Ex demanding half the house

Guest101

clint_S wrote: »

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 think you'll find that you are not interpreting the information you are being given correctly. Having a right to a property, and having an interest in a property are not quite the same thing.


I am not stating that this is a rented accommodation or that he was a tenant or lodger. - I didn't say you were? I just used your example of a tenant expecting to be paid if a LL sold up.


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. - You are not privy to all the facts. Hence my questions to the OP. However your advice is terrible. He does not require signed documents to gain an interest in 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.

Yes it does. That's exactly what it does in these types of relationships.


<did you just find out that our live-in girlfriend/boyfriend now has an interest in your property?>

TBagpuss

He has no automatic right to the house, or an interest in it

It would be open to him to try to make a claim.
He would have to satisfy the court that there had been an agreement or mutual understanding between himself and your mum that he would aquire an interest in the proprty.
Such a mutual understanding can in some cases be inferred from the way both parties acted over the course of the relationship - for instance, if he consistently provided financial contributions and/or carried out work (beyond basic decorating and minor upkeep) on the house

I would suggest that your mum write to the solicitor stating that he has never had any legal or beneficial interest in the property and asking that he set out, in detail, the basis on which he asserts that he has such an interest.

If he did make financial contributions (which may include having contributed to general household outgoings, thus freeing up your mum's income to pay the mortgage) then your mum should get her own advice and consider whether to make an offer of a small lump sum reflecting his contributions, but she would need to take advice as to the strngtth of his calim.

If he did make an application it would be under ToLATA and normal civil court rules would apply, so he would need to start with a formal letter before action.

In the absence of having his name on the deeds, or other formal written agreement, it is very unlikely that he could establish that such an understnading or agreement exisited, unless he could show that he was making financial contributions or other contributions having a financial value(such as carrying out extensive improvementsd, above and beyond basic maintenance)

If he did make a claim and was able to showe that he had contributed, any share he might be entitled to would be based on his contributions, it would not be half.

FBaby

The question is, did he contribute anything towards the household bills? You say he didn't pay towards the mortgage rent, but if your mum only paid the mortgage whilst he paid for everything else, then he could argue that he did pay towards it indirectly.

Whether he would be entitled to anything is very much up to the judge if it went to court. The starting point is indeed to look at the deed/mortgage, then a number of other factors would be taken into consideration, length of relationship, who contributed what to whom, and testimonies, ie. what was her/his understanding and any evidence to back this up.

Whether he would be entitled to anything, who knows, to start with, it all comes down to whether he would indeed be prepared to take your mum to court over it.

Savvy_Sue

TBagpuss wrote: »

I would suggest that your mum write to the solicitor stating that he has never had any legal or beneficial interest in the property and asking that he set out, in detail, the basis on which he asserts that he has such an interest.

That could be a good plan, if a letter from a solicitor ever appears. Equally, if this is just a continuation of his bullying and abuse, then the pre-emptive strike of blocking all contact might work better and going for an injunction against his harassment would be a nice touch.

Only the OP knows: if his previous 'form' indicates that he'll just grind mum down then I'd definitely not wait for that 'solicitor's letter' to turn up.

meritaten

Given what you say - he and mum weren't married, his name not on deeds and there is no proof he contributed to mortgage.......save on solicitors fees and just tell him to eff off! any solicitor can write a letter on behalf of a client 'making demands'. those letters are not worth the paper they are written on.( I say that having typed out my share of them- my boss thought of them as 'easy money' - they have no standing in law whatsoever). and could be taken as 'harrassment'.
he probably thinks the threat of court action will get you to pay him something. offer NOTHING.
in my opinion he is trying it on -and as they weren't married he didn't contribute etc - there is no claim on the house!
tell mum to ignore everything except a court summons. and I doubt it would get to that - solicitors like to win cases and this one looks like a 'no-hoper'.

ecgirl07

Back of fag packet maths: what was the house worth when he moved in? What is it worth when he moved out? Possibly argument he is due half of that, but depending on where you live this could be half of very little. Worth working this out as it could be half of nothing.

DUTR

ecgirl07 wrote: »

Back of fag packet maths: what was the house worth when he moved in? What is it worth when he moved out? Possibly argument he is due half of that, but depending on where you live this could be half of very little. Worth working this out as it could be half of nothing.

What if the property had reduced in value during that time?
Does he then owe her money?
Of late some bizarre threads occuring on MSE on various boards .

ecgirl07

DUTR wrote: »

What if the property had reduced in value during that time?
Does he then owe her money?
Of late some bizarre threads occuring on MSE on various boards .

If the property did not increase in value during the time he lived there, then no one has made any money and neither partner has gained over the period.

Why should he be entitled to equity value from before he moved in?

Unsure what your last line refers to?

DUTR

ecgirl07 wrote: »

If the property did not increase in value during the time he lived there, then no one has made any money and neither partner has gained over the period.

Why should he be entitled to equity value from before he moved in?

Unsure what your last line refers to?

The last line refers to the topic is so bizarre, I suspect it is just fabricated to play on the readers emotions.
It was not an attack on your posting.
As to why should he be entitled to any of the equity? Who knows? I'm sure if the gender roles were reversed then she would be entitled to something?
Me? If I'm moving in with anybody, she best have her 50% of the house price at the ready :eek:

ecgirl07

DUTR wrote: »

The last line refers to the topic is so bizarre, I suspect it is just fabricated to play on the readers emotions.
It was not an attack on your posting.
As to why should he be entitled to any of the equity? Who knows? I'm sure if the gender roles were reversed then she would be entitled to something?
Me? If I'm moving in with anybody, she best have her 50% of the house price at the ready :eek:

My thinking is regardless of sex (though probably influenced by him being a reported bad yin):

Starting point half the increase in value from when they moved in to when he moved out.

A thought to how much rent they would have to pay if they were renting a one bed flat. Off set that against how much they were paying their partner and any significant home improvements paid for.

And come up with a mutually fair figure.... neither legally or economic sound but maybe morally fair?