OK I'm worried now...

Pixie5740

JencParker wrote: »

Ridiculous thing to say - I didn't say anything that could be construed as nanny state intervention. However, purchasing a property usually involves legal advice and it should be made clear at that point of purchase - it would appear from the earlier link that this wasn't made apparent and they had bought as joint tenants.

You said that people should be advised when taking out a mortgage. It's not the mortgage lender's responsibility to tell people this and why would a solicitor start advising people about a situation that may or may not ever happen when their client hasn't asked about it?

JencParker wrote: »

I have nearly paid off my mortgage and have worked hard over the years to pay for it. The idea that anyone who lived here as a partner could suddenly make a claim on it if we split up does not sit well and I would certainly be discussing/legalising that position beforehand now, however, as I said, it is not obvious at all that someone has a claim on a property that they didn't buy but simply lived in.

As has been explained numerous times to you now, it's not the fact that someone has been living in the property that could potentially give them beneficial interest it's creating trusts by directly paying towards the deposit, mortgage repayments and/or capital due on the outstanding mortgage.

That said, for an ex-partner to make a claim they would need a solicitor because it's a complex issue and they're not protected by the law the same way that an ex-spouse would be. It could cost far more to make a case and take it to court than the ex-partner is ever likely to see. Of course these are only issues if you split up.

JencParker

Pixie5740 wrote: »

A friend of mine recently split up with his girlfriend of 10 years, 8 years of living together and unprompted he gave her a cheque for her share of the property even though it was only in his name as he felt this was fair since she had contributed towards the mortgage in those 8 years.

.

Your friend could obviously afford it if he/she gave a cheque. If they didn't have that sort of cash would they have been prepared to have sold the house and given the ex partner the same amount of money? Including all the extra costs that selling a house incurs - and buying a new house which is unlikely to have been of that same value if he had given away a large amount of capital?

Pixie5740

JencParker wrote: »

Your friend could obviously afford it if he/she gave a cheque. If they didn't have that sort of cash would they have been prepared to have sold the house and given the ex partner the same amount of money? Including all the extra costs that selling a house incurs - and buying a new house which is unlikely to have been of that same value if he had given away a large amount of capital?

You have a real bee in your bonnet about this beneficial interest thing. If it bothers you that much petition your MP about changing the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 and don't ever live in sin with someone.

Perhaps he had more equity in the property because she had been contributing towards the mortgage for 6 years rather than him paying it on his own. Whether he re-mortgaged and released some equity or had the money sitting in the account I do not know.

JencParker

Pixie5740 wrote: »

You have a real bee in your bonnet about this beneficial interest thing. If it bothers you that much petition your MP about changing the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 and don't ever live in sin with someone.

Perhaps he had more equity in the property because she had been contributing towards the mortgage for 6 years rather than him paying it on his own. Whether he re-mortgaged and released some equity or had the money sitting in the account I do not know.

Not a bee in my bonnet, I just find it hard to believe that anyone can say they lived in a house for a few years and because they paid money, they have an interest in someone else's property. Links have been given that show it is possible, but it appears not as simplistic or automatic as some claim it be.


And yes, I do think cohabiting and buying with a partner outside marriage has caused a lot of people a lot of problems and distress. It is easy within marriage as the law is quite clear, however, it is very vague outside marriage.

Pixie5740

It's not simple at all for the one not on the deeds to successfully claim anything but it's not impossible. You would need a very good case to convince a judge and to be honest it probably wouldn't be worth the hassle in many cases. You could end up like poor Pamela Curran who after 30 years ended up with diddly squat.

My personal view on it is that if people don't enter into a legal arrangement (marriage or civil partnership or even a cohabitation agreement) they shouldn't expect the full protection of the law when things go down the pooper.

Belfast1978

In my view its a question of fairness I would refuse to pay a partners mortgage as you just don't have any rights at all. its just common sense I had the agreement with my OH that she wouldn't be paying any rent at all and suggested she saved in a savings account so one day we can buy a house together this was before looking at these forums im surprised people can consider charging a OH rent what so ever!

FBaby

Not a bee in my bonnet, I just find it hard to believe that anyone can say they lived in a house for a few years and because they paid money, they have an interest in someone else's property.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can all a house theirs when they haven't paid it all by themselves just because their name is on a piece of paper. We all see it differently depending on the situation they are in. That's why what it all comes down is the two partners seeing it the same way.

esmerelda98

Pixie5740 wrote: »

"Direct financial contributions can include payments towards:

* a deposit
* monthly mortgage payments
* capital due on the outstanding mortgage."

He gives her half the monthly mortgage payment therefore he is directly contributing towards the monthly mortgage payments.



Interesting that you can't see a boyfriend/girlfriend that someone has decided to make a home with as little more than a lodger.




More nanny state intervention? If you're big enough and ugly enough to have a mortgage and be considering living with a boyfriend/girlfriend you should be capable of doing your own research.



If you want to invite your boyfriend/girlfriend to live with you for the long term you are creating a home with them. It ceases to become "my home" and becomes "our home".

If I was with someone who asked me to move in but kept making it abundantly clear that it was their home and not mine I would move out and rent/buy my own place. Similarly if I asked someone to move in with me I would try and make it feel as much their home as mine.

A friend of mine recently split up with his girlfriend of 10 years, 8 years of living together and unprompted he gave her a cheque for her share of the property even though it was only in his name as he felt this was fair since she had contributed towards the mortgage in those 8 years.

Cohabiting couple can have a cohabitation agreement drawn up so that both parties know where they stand but if you're at that stage in your relationship why not just throw caution to the wind and go the full hog and get married? After all marriage is just a contract with some cake.

Pixie5740 you don't make the rules. You don't decide at which point people move in together. That is a decision for the couple to make. They may move in earlier than other couples for a variety of reasons including convenience and financial convenience. They may have an unconventional relationship, as some posting on this thread do. As long as they are both clear about their intentions and expectations regarding property ownership (and document these) it is irrelevant that they are boyfriend and girlfriend.

You seem to me to be mixing the morals and the legals, how you think things should be versus how they are legally.

Pixie5740

What are you wittering on about? At what stage did I say I made the rules? I was just giving my opinion on how I would view my relationship and gave a real life example of what my friend did.

JencParker

FBaby wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that anyone can all a house theirs when they haven't paid it all by themselves just because their name is on a piece of paper. We all see it differently depending on the situation they are in. That's why what it all comes down is the two partners seeing it the same way.

Lodgers? Adult children still living with parents? There are a number of different sources of extra income that may contribute to household expenses which include a mortgage.


Are you suggesting anyone who has ever charged their children rent or taken in a lodger should not believe their house is their own just because the deeds say so?