Ex demanding half the house

Guest101

ecgirl07 wrote: »

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?

Your morals are irrelevant to the OP though. However you now have w formula which works for you.

The court is sporadic on this, but doesn't agree with your formula.

The 'increase' in value is irrelevant, it's the increase in equity which matters.

For example- two people move in together. Mortgage solely in person A, but person B pays half. Property values at £100k

10 years later, property values at £105k. The value only increased £5k. But the repayments have been 30k in that time.

Person b has a claim on both the half of £5k increase and the £30k equity.

Just because it's one name on a bit of paper doesn't mean anything.

POPPYOSCAR

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 .[/QUOTE]



Yes I thought that as well.


Half-term come early.

marywooyeah

OP your mother is experiencing a TOLATA issue - so called as it falls under the scope of the Trust of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act.

There are no such things as common law husband and wives. When people cohabit where one owns the property in their sole name the other can acquire an interest in the property in one of two ways:-

1) Where there is an express agreement between the parties that the property will be held on trust for both parties, and the non owner relies on that agreement to their detriment, or

2) Where a course of conduct can be inferred from the parties' behaviour and actions that the non owner was to acquire a share in the property.

"Share" refers to the equity, not necessarily the value of the property as another poster has correctly pointed out. Ultimately your mum's ex would need to successful convince a family court that on the balance of probabilities either of the above scenarios was made out.

The ex is entitled to make a claim despite the separation of ten years, but whether they will be successful or not depends on the facts of the case and whether there is any evidence that either of the above scenarios took place.

Hope this helps.