OK I'm worried now...

DRP

JencParker wrote: »

Wouldn't a lodger do exactly the same? Why the difference? Presumably if the OH was renting elsewhere he would be paying the LL mortgage but would not have any interest in the LL's property so why different in this case?

Because they are in a relationship, and that relationship isn't simply business.

At the very least the op needs to make it precisely clear where they both stand regarding payments. If op is concerned that doing that would be detrimental to them as a couple, then she needs to consider carefully the terms of the new agreement.

For me, the problem isn't that op wants to keep the house as hers, it is that the party with most to lose doesn't necessarily know that tiny detail!

esmerelda98

DRP wrote: »

Because they are in a relationship, and that relationship isn't simply business.

The relationship is whatever the parties choose to make it. They don't have to go down the conventional route, as long as they are both clear about where they stand and can prove this in the future by means of paperwork if necessary. So I agree with the rest of your post but not fully with the bit quoted above.

DRP

esmerelda98 wrote: »

The relationship is whatever the parties choose to make it. They don't have to go down the conventional route, as long as they are both clear about where they stand and can prove this in the future by means of paperwork if necessary. So I agree with the rest of your post but not fully with the bit quoted above.

You're right they can base their relationship can be based on whatever route they agree on.

They haven't gone down any route, I guess that's the point. Sounds like the financial arrangements are based on assumptions, that may or may not differ between the 2 of them.

Pixie5740

JencParker wrote: »

Wouldn't a lodger do exactly the same? Why the difference? Presumably if the OH was renting elsewhere he would be paying the LL mortgage but would not have any interest in the LL's property so why different in this case?

A lodger wouldn't be living as one household with their live-in LL. A lodger wouldn't spend their spare money on their LL. Being a lodger and living with your boyfriend or girlfriend are not the same thing at all.

Edit: The OP might be worrying unduly. It's possible that the partner has never considered he has a stake in the property. Perhaps he doesn't even feel like the place is his home.

Goldiegirl

Pixie5740 wrote: »

A lodger wouldn't be living as one household with their live-in LL. A lodger wouldn't spend their spare money on their LL. Being a lodger and living with your boyfriend or girlfriend are not the same thing at all.

Edit: The OP might be worrying unduly. It's possible that the partner has never considered he has a stake in the property. Perhaps he doesn't even feel like the place is his home.

That's the problem with forums, unless the other party ever started a thread we'll only ever get one side of the story.

We'll never really know what the partner thinks, all we can know is what the OP thinks, or what the OP assumes the partner is thinking.

ruggedtoast

What generally happens is its all fine while the relationship is ok. Then people either get married or they split up and suddenly the other partner gets mad and wants to exact whatever revenge possible.

It takes very little effort to get a solicitor to write a letter to your home-owning ex partner asking them to justify why you shouldn't have half your assets. It takes an awful lot of effort indeed to respond to that letter, so I would get it sorted out sooner rather than later.

JencParker

DRP wrote: »

Because they are in a relationship, and that relationship isn't simply business.

At the very least the op needs to make it precisely clear where they both stand regarding payments. If op is concerned that doing that would be detrimental to them as a couple, then she needs to consider carefully the terms of the new agreement.

For me, the problem isn't that op wants to keep the house as hers, it is that the party with most to lose doesn't necessarily know that tiny detail!

How can you lose something that isn't yours in the first place?

It wasn't as if they bought the house together. He is simply paying living costs that he would have had to pay wherever he lived. Different if they are married, but that is because marriage is a legally binding arrangement, but I find it hard to believe moving a boyfriend into a house already owned suddenly gives them some sort of interest in the property.

JencParker

Pixie5740 wrote: »

A lodger wouldn't be living as one household with their live-in LL. A lodger wouldn't spend their spare money on their LL. Being a lodger and living with your boyfriend or girlfriend are not the same thing at all.

Edit: The OP might be worrying unduly. It's possible that the partner has never considered he has a stake in the property. Perhaps he doesn't even feel like the place is his home.

That may be, but more worrying is that people invite a boyfriend/girlfriend in with them unaware that they are actually giving them a share in their property!


Can you actually quote the law on this? Where is the legislation? In marriage it is covered under the marriage laws but where if they are not married?

Pixie5740

JencParker wrote: »

Different if they are married, but that is because marriage is a legally binding arrangement, but I find it hard to believe moving a boyfriend into a house already owned suddenly gives them some sort of interest in the property.

It's not him living there that potentially gives him beneficial interest in the property but the fact that he has been making a direct financial contribution towards the mortgage repayments that might create an implied trust (sometimes also known as a resulting trust). Depending on the circumstances it might be possible for the partner not on the deeds to demonstrate that there was a constructive trust.

If the relationship ends, and the partner who is not the sole owner could apply to the courts using the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. If the couple were engaged it's possible to apply under the Married Women's Property Act 1882.

Source.

It can get very complicated so a solicitor would most likely be required so I suppose in the event of a relationship breakdown, the one not on the deeds would need to weigh up whether it was worth going to court over. If you'd only been living as a household for a couple of years probably not but if you'd been contributing towards someone else's mortgage for 15 years then you might think it was worth it.

JencParker

Pixie5740 wrote: »

It's not him living there that potentially gives him beneficial interest in the property but the fact that he has been making a direct financial contribution towards the mortgage repayments that might create an implied trust (sometimes also known as a resulting trust). Depending on the circumstances it might be possible for the partner not on the deeds to demonstrate that there was a constructive trust.

If the relationship ends, and the partner who is not the sole owner could apply to the courts using the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. If the couple were engaged it's possible to apply under the Married Women's Property Act 1882.

Source.

It can get very complicated so a solicitor would most likely be required so I suppose in the event of a relationship breakdown, the one not on the deeds would need to weigh up whether it was worth going to court over. If you'd only been living as a household for a couple of years probably not but if you'd been contributing towards someone else's mortgage for 15 years then you might think it was worth it.

If he had made payments directly to the bank/building society I can understand how that may carry some weight, but otherwise, you are not directly contributing towards someone else's mortgage. My own understanding is that banks will not usually take payments from anyone except the mortgagee for this reason.


Interesting that you see it as someone contributing to someone else's mortgage, whereas in reality it is them paying what they would pay if they were renting somewhere of their own.


An appalling situation IMO, and one that should perhaps be advertised more, especially when taking out a mortgage. I doubt many people are aware that by inviting their partner to live with them they are possibly signing away part of their home and the OP's question is an example of that.