Entitled to a share of marital home?

Comms69

Type_45 wrote: »

It doesn't matter if it was 50% or 10%. The point remains that not getting married doesn't protect your house from a partner.

No but getting married is agreeing in law to share all property and assets...

jackieblack

thorsoak wrote: »

if the marriage were to fail within five years, it would be considered as a short relationship and the financial positions would revert to those as to when they married.

Not necessarily, when there is a child of the marriage

If they divorce the court would prioritise the child’s welfare.

Pollycat

elsien wrote: »

‘There are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know."

I'm familiar with the saying. :cool:
I'm taking about the things that the OP doesn't know in this specific case:

Pollycat wrote: »

Maybe the OP should come back and ask again when the 'unknowns' are known.
Also factoring in the response re pre-nups.

The OP doesn't know whose name(s) are on the house deeds.
The OP doesn't know if there is a mortgage and if there is, whose name(s) it is in.

I don't understand why the OP is asking for advice when this information is unknown to him/her.
If someone has asked the OP to post on here for advice on their behalf, I'm sure they would have provided this information.
Or the OP would have asked for this information before posting.

Type_45

Comms69 wrote: »

No but getting married is agreeing in law to share all property and assets...

Whilst married, yes. But they can be divided up again with a pre-nup.

Type_45

Pollycat wrote: »

I'm familiar with the saying. :cool:
I'm taking about the things that the OP doesn't know in this specific case:

The OP doesn't know whose name(s) are on the house deeds.
The OP doesn't know if there is a mortgage and if there is, whose name(s) it is in.

I don't understand why the OP is asking for advice when this information is unknown to him/her.
If someone has asked the OP to post on here for advice on their behalf, I'm sure they would have provided this information.
Or the OP would have asked for this information before posting.

The marital home has not yet been purchased. The shopping for the house has only just begun.

When the house is purchased it will likely be paid for by just the woman (with the help of her mother). But the ongoing bills once they move in will be paid for by both of the couple.

It's therefore unknown at this stage who's name is on the deeds and whether the man would have any claim to the property. This is the point of the thread.

unholyangel

Type_45 wrote: »

It doesn't matter if it was 50% or 10%. The point remains that not getting married doesn't protect your house from a partner.

Pretty sure I've explained before on a previous post of yours that even a non-partner can make a beneficial interest claim (it has nothing to do with them being your partner) and this is why its always wise to have an agreement stating what exactly they are paying for and making clear they are not gaining an interest.

That way should they (whether it be partner, friend or whatever) try to later claim an interest, it can be easily shown there was no intention for them to gain an interest.

Comms69

Type_45 wrote: »

Whilst married, yes. But they can be divided up again with a pre-nup.

No a pre-nup is not legally binding

Malthusian

Type_45 wrote: »

It doesn't matter if it was 50% or 10%.

If you (or your friend) are rich enough that 40% of a house is not significant in the grand scheme of your finances then you can clearly afford some paid-for professional advice.

You said that an unmarried partner got 50% of a house just because they'd "done up the house in some way". Comms disputed this. You doubled down by saying it happened twice. Now you're attempting a very inept reverse ferret by saying it was actually 10% but it doesn't matter. (Once or both times?)

If you have a beneficial interest of 10% in a property and marry the other owner, you will, assuming it's not a short marriage, change that interest from 10% to 50% as the default position. You asserted that it is "not true" that "co-habitation doesn't have anywhere near the same level of risk" (Accountant_Kerry) which is incorrect. In the scenario you described co-habitation risks "losing" 10% of the house and marriage risks losing 50%. This is a very different level of risk.

Pollycat

Type_45 wrote: »

The marital home has not yet been purchased. The shopping for the house has only just begun.

When the house is purchased it will likely be paid for by just the woman (with the help of her mother). But the ongoing bills once they move in will be paid for by both of the couple.

It's therefore unknown at this stage who's name is on the deeds and whether the man would have any claim to the property. This is the point of the thread.

Surely you(r friend) have discussed these details?

Type_45

Pollycat wrote: »

Surely you(r friend) have discussed these details?

It's almost certainly going to be just the woman's name on the deeds. But with some sort of agreement that the man has a stake in the marital house. That's as far as they've discussed at this point. All bills will be shared once they move in.