Evicting family members.

mattpaint

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

There are 3 children living there though, and none of this is their fault.

Their parents can be responsible and stop sponging off the OP in that case.

badmemory

mattpaint wrote: »

Their parents can be responsible and stop sponging off the OP in that case.

Why would they behave responsibly? They are doing fine - living in someone else's house with someone else paying the bills, they have no plans to move out any time soon anymore than the wife does. The OP has been set up.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

You need to get professional legal advice, and also have a good hard think about what is most important to you going forward. Selling the house quickly, splitting it 50/50 and moving on may actually be the cleanest option.

Stoke

pickledonionspaceraider wrote: »

It seems unfair that one (husband) 50% homeowner has no choice of house-guests but the other (wife) 50% homeowner has all the say...Id visit CAB as this does not seem right to me.

I would make their lives as uncomfortable as possible...Irritating 'borderline loud' music, DIY at around at 4am.

as far as what friends are telling you what the wife has said, I would ask her direct. So far its all hear say. I mean your wife is entitled to 50% of the house from what you say its a joint mortage but her sister is entitled to jack squit

Welcome to Great Britain. The law really hasn't caught up on these things. My friend is about to lose £4000 of his hard earned money for a woman he wasn't even married too, because she lived with him for 6 months. Unbelievable really.

Red-Squirrel_2

Stoke wrote: »

Welcome to Great Britain. The law really hasn't caught up on these things. My friend is about to lose £4000 of his hard earned money for a woman he wasn't even married too, because she lived with him for 6 months. Unbelievable really.

Yes it is. There has to be more to that story.

Stoke

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Yes it is. There has to be more to that story.

Adverse possession.

Can't be bothered to go any deeper than that. He knows better than me, but that's all there is to it. It's going to cost him 4 grand to get rid of her, which is apparently a bargain because his solicitor believes if it went to court, she would probably get more.

Red-Squirrel_2

Stoke wrote: »

Adverse possession.

Can't be bothered to go any deeper than that. He knows better than me, but that's all there is to it. It's going to cost him 4 grand to get rid of her, which is apparently a bargain because his solicitor believes if it went to court, she would probably get more.

No way, that’s rubbish. Google adverse possession and see instantly!

Stoke

Sunny_Intervals wrote: »

You sure it's adverse possession? Did she annex part of his garden?


It's more likely she has claimed an interest in his property by paying toward the mortgage, repairs, etc. If his solicitor thought she was due more, then it sounds like she's the one getting the bad end of the deal.

Isn't that rent? Paying the mortgage....

onomatopoeia99

Stoke wrote: »

Adverse possession.

Is his solicitor the woman's mum or something? Even if not, he needs a better solicitor. Adverse possession applies to land and requires at least 10 years of occupation.

There's "beneficial interest" which is more likely, but the test for that is higher than most people on forums seem to think.

Red-Squirrel_2

Stoke wrote: »

Isn't that rent? Paying the mortgage....

If her money went towards paying off the capital or to improving the house, she invested in the value of the asset.