Co-habitating rules - help please.

squibbs25

I wonder if anyone can help or advise please, or if you have been in this or a simular situation would you mind sharing your experiences please.

I and my husband have some close friends that have very recently (2 months ago) sadly split up.
They are not married.
Im not going into details as to why (not really relevent) but to say it was a shock that they split is an understatement.

Here' a little background info, im not siding with either one just looking for some honest advice.
He has no children, never married
She has 2 children (by 2 different fathers) and has been married once before.
He sells flat and 'buys' house to accomadate them all.
They (her+kids) live rent/bill free apart from one bill (electricty) but she pays for food for all of them
He pays all bills, mortgage is in his name only (reason for her not paying towards bills etc his house his responsibility sort of thing)
He bought the car but up until last year he paid the insurance for it although it was classed as their car.

Now when she left baby no2's dad, he gave her a minimal amount that she put towards the new house, when the deal ended on the mortgage he (our friend) remortgaged, he released equity from the home which they decided to buy another home in France (this is currently where her money is tied up in as this is what she requested).

Fast forward to now.
She left about 7 weeks ago, took quite a bit from the house, tv, kettle, toaster - general household items (which to be fair she never actually bought - he did) but he wasnt bothered at the time.
She also took the car which was part of her settlement.
It was all quite friendly (well as friendly as these things can be)
Now though things are not so good, she wants her money back.
He has no issue of giving her back her money (when the French property is sold) but she is demanding it straight away and has told him today that she is going after half of his house as she had been advised that she is entitled to it.

I'm really confused, is she entitled to the main house or not.
The house has never been in her name, she has never been on the mortgage, they never married and like i say the children are not his (not little children - both 18+)
He can prove all expenditures/outgoings were covered by him on his wages alone.

They were together for approx 12 years
Any idea where he and she stands on this.
As i say, he will give her back what she originally put in + interest but it doesnt equate to the value of half of the uk house.

rita-rabbit

your friends house is probably safe in his hands as her names not on it.

ikkle87

http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/Family_Law/Cohabitation

Unlike married couples, unmarried couples have no basic rights to their partner's property or to maintenance if they split up. Basically what is his is his, what is hers is hers, and what is jointly-owned needs to be divided.
This applies to the home as well. Therefore if a house is bought in joint names (either as beneficial joint tenants, or as tenants-in-common - scroll down more info on these terms) then it should be split accordingly on separation, and either party can force a sale of the property to realise their share. If the parties are contributing unequally to the purchase price, or to payments on the property, then this should be reflected by being designated as tenants-in-common and holding unequal shareholdings (say 70% and 30%), rather than the equal shareholdings of beneficial joint tenants.
If the property is in the sole name of one party then basically it remains that person's property on separation, unless the other party can establish that there was a common intention that they would be entitled to a share in the property. How do they do this? Here are a few examples:

• It may have been agreed in a simple conversation (proving it tends to be the problem!), or in writing between the parties at some time
• The other party has directly contributed to the purchase price the courts are likely to accept that at least part of the property should have been in their name
• There has been an "understanding" between the parties and the non-owner has acted to their detriment as a result (e.g. contributed to mortgage repayments, paid household bills, or, perhaps, sold their own property) then the courts may agree they should share in the property.

BitterAndTwisted

She sounds like a fool and so does the person who appears to be advising her about her entitlement to half of his house.

squibbs25

Thank you all for taking the time to read and respond to my post.

ikkle87 - thank you for the link, it makes an interesting read.

B+T yes, sadly not what i expected from her at all

kezlou

I think it depends on the courts decision to be honest.

I've known unmarried couples to have a full separation and still be entitled to half the property etc


I'M NO EXPERT on this matter in anyway shape or form.

I think in the eyes of the law it depends on how long the couple have been together. As its been 12 years and they have been living together for that time then they can be classed as common law man and wife.

For instance if the children are 20 and 18 years now, then the courts will see the both of them as parents and may endorse family arrangements on them.

I've seen happen to a couple of friends of mine. Its not always the case as i've seen it go the other way to.

HappyMJ

kezlou wrote: »

I think it depends on the courts decision to be honest.

I've known unmarried couples to have a full separation and still be entitled to half the property etc


I'M NO EXPERT on this matter in anyway shape or form.

I think in the eyes of the law it depends on how long the couple have been together. As its been 12 years and they have been living together for that time then they can be classed as common law man and wife.

For instance if the children are 20 and 18 years now, then the courts will see the both of them as parents and may endorse family arrangements on them.

I've seen happen to a couple of friends of mine. Its not always the case as i've seen it go the other way to.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_067362.pdf

Three things that don't exist. The Loch Ness Monster, Cat's Nine Lives and Common Law Marriage.

kezlou

are you sure as thats what me and my partner are classed as.

I also know other people who were called this and were entitled to bereavement allowance and widows pension when they partners passed away.

By the way i'm not doubting you in any way, as i say i'm no expert.

ikkle87

Youve also got to remember she has had no input into the house financially. All bills and mortgage bar electric have been in his name as its his property and his responsibility. Something which they've both agreed on for 12 years. She can't suddenly change her mind now they've split.

gizmo111

kezlou wrote: »

are you sure as thats what me and my partner are classed as.

I also know other people who were called this and were entitled to bereavement allowance and widows pension when they partners passed away.

By the way i'm not doubting you in any way, as i say i'm no expert.

Classed as by whom?
In what context were they called this and who paid the pension - was it private or state?

kezlou

It was a state Widows Pension which your entitled to if your over 42 (i think) years of age and your partner has passed away.

My friends were advised by the Inland Revenue when they phoned up to make a change of circumstances. I.E that they partner had passed away so they were not entitled to working tax credits anymore.

Also the Job Centre told them what they were entitled to when they made a claim for Job Seekers Allowance.