Advice re non married mum's entitlements on separation?

Gavin83

Soundgirlrocks wrote: »

This could be a case where beneficial interest comes into play. People always get their knickers in a twist about it when there is a thread where a couple are thinking about moving in together, but when its a single mum they conveniently forget about it :huh:

OP that a look at this thread, there is more info about beneficial interest here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5964447/implications-of-rent-from-partner

Depending how long you were together and what was agreed between you regarding the house there may be a implied / constructive trust in place. Its complicated area of law, but just because you weren't married doesn't automatically mean don't have some rights to the property.

It depends entirely on what financial contribution she made to the property, as has already been said above. Based on what's been written here I suspect there's a possibility she's never worked while in this relationship.

As others have said she's only entitled to her own property and child maintenance for the youngest, more if she can demonstrate a contribution.

However he isn't liable to pay anything towards the oldest. Those contributions should come from their parent, which she should have already been receiving.

Comms69

Soundgirlrocks wrote: »

This could be a case where beneficial interest comes into play. People always get their knickers in a twist about it when there is a thread where a couple are thinking about moving in together, but when its a single mum they conveniently forget about it :huh: - I mentioned that in my post...

OP that a look at this thread, there is more info about beneficial interest here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5964447/implications-of-rent-from-partner

Depending how long you were together and what was agreed between you regarding the house there may be a implied / constructive trust in place. Its complicated area of law, but just because you weren't married doesn't automatically mean don't have some rights to the property.

Perhaps not, but those right will not extend to residency rights.

System

Hi - procedings usually start at 50/50 for the assets assuming all assets were bought between them. If not, it's a negotiation. If she can prove that she contributed in anyway to the household, then there's possible move for maneuver. As for kids, regardless of father figure duties/acceptance, in the eyes of the law the child from the other marriage is not his responsibility - your friend should seek separate support for this.


If your friend cannot afford to buy the partner out (sounds like this from your post), she cannot stop the house from being sold. That said, in the divorce machine mothers and fathers need somewhere safe to live, and mothers tend to get preferential treatment, so partner may find housing being considered in the separation agreement. Despite this, I would not be surprised if partner is going to go for sole custody considering your friend's position...

elsien

andydownes123 wrote: »

Hi - procedings usually start at 50/50 for the assets assuming all assets were bought between them. If not, it's a negotiation. If she can prove that she contributed in anyway to the household, then there's possible move for maneuver. As for kids, regardless of father figure duties/acceptance, in the eyes of the law the child from the other marriage is not his responsibility - your friend should seek separate support for this.


If your friend cannot afford to buy the partner out (sounds like this from your post), she cannot stop the house from being sold. That said, in the divorce machine mothers and fathers need somewhere safe to live, and mothers tend to get preferential treatment, so partner may find housing being considered in the separation agreement. Despite this, I would not be surprised if partner is going to go for sole custody considering your friend's position...

Have you considered actually reading the OP at all?

Non-existent divorce aside, custody in the sense you appear to be referring to doesn't exist and there is nothing in the OP to suggest this is on anyone's radar particularly since one of the children isn't his anyway.

System

elsien wrote: »

Have you considered actually reading the OP at all?

Non-existent divorce aside, custody in the sense you appear to be referring to doesn't exist and there is nothing in the OP to suggest this is on anyone's radar particularly since one of the children isn't his anyway.

Yes, of course. What exactly am I missing?



Tbh, I'm staggered by your lack of vision. Of course, custody of their child will be coming up sooner or later.

Pixie5740

andydownes123 wrote: »

Yes, of course. What exactly am I missing?

The couple aren't married so there will be no divorce.

System

'Divorce machine' is a umbrella term for the spliting up of two people with a child involved.

Kynthia

andydownes123 wrote: »

'Divorce machine' is a umbrella term for the spliting up of two people with a child involved.

No such thing. There are no courts or laws for the splitting up of un-married couples. Legally you only own what's in your name and no one is going to share out the assets to be "fair". One partner could try to sue for something but that would be using the same laws that anyone can use, not any specific for couples. So it would be based on meeting the conditions of beneficial interest, a loan, or that something was really theirs as it had been paid for by them but not put in their name.

Soundgirlrocks

Gavin83 wrote: »

It depends entirely on what financial contribution she made to the property.

No actually it doesn't, there could be a implied or constructive trust in place, it really depends on what was discussed and agreed as a couple during their relationship. Beneficial interest is not just related to financial input.

Gavin83

Soundgirlrocks wrote: »

No actually it doesn't, there could be a implied or constructive trust in place, it really depends on what was discussed and agreed as a couple during their relationship. Beneficial interest is not just related to financial input.

I guess technically speaking you're correct, in the same way they'd be nothing stopping me gifting my house to a complete stranger. However as no one ever realistically gives someone a large portion of their property unless they've a good reason to it's basically a moot point.

Therefore I'll stick by what I said, in reality the only way she'll get a portion of the house is if she can prove a financial contribution.