Ex demanding half the house

RAS

clint_S wrote: »

Deeds aren't always the best place to look, although they give a good indication, is he on a joint tenancy or Tenancy in common? If not then he has no rights to the property. If they weren't married then that right is zero and he has no claim against the property, and if this went to court he would get nothing. If he was a tenant living in the property would you expect he to get a % of a house sale if the landlord sold it? No, and he has less claim than a lodger would.

He is not on the deeds or the mortgage.

blalunderscore

Guest101 wrote: »

That's not what I asked.....

No, he paid nothing in rent to her either. He wasn't a tenant.

heuchera

I am not sure about the law regarding common-law husbands and wives. If he was contributing then maybe he could try and claim something. Did he leave recently?

You might be better asking on the housing board.

Guest101

blalunderscore wrote: »

No, he paid nothing in rent to her either. He wasn't a tenant.

I know he wasn't a tenant.


He cant be a tenant.


He cant be a lodger either.


However he can pay towards the property. It doesn't have o be called 'rent'.


If he regularly paid her money (even in cash), he may reasonably argue to have gained an interest in the property.

heuchera

Guest101 wrote: »

If he regularly paid her money (even in cash), he may reasonably argue to have gained an interest in the property.

But wouldn't the onus then be on him to prove that he'd paid her the cash? That might be difficult.

Loanranger

heuchera wrote: »

I am not sure about the law regarding common-law husbands and wives. If he was contributing then maybe he could try and claim something. Did he leave recently?

You might be better asking on the housing board.

There is no law regarding people who are not married and not in a civil partnership, AKA common law husband or wife. The common law spouse is a myth.

Unless it has changed recently.

Guest101

heuchera wrote: »

But wouldn't the onus then be on him to prove that he'd paid her the cash? That might be difficult.

It's civil court, it's on the balance of probability.

Gingernutty

blalunderscore wrote: »

No he never paid anything into her bank account from which the mortgage was paid from.

blalunderscore wrote: »

No, he paid nothing in rent to her either. He wasn't a tenant.

Guest101 wrote: »

I know he wasn't a tenant.


He cant be a tenant.


He cant be a lodger either.


However he can pay towards the property. It doesn't have o be called 'rent'.


If he regularly paid her money (even in cash), he may reasonably argue to have gained an interest in the property.

Hi OP.

The relevant question is

"Did he pay ANYTHING towards the house or the housekeeping?"

It doesn't have to be rent, it doesn't have to be into the account that the mortgage was paid from.

Did he pay for any materials (wallpaper, paint, garden items)?

Did he pay for workmen or work to be done?

Did he do any work on the house himself at his own expense?

Did he regularly pay any bills?

Did he pay cash on a regular basis towards the running of the home?

Can he prove that he did?

Can you prove that he can't?

Kynthia

There's no law to dictate how the assets of those in a long-term relationship but not married are split. Therefore if someone wants money from their ex - partner they need to sue for it and prove that on balace of probability they are entitled to it.

So do you think the ex will take this to court? Can they prove they contributed directly to the mortgage (or the account it was taken from), can they proved they provided significantly to the joint living costs, can they show the equity in the property increased during this time (for example if property prices fell and it was an interest only mortgage then there's no equity to split), etc. Can your mum show he didn't contribute, directly or indirectly, or tgat there's been little equity gain, or that he already took more than a fair share of assets. Alternatively can your mum show that he had assets she would be entitled to a share of that will offset his claim, like cars, savings that exceed hers, a better pension scheme, etc?

clint_S

Guest101 wrote: »

Dear Sir/Madam,


in the politest possible way, please rethink your position before giving such inaccurate advice.


A tenant (or a lodger) is a clear contractual relationship. There is no expectation of gaining interest in the property


This is one of equal partners where such an expectation could be reasonably expected.

Interesting a lot of legal sites, gov.uk, and citizens advise disagree with you, but I suspect you'll advise that you are a solicitor working in this field.


I am not stating that this is a rented accommodation or that he was a tenant or lodger.


If the ex-partner had no agreement, i.e. was not transfer to the ownership of the property via a joint tenant or Tenants in common, then he would only have the right to claim abode, which he lost he more out of the property. I can not see in this situation where he would have any claim on the property.


If there was no agreement in place then money paying for the rent would not be considered in a claim against the property. Simply paying a mortgage on a property does not give you rights to that property.