Partner Rent Disagreement

Kynthia

getmore4less wrote: »

You need to read the implied trust wording more carefully.

It says the opposite to what you are claiming.

if contributions are made the owner would need the proof they were gifts or similar.

edit : quote the relevant text

You are misunderstanding implied trusts. It says for there to be one there has be a common intention for the non-owning partner to gain a share and direct contributions to the property. Both are requured. If there were direct contributions but the property owner tried to argue they were gifts without expectation of anything in return, in order to nullify that condition being met, then the owner would need to prove this.

Contributions that aren't direct to the property don't count, so paying more than half the utilities, for holidays or into a savings account aren't direct contributions. The proof of joint intention or direct contributions doesn't need to be beyond reasonable doubt but whether a judge believes it's more probable than not.

Kynthia

getmore4less wrote: »

You need to read the implied trust wording more carefully.

It says the opposite to what you are claiming.

if contributions are made the owner would need the proof they were gifts or similar.

edit : quote the relevant text

You are misunderstanding implied trusts. It says for there to be one there has be a common intention for the non-owning partner to gain a share and direct contributions to the property. If there were direct contributions but the property owner tried to argue they were gifts without expectation of anything in return, in order to nullify that condition, then the owner would need to prove this.

Contributions that aren't direct to the property don't count. So unlike what people are saying here, paying more than half the utilities, for holidays or into a savings account aren't direct contributions and fine, and a cohabitation agreement stating there's no intention for the non-owner to gain a share is worth the paper its written on and would be proof tgere was no joint intention. The proof of joint intention or direct contributions doesn't need to be beyond reasonable doubt but whether a judge believes it's more probable than not.

squirrelchops

My thinking goes wider than just the issue over the house.

I agree that as it is the OPs mortgage and she has the financial investment that she should be responsible for paying the mortgage as ultimately she will be the one who will benefit from any increase in value etc.

However, how, as a couple are other things being divvied up? Will it end up resentment if OP has to say to her partner 'I cant afford to go on holiday, go out, take this trip' etc due to having less disposable income? Will partner then end up subsidising partner?

Also is the partner going to consciously save what would be his rent equivalent each month perhaps for deposit to a house together in the future. Otherwise he will become used to a certain amount of disposable income each month and if they do purchase a place together OP will be paying less than at present whilst partner is paying more than at the moment which is zero!

I know it is tricky as OH and I have been in varients of this throughout the years due to changes in income, circumstances (eg me going back to Uni as a mature student) etc. The key is open dialogue and transparency.