Scottish cohabitation,partner wants payout without entitlement

silvercar

The other side of the coin is that if they were occupying a spare room and were classified as a lodger they would be paying rent and not entitled to anything. So does being in a relationship suddenly entitle you to an interest in the property?

Keep_pedalling

Exodi said:

Keep_pedalling said:

Exodi said:

fuzz said:

Our relationship has ended and he wants half of the equity (around 80k). I don't think he is entitled to anything

For this reason, many property owners prefer to have the cohabiter pay all of the utility bills or food (for example) and deliberately avoid them paying any house-related costs.

That would be a poor option for the owner if they wanted to avoid their partner obtaining a beneficial interest as they would in effect still be contributing to the mortgage by paying way over their share of household expenses. No mortgage contribution and 50% of household expenses would be the sensible option.

Do you have any examples where someone has not paid towards direct housing costs (e.g. Mortgage/Renovation) but still gained a beneficial interest?

I'm happy to be proved wrong, but all of the past examples I'd seen were the other party paying half of the mortgage and believing they would gain equity, or examples where they were explicitly and provably told they would accrue equity.

Try this one. In this case the partner was contributing £500 a month ‘rent’ some of which was covering a mortgage she was not aware existed.

https://www.wrighthassall.co.uk/knowledge-base/proprietary-estoppel-liden-v-burton-2016-ewca-civ-275

When it comes down to a court case it is going to come down to a lot of he said she said, but (under English law at least) if you are asking your partner to pay more than their fair share of household expenses then you risk them making a claim. 

Exodi

Keep_pedalling said:

Exodi said:

Keep_pedalling said:

Exodi said:

fuzz said:

Our relationship has ended and he wants half of the equity (around 80k). I don't think he is entitled to anything

For this reason, many property owners prefer to have the cohabiter pay all of the utility bills or food (for example) and deliberately avoid them paying any house-related costs.

That would be a poor option for the owner if they wanted to avoid their partner obtaining a beneficial interest as they would in effect still be contributing to the mortgage by paying way over their share of household expenses. No mortgage contribution and 50% of household expenses would be the sensible option.

Do you have any examples where someone has not paid towards direct housing costs (e.g. Mortgage/Renovation) but still gained a beneficial interest?

I'm happy to be proved wrong, but all of the past examples I'd seen were the other party paying half of the mortgage and believing they would gain equity, or examples where they were explicitly and provably told they would accrue equity.

Try this one. In this case the partner was contributing £500 a month ‘rent’ some of which was covering a mortgage she was not aware existed.

https://www.wrighthassall.co.uk/knowledge-base/proprietary-estoppel-liden-v-burton-2016-ewca-civ-275

When it comes down to a court case it is going to come down to a lot of he said she said, but (under English law at least) if you are asking your partner to pay more than their fair share of household expenses then you risk them making a claim. 

Thanks for linking this, though in this particular case the plaintiff had both the things I mentioned:

a) paid towards direct housing-related costs (rent) and
b) believed they were gaining equity ("Ms Liden challenged the word “rent” Mr Burton referred to it as money “towards the house”).

The existence of a mortgage is a red herring, the same thing could apply if the cohabiter invested a significant amount in renovations, or provided a lump sum, etc.

The point I made which you disagreed with was:

Exodi said:

For this reason, many property owners prefer to have the cohabiter pay all of the utility bills or food (for example) and deliberately avoid them paying any house-related costs.

Again, I'm happy to be proved wrong as I don't want to give incorrect advice in the future, but I also regularly see people advising this sort of thing.

Sorry OP for taking the discussion off-track as I understand this is irrelevant to you.

I think in your case (where the cohabiter was paying both housing-related costs and contributing to repairs/maintenance), a case being brought for proprietary estoppel is much clearer.

Stateofart

I think you will find that most judges would award something back for the 5.5 years of contributions. I think that's only fair.  Perhaps not 50% but I would start from there.