Ex partner claiming share of house

H

Helen

Registered User
Messages
236
Hi,
In the situation where one member of a relationship owns a house, then subsequently asks their partner to move in. A few years later the relationship breaks up, is it possible for the non house owning partner to claim a share in the property?
The reason I am asking is that I didn't think it would be possible, but have heard through a friend of a friend of a friend that it has happened to some people they know.
Thanks.
 
Helen said:
Hi,
In the situation where one member of a relationship owns a house, then subsequently asks their partner to move. Then a few years later the relationship breaks up, is it possible for the non house owning partner to claim a share in the property?
The reason I am asking is that I didn't think it would be possible, but have heard through a friend of a friend of a friend that it has happened to some people they know.
Thanks.
Click to expand...

is the couple Married ?
 
I can vaguely remember something about this, but I think that the no-ownership person has to prove that they have contributed to the mortgage, evidence of a standing order etc

A friend of mine made a case that her ex had effectively paid rent, (she did declare it, though I suspect only small amounts, she never paid any tax on it)

I also have a recollection that the lenght of time someone was in the house is looked at to see if its a valid claim, my friends ex lived with her for two years and so it wasn't really long enough to be considered to have had an effect, I forget exactly what the mediator said about it at the time,

This was all about 6 years ago, not sure if the information is still valid
 
I know someone who owned a house and moved his partner in with him. They lived together for about 4 years and then the house owner ended the relationship as his partner wasn't able to get along with his grown up children.

The property was purchased for around E300,000 and was subsequently sold 4 years later for E500,000.

The non house owner sought advice and was told that she was effectively his common-law wife and as such had rights to any wealth or income generated during the term of the relationship. She felt she contributed to the maintenance of the property over the 4 years by spending a lot of time and money in the garden, decorating, cleaning, cooking etc.

She told him that he could either come to an agreement with her or she would take him to court. The reached a settlement (I don't know how much) and parted.

I'm sure someone else will know what the exact legal position is, this is just a case I know of.
 
From a legal perspective there is no recognition of 'common-law' partners. It depends on how the property was acquired, paid for and maintained as to whether the departing partner has a right to any share in the property.
 
In this example, the couple wouldn't be married. Obviously if they were it would be very different.
My understanding was the same as Kildrought's but the story I heard was exactly that of Delgirl. I couldn't understand why a settlement would be reached when the non house owner didn't have a claim on the house in the first place.
 
Helen said:
In this example, the couple wouldn't be married. Obviously if they were it would be very different.
My understanding was the same as Kildrought's but the story I heard was exactly that of Delgirl. I couldn't understand why a settlement would be reached when the non house owner didn't have a claim on the house in the first place.
Click to expand...

Probably because the issue seems to be a little murky, there could be some scope for interpretation in the definition of "contributing" to the mortgage, by the time it dragged through the courts and lawyers get paid it may be just cheaper to come to a settlement.
 
I looked into this some time back for a family member and what i found was as long as the name is not on the deeds there is no legal claim to be made even if the occupier puts time, money and effort into the property. It is seen as the following e.g., if someone rents a property for a period of time and over that period they had looked after the property maybe even painted it, when they move out there is no claim to that property, the same logic is applied, because two people may be romantically involved means nothing in legal terms. The "Common law" partner winning a claim over a property seems to be an urban myth.
I got the info above from a solicitor friend
 
Unless there are kids in which case the parent who gets custody gets the claim
 
The "Common law" partner winning a claim over a property seems to be an urban myth
Click to expand...
This wasn't an urban myth rp, I knew both people in my example for 4 years. She definitely got a settlement afaik in excess of E20,000.

I don't know if the house owner sought legal advice, but think perhaps it was more a case of dam099's -
by the time it dragged through the courts and lawyers get paid it may be just cheaper to come to a settlement.
Click to expand...
 
delgirl said:
This wasn't an urban myth rp, I knew both people in my example for 4 years. She definitely got a settlement afaik in excess of E20,000.

yes but didnt you say that they settled, im taking this as meaning they settled out of court, so the case was not actually won in court.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top