Girlfriend moving into owned flat - Legal Implications?

Guest101

Its because this country is messed up. The law is a joke.

BitterAndTwisted

It isn't a joke. A person who moves in with a partner and makes a substantial contribution towards the other's housing-costs is in effect buying themselves part of the equity. That seems only fair. A partner is not a flat/house-mate or a lodger as neither of those sleeps in their landlord's bed or makes plans for a life together with them.

Guest101

Define 'substantial'.

Define 'contribution to the other's housing costs' - what about their own added expenses. What about their otherwise rental expenses?

If it's his/her equity, then they should have a contract to 'sell' it.


Dont think you'll convince me that someone who pays a few hundred quid rent, should suddenly be claiming percentages. Either they sign up to the mortgage, take on the obligation, or they get nothing. What no risk, but all the reward? Is that fair?

Lance

stebiz wrote: »

If I took home 2k and you took home 2k and I ended up spending my 2k on food, holidays, clothes, car, meals out etc. too right I'd feel ripped off whilst living with you. Now if I was allowed to invest the equivalent mortgage money, repairs etc then I'd be happy to go along with that.

I said share all expences so don't know how you work that out to us both earning £2000 and you paying everything. If you want to invest in a mortgage I will help you find a house for sale and a bank. I will want half of the house though because I bought you a Big Mac.

BitterAndTwisted

Guest101 wrote: »

Define 'substantial'.

I would define it as any payments for anything other that C Tax, utilities and food.

Define 'contribution to the other's housing costs' - what about their own added expenses. What about their otherwise rental expenses?

I'm not a magistrate or a judge but what I do know is that ex-partners have successfully persuaded courts that they have acquired a share of the owner's equity because they have made payments which can be construed as rent or a contribution towards the owner's mortgage.. It doesn't even have to be formally called "rent".

If it's his/her equity, then they should have a contract to 'sell' it.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this.


Don't think you'll convince me that someone who pays a few hundred quid rent, should suddenly be claiming percentages. Either they sign up to the mortgage, take on the obligation, or they get nothing. What no risk, but all the reward? Is that fair?

It might not seem fair to you but you only have to hang around the "Relationships" part of the forum, or this one, to read of people who have found themselves in this precise position, so I'm not just making !!!!!! up.

mynameisdave

Sign a DEclaration of Trust that should the house sell you get 100% of your deposit back before any split in equity.

Add £x to that as well if you think it is worth more than when you bought.

Now everything you put into the house is protected and everything you do as a couple when you are living together can be a straightforward 50/50 split without faffing around

Guest101

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

It might not seem fair to you but you only have to hang around the "Relationships" part of the forum, or this one, to read of people who have found themselves in this precise position, so I'm not just making !!!!!! up.

See I would say that isn't substantial. If they paid 50% of the mortgage, on top of their share of the common bills. Then i'd agrew with you that they may develop an interest in the property. But to pay a small amount, its a joke.

Oh i understand what the law is, i just disagree with it. I think it's a joke.

I mean if this is person A's house, and Person B, wants to buy into it, then Person A can choose whether to sell or not. It shouldn't be anything less. What if he didnt have a mortgage, and person B paid into bills and food etc. Would they be entitled then?

I know you're not lying. I don't disagree with you per se, I think it's the law which is unfair.

Someone put's in their savings etc into a house. Someone else pays a bit of cash and then wants it back? with interest?

What about the dinner the owner paid for, for their second date, with interest that's now...

Guest101

mynameisdave wrote: »

Sign a DEclaration of Trust that should the house sell you get 100% of your deposit back before any split in equity.

Add £x to that as well if you think it is worth more than when you bought.

Now everything you put into the house is protected and everything you do as a couple when you are living together can be a straightforward 50/50 split without faffing around

Should get your share, of what the deposit paid towards, IE 20% deposit 20% to person 1, then 80% split down the middle. to go by what you're saying.

zzzLazyDaisy

The leading case is Burns v Burns 1984, which shows how harsh the law can be. A summary of that case and how the case law has developed since then can be found here (it is worth reading for those interested in these things).

http://pntodd.users.netlink.co.uk/cases/cases_b/burns.htm

As can be seen from that case, it is really not difficult to prevent a cohabitee acquiring a beneficial interest in your home, if you are sensible about it. But if the owner of the property accepts payments from the partner that either directly pay the mortgage, or enables the owner to pay the mortgage, then they are at risk of the partner acquiring a beneficial interest in the house.

That is why the best advice is for the owner of the property to retain full responsibility for the mortgage and the upkeep of the house, and not accept any payment from the cohabiting partner that might be labelled as contributing to the mortgage payments, and for any contribution they do make to be identifiable as the expenses that the are involved in creating - utilities, food etc.

Charging rent is a potentially dodgy area, because it is enabling the property owner to pay the mortgage - which is fine where it is an 'arms length' transaction with a tenant, but less likely to be accepted by the courts where the person paying 'rent' is a cohabiting partner. Not that these cases very often end up in court because of the costs, but there is always that risk...

InMyDreams

wannahouse wrote: »

i'm sure its not a one way street in that department!!!

maybe he should start charging her for "favours!"
i'm sure she gets her fair share!

what a ridiculous point that one was....

Actually, that was exactly my point. I think that *either* of them charging the other for stuff is ridiculous *if they haven't actually lost money as a result*. But I totally accept that my opinion seems to be in the minority.

wannahouse wrote: »

bottom line, -she would EXPECT to pay for rent or accomodations where ever she lived, OR mortgage payments, should she get herself a mortgage one day, and i'm sure she wouldn't want to feel like she was freeloading, by him paying for the roof over her head...

But this thread wasn't about her but about him. If she felt uncomfortable about the arrangement, or wanted to avoid feeeling like she was 'freeloading' then she could always pay extra for other stuff, eg going out / holidays / nice treats, to whatever level made her feel comfortable. But my opinion is that it shouldn't be connected to the house or expected in any way. My point is from the OP's point of view. If she's not costing him money, then why does he need to take a payment from her?

As it happens, since I posted my original posts, the OP has come back to clarify that if the gf was not moving in, then he would be considering getting a lodger instead. This is the only thing that potentially does make a difference (as I said in my first post) because now the gf moving in, it could be argued, is actually costing him the potential income a lodger might provide. In which case fair enough, come to some arrangement. But it does seem somewhat convenient that he hasn't got in a lodger yet, after being there for over a year, and now at the point of moving his gf in, he's now considering it.