you can come to an arrangement where he has a percentage of the equity in the house, (this would need a legal document to be prepared)which would be payable when your child is 18. This is what a court will often do when a marriage ends with children, although the mother normally gets more than 50% I know of cases where the mother has had 80% of the equity.

Whether he's legally entitled to anything I don't know. Although as you split amicably you may feel morally compelled to give him something hence my reply above.

FBaby

Cant comment on the legal aspect, but morally??? You said yourself in the opening post that you were intending to buy together, the only reason the house is in your name is because of his bad credit. On this basis, surely you can see that it is a joint asset at least morally. Unless of course, the fact that the house is on your name only meant that he contributed nothing at all towards the house. The suggesting that what he contributed was rent is absurb. You bought the house together -morally- so unless there was any discussion at any time that his contribution represented rental fees, then -morally again-, it is clear that this is not how he will, rightly, see it.

Of course, the whole discussion very much depends on what equity we are talking about. If it's a case of a few 1000s, and say he gets to keep the family car, then you could call it even.