When is live-in partner entitled to house?

LionKing

Hi,

If your partner lives you for 2+ years are they considered common law wife/husband and therefore legally entitled to 50% of house.

Is this still the case if they are not on the mortgage but make a contribution towards it

Highland_Doll

LionKing wrote:

Hi,

If your partner lives you for 2+ years are they considered common law wife/husband and therefore legally entitled to 50% of house.

Is this still the case if they are not on the mortgage but make a contribution towards it

Depends where you live! In Scotland the law is different to England/Wales etc. Protection is there for common law partners in Scotland. If you have lived together for over 2 years, you have rights to the home, whoevers name is on the mortgage, regardless of who has paid what etc. So, girl moves in with guy who owns own house, pays all bills etc. she earns nothing. In Scotland if she lives with him for 2+ years yes! she is entitled.

In England, No! she is not! She can live with him for 20 years and still get nothing. There is no such thing as 'common-law-wife' in England. It doesn't exist in the eyes of the law.

Hope that answers your question.

margaretclare

Hi

My present husband moved in with me in 1997. I still had a mortgage. Even after we married in 2002 he had no entitlement - would have been considered as nothing more than a lodger. If I'd died before him he'd have been in a very vulnerable situation.

This seems to be a common misconception, that there is some kind of 'entitlement' to 50%.

Aunty Margaret

Bossyboots

margaretclare wrote:

Hi

My present husband moved in with me in 1997. I still had a mortgage. Even after we married in 2002 he had no entitlement - would have been considered as nothing more than a lodger. If I'd died before him he'd have been in a very vulnerable situation.

This seems to be a common misconception, that there is some kind of 'entitlement' to 50%.

Aunty Margaret

Thats not quite right. As your husband he gained rights under the Matrimonial Rules and as he was living with you in the matrimonial home, if you died he would still have had a right of occupancy. He would also have been entitled to your estate up to £125,000 unless you had made a will leaving everything to him or a will excluding him. Even if you had made a will excluding him, he would have been able to oppose it.

He would also have had a financial claim on the property which increased with the length of the marriage and his contribution to the property and household in general.

margaretclare

Bossyboots wrote:

That's not quite right. As your husband he gained rights under the Matrimonial Rules and as he was living with you in the matrimonial home, if you died he would still have had a right of occupancy.

Thanks for this clarification. What I wrote was what I was actually told by an adviser at CAB who has a lot of experience in property advising with them. We were then in process of getting the equity release ('lifetime mortgage') to pay off the original mortgage and we took the opportunity to give him joint tenancy with me. We also did the equity release thingy in joint names.

When I moved here in 1990 I took on the mortgage in my name because my (then) husband was in poor health and couldn't be insured. He had to sign a document for the mortgage provider saying he had no claim on the property. As things happened, it didn't matter because he died 18 months after we moved here.

What about short-lived marriages then - there seems to be a lot of assumption that the marriage only has to last a couple of years or so and the other half can 'walk away with 50%'.

Aunty Margaret

Bossyboots

margaretclare wrote:

What about short-lived marriages then - there seems to be a lot of assumption that the marriage only has to last a couple of years or so and the other half can 'walk away with 50%'.

Aunty Margaret

This is where my remark about the entitlement increasing with length comes in. You and I have both been on the threads here about those assumptions you mention. It seems to me that this is becoming raised more and more as well and sometimes for questionable motives.

In any divorce settlement, the presumption is a 50/50 split. This is then balanced upwards and downwards taking into account the contribution of each party to the marriage and, certainly in the early days, the financial contribution. It is very rare in my experience for any couple to actually achieve a 50/50 split and even rarer for those in a short marriage to achieve anything anywhere near that division unless they started off equal in the finances in the first place.

As for CAB advice, I know this has come up elsewhere as well. However, they do not seem to double check the overlap of various laws and those who know about property don't seem to take matrimonial into account and vice versa. The CAB also get their advice blurred on the issue of what is a criminal and what is a civil matter. A prime example of that this week was a lad looking for a solicitor that handles crime in our town. He had been told by the CAB that is what he needed, when in fact he was the alleged victim of a crime and criminal defence solicitors cannot help him.

eyeopener

With regard to short term marriges. My solicitor has told me that a judge will make sure that each party is put back to the same position as if the marrige hadn't taken place. Nobody gains and nobody loses (in theory) but I assume each case is taken on its merits.

LionKing

Thanks everyone.

Just so i'm clear.....even though a couple are not married in England, both make contribution to mortgage, mortgage is only under one persons name then the unamed contributor has no claim if they split?

Bossyboots

LionKing wrote:

Thanks everyone.

Just so i'm clear.....even though a couple are not married in England, both make contribution to mortgage, mortgage is only under one persons name then the unamed contributor has no claim if they split?

I hadn't taken on board the mortgage issue before, just the 50/50 split.

If they make a contribution to the mortgage, they can make a claim against the property. This would be under the Trust of Land Act, a civil law rather than a family one (which would govern matrimonial property). It cost my friend £5,000 so if you are thinking of doing this, get a formal agreement properly drawn up as to how it is going to work.

It is not reasonable to expect someone to contribute to the cost of a home and for someone else to take the full benefit of that contribution.