House bought and paid for by me in sole name - is it always mine?

diystarter7

Hi

Thank you both.  Sadly, quiet a few threads are misleading in this aspect of living together.

Spendless

Hi, I was in this position back in the mid 90s and asked the solicitor this as I bought my house. The answer was that each case is judged on it's own merit. If a boyfriend moved in and used his money to improve my house then it * could*  be taken into account. That doesn't mean it necessarily will.

As said if you marry, it will eventually become a marital asset.

Keep_pedalling

In this case the OP owns the house outright, which avoids the possibility of the boyfriend having a financial interest through contributing to mortgage costs. As long as she pays for all major improvements and maintenance costs then she is protected.

diystarter7

Keep_pedalling said:

In this case the OP owns the house outright, which avoids the possibility of the boyfriend having a financial interest through contributing to mortgage costs. As long as she pays for all major improvements and maintenance costs then she is protected.

Hiya

To be clear, this is in the event of the partnership going belly up after many, many years, 20/30 years?

Thanks in advance

Stateofart

Friends of mine split up after around 10 years living like this.  They asked for a lump sum as she had contributed to the household for all that time.  They paid bills, helped maintain the home, bought items, painted...did all all sorts, which can be attributed as a vested interest.  I think, while not entitled to much, if your boyfriend contributes anything towards the up keep over the next few years, the likelihood is that you would have to offer him something in return. 

Now, the next thing to consider is will he be happy with this?  In my friends case, I think the refusal to allow them to contribute and the therefore one party was building wealth and equity whicle the other was effectively a tenant resulted in their eventual demise.  

Scorpio33

The key is if they have made a "financial contribution" to the house. Normally, that would only be things like paying for the mortgage, or paying for major changes to the house (such as loft extension etc). You could argue that if you've been there a while (20/30 years), a "financial contribution" to the house has been made, but it is very difficult to prove, so would not normally be accounted for.

Keep_pedalling

diystarter7 said:

Keep_pedalling said:

In this case the OP owns the house outright, which avoids the possibility of the boyfriend having a financial interest through contributing to mortgage costs. As long as she pays for all major improvements and maintenance costs then she is protected.

Hiya

To be clear, this is in the event of the partnership going belly up after many, many years, 20/30 years?

Thanks in advance

The length of the relationship makes no difference for unmarried couples, the none owning partner has no claim on the property if they made no financial contribution to it. As long as the OP’s partner only pays their share of household bills (food, utilities, CT, Netflix subscription ect) they will never have a legitimate claim on the house or any other assets the OP owned. 

There may come a time in a long term relationship where it makes sense to tie their finances together such as pension entitlement or avoidance of IHT on the first death. 

tightauldgit

In theory in either case the property can remain yours - even in a marriage if you own the property prior to the marriage then it's a premarital asset. The complication of course is that in either case its possible for the other party to gain an interest in the property during the relationship. 

I think the best thing you can do to protect yourself would be to set out the arrangements with your partner and probably get some kind of written agreement on that with the help of a solicitor. 

Even then, 20 years down the line you can't really stop someone taking you to court to TRY to get a share of the property and having to go through all the rigamarole of courts and solicitors - all you can really do is your best to protect yourself.

   

shiny76

Stateofart said:

I think the refusal to allow them to contribute and the therefore one party was building wealth and equity whicle the other was effectively a tenant resulted in their eventual demise.  

But surely the 'tenant' was able to build their own funds with the money that would have been handed over in rent?

TBagpuss

Suzey said:

I'm not sure where to find the answer to this, but:

If I buy a house outright, in my sole name (with my savings, inheritance and proceeds from selling a house I own with my ex), to live in it with my boyfriend, what happens if we were to split up later?

The default is that what is in your name is yours, what's in his name is his, so in those circumstances, the house would be yours 


Are there any circs under which he'd be able to argue that he is entitled to a share of it?

Yes, but not anything like as easily as some of the posts you'll see might suggest.
For him to make a successful claim, he would need to satisfy a court that there had been a joint agreement or intention by you both that he would have an interest in the property and that he had in some way acted to his detriment because of that joint understanding. So making contributions (even if they are towards a mortgage ) don't automatically mean he has a claim, he has to also be able to show that the two of you intended that he would be gaining an interest in the property.  Things other than money can be a detriment (for instance, giving up a secure council tenancy to move in) but there still need to have been some mutual understanding that he would have an interest. 

Most cases involve long term arrangements where both parties have been paying towards the mortgage and have talked of and treated the house as a joint property - partners doing lots of DIY etc. 


Would the answer be different if we got married at some point after moving in?
Yes. Once you are married, all assets either of you has became part of the total 'pot' of assets which can be divided when a couple divorce. A court can take into account contributions nd a whole range of other factors, he wouldn't necessarily get 50% in that scenario but would almost certainly be entitled to a share of the equity. 

Is there any way I can protect myself?

Yes. Get a cohabitation agreement drawn up before he moves in. This can explicitly set out that he doesn't have, and will not gain, any interest (share) in the property and that making contributions will expressly not entitle him to anything unless  you get a new agreement drawn up expressly giving him such an interest.  That way, you have an express agreement that contributing *won't* entitle him to anything, which makes it almost impossible for him later to claim that there was an implied  or unwritten agreement that they would.  You would need to review the agreement and update it if necessary if things changes, for instance if you moved house or if he did propose to make contribution (e.g. paying for an extension) and you wanted to record that he was then entitled to something.

If you did then plan to marry, you could get a pre-nup. These are not legally enforceable but they are part of the evidence a court looks at to decide what settlement is fair and reasonable, which is the test when deciding who gets what on divorce .The starting point is that it is fair to expect people to keep to their agreements, and that it would be unfair to allow someone to ignore the agreement they entered into. A court can still make orders different to the terms of the pre-nup, but they would take into account what you agreed and why, in deciding what order to make. Normally, the longer the marriage, the less weight the pre-nup will be (not least as it is more likely that there will have been other contributions and changes to the relevant circumstances)  But in a shorter marriage where there is a pre-nup (and either no children, or children who will be living with you) then a pre-nup would carry a lot of weight, and normally switch the starting point from ' start with 50/50 and consider whether that needs to be changed to be fair to both' to 'start with the terms of the pre-nup and consider whether those need to be changed to be fair to both parties'

Pre-empting any comments in case anyone thinks I'm being mean or doom-mongering: I fully get that anything we would earn etc while married is a team sport.  But I worked hard for my savings and for the deposit on my first house (I appreciate that I didn't earn the (small) inheritance), most of which was before this relationship, some during, and my bf has no savings that he can contribute to a house purchase.  So it would have to be me that makes the purchase unless we involve a mortgage which surely complicates the situation and makes it more expensive.

Forgot to say: we don't have children and we aren't going to have any, in case that makes a difference.

Comments added in bold above. TL;DR version - have a cohabitation agreement and then a pre-nup, and get them both drawn up properly with legal advice.