House ownership issue - any advice?

fluffnutter

I'll try to be succinct.

Sharon and Pete live together in Pete's house (House A). He alone is on the title deeds and pays the mortgage. After some years Sharon and Pete split up and he moves out leaving her in House A. He continues to pay the bills and mortgage. Selling the house is raised a number of times but for various reasons this doesn't go ahead and Sharon continues to live in House A.

After a few more years Sharon meets Simon who moves in with her in House A. The relationships strengthens and Simon buys House A from Pete. He puts the house in Sharon's name with the expectation that they will soon marry. Simon pays all the bills and also funds a number of improvements. There is no mortgage on the house.

The relationship founders and a split is discussed. Simon buys Sharon another house (House which she moves into and he continues living in House A. Again her name alone is on the deeds and there is no mortgage. The agreement at the time of this purchase was that she transferred ownership of House A to Simon.

Roll on five years or so and this hasn't happened. Any suggestions on how Simon might best approach gaining ownership of House A? Despite assurances to that effect, Sharon has still not 'got round to' completing the paperwork.

As far as I can tell, Simon's legal position isn't the strongest because his success lies in proving that House A wasn't ever intended as a gift. All opinions/advice/suggestions welcome.

pyueck

As he paid for the house, there was an agreement for him to own the house and paid the bills he may have a claim. However this is a complex area of law and he should get legal advice.

AdrianC

Pete ceased to be relevant when Simon bought the house.

So Sharon and Simon split, Sharon moves into house B in her name. Simon continues to live in house A in her name. Unmarried, so no divorce settlement to sort it officially.

Basically, it's down to what they agree between them like two sensible mature adults (I know, I'm an optimist). Sharon owns two houses, and Simon is living in one with her permission. If house A wasn't a "gift" to her, why was it in her sole name?

fluffnutter

Yes, I think he needs to get some professional advice. I actually think a strongly-worded solicitor's letter would make her capitulate sharpish. I'm not sure even she's heartless enough to contest it in court. But maddeningly he 'doesn't want to upset her'.

fluffnutter

AdrianC wrote: »

Pete ceased to be relevant when Simon bought the house.

So Sharon and Simon split, Sharon moves into house B in her name. Simon continues to live in house A in her name. Unmarried, so no divorce settlement to sort it officially.

Basically, it's down to what they agree between them like two sensible mature adults (I know, I'm an optimist). Sharon owns two houses, and Simon is living in one with her permission. If house A wasn't a "gift" to her, why was it in her sole name?

Well, because Simon's a fool basically. She's demanding and machinating, a classic gold-digger (although I dislike that term as I think it's often used unfairly). He was in love, they talked about marriage, she wanted the house, he agreed to prevent a tantrum. We all make mistakes, just not usually of such financial impact.

He's bought her two houses. She's impressive. She's got a third fella on the go now and is in the process of trying to get him to buy her one too.

fluffnutter

I'm just wondering if anyone knows about the legality of it. I did read about unilateral notices but I'm not sure this will hugely help him. From what I can tell he can register a unilateral notice but this won't make any difference to whether or not she's compelled to transfer ownership, rather that it will (might?) come into play if she tries to sell.

I'm not sure she's really thought it through to be honest. I can't really see her selling the house, not least because she actually wants to live in it herself (especially now he's made loads of improvements ). They also live in a relatively small and gossipy community and her reputation means a lot to her. Her name would be mud if she sells the house that's his home, whether or not she's legally entitled to. At the moment, not that many people know about this (although I suspect many have their suspicions). If he were forced to move, and move where? he's got no money left, I think the sorry tale would be more widely known.

So basically she's waiting for him to die. I've known better plans.

pyueck

fluffnutter wrote: »

Yes, I think he needs to get some professional advice. I actually think a strongly-worded solicitor's letter would make her capitulate sharpish. I'm not sure even she's heartless enough to contest it in court. But maddeningly he 'doesn't want to upset her'.

I said that he MAY have a claim. If she is going to contest this I think at best he can hope to have some apportionment of the value. He may get nothing. Needs some legal advice.

AdrianC

fluffnutter wrote: »

I'm just wondering if anyone knows about the legality of it.

The legality is that unless Simon can credibly claim he was defrauded or the house was stolen from him (and it doesn't sound as if he can), then he bought her two houses.

fluffnutter

AdrianC wrote: »

The legality is that unless Simon can credibly claim he was defrauded or the house was stolen from him (and it doesn't sound as if he can), then he bought her two houses.

This is what worries me. I know verbal contracts are ridiculously difficult to prove, but they are binding. He bought it on the agreement that it would one day be his (through their marriage). When said marriage didn't transpire she again agreed to return it to him.

What arsenal do you think he has to be able to convince someone of this fact should he need to? For example, will it help that others have witnessed conversations between Sharon and Simon discussing this? The reason I mentioned Pete is because he was party to their discussing the plans re. ownership when he sold Simon the house.

pyueck

fluffnutter wrote: »

This is what worries me. I know verbal contracts are ridiculously difficult to prove, but they are binding. He bought it on the agreement that it would one day be his (through their marriage). When said marriage didn't transpire she again agreed to return it to him.

What arsenal do you think he has to be able to convince someone of this fact should he need to? For example, will it help that others have witnessed conversations between Sharon and Simon discussing this? The reason I mentioned Pete is because he was party to their discussing the plans re. ownership when he sold Simon the house.

This is not your argument. Your argument will about who paid for the house and paid the bills.

They were not married so this whole bit is irrelevant. The thing if I was a judge that would make me question his case is why on earth the property was in her name when he paid for it.

fluffnutter

pyueck wrote: »

This is not your argument. Your argument will about who paid for the house and paid the bills.

They were not married so this whole bit is irrelevant. The thing if I was a judge that would make me question his case is why on earth the property was in her name when he paid for it.

Like I said, because she had a tantrum and he caved in to her demands. She's controlling and manipulative, although these are subjective descriptions, I know.

Perhaps it's not so much a legal issue, as a moral one, and I'm just looking for canny ways to try to persuade her to do the right thing.