Girlfriends entitlement to house

C

Chris2014

Registered User
Messages
119
Hi

If I had a single mortgage on a property which I lived in with my girlfriend that I have two kids with what rights would she have if we were broken up.

House was bought last month and I paid 100 percent of everything.

Thanks
 
Morally she should get everything if you're thinking of breaking up a month after buying a house! :)

Start here.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e...e_breakdown_of_a_cohabiting_relationship.html

Because you have children, she would be a qualified cohabitant and entitled to redress if the relationship breaks down.

There were changes brought in as part of the civil partnership bill in 2010, so hopefully more knowledgeable posters will be able to help more.

Make sure you have a will made.
 
In the event of a break up, decisions about the family home will be made in light of what obligations you have to contribute to providing a home for your children.
 
In short you stand to lose half the house at best. If you're worried about this now having had two kids with her you really need to think about your relationship and responsibilities. Not having a go, just saying it as I see it.
 
Would I stand to lose half even if she contributed zero to it and although they work still contribute zero?
 
If the house was only bought last month is 100% of everything one mortgage payment or did you buy the house for cash.
 
Chris2014 said:
Would I stand to lose half even if she contributed zero to it and although they work still contribute zero?
Click to expand...

Have you not talked about this situation with your girlfriend before buying the house. Surely you must have had discussions about the future of you both. Dont forget there is more to contributing to a home than just financial payments.

Sounds like a different type of buyers remorse.
 
LS400 said:
Have you not talked about this situation with your girlfriend before buying the house. Surely you must have had discussions about the future of you both. Dont forget there is more to contributing to a home than just financial payments.

Sounds like a different type of buyers remorse.
Click to expand...

what difference would talking about something like this make ? , if a relationship breaks down , the law will take its course regarding the dividing up of assets and it always sides with the woman so unless she feels like volunteering to take less than she is " entitled " to , i dont know what difference a chat would make , its at this stage just assumed that the man should dig deep , society view this as correct and right so for a man its a case of how painless the fallout is , a broke woman once she enters a relationship with a man who has even modest means , becomes instantly considerably wealthier
 
Well for a start,
1) it's not much of a relationship if the Op is asking this question after only a month of buying the home.

2) A discussion on their future prior to a major financial commitment would be the norm.

And
3) that's a heck of a sexist view you have about the opposite sex not contributing financially to the same extent.

We've moved on from those dark days, and rightly so.
 
LS400 said:
Well for a start,
1) it's not much of a relationship if the Op is asking this question after only a month of buying the home.

2) A discussion on their future prior to a major financial commitment would be the norm.

And
3) that's a heck of a sexist view you have about the opposite sex not contributing financially to the same extent.

We've moved on from those dark days, and rightly so.
Click to expand...

not sure how highlighting how the law works with regard marriage ( or long term relationship ) breakdown and the subsequent distribution of assets ( regardless of who bought and paid for them ) is sexist ? , in my view were a married gay couple the focus of the OP,s story , it would be the exact same , one person bought and paid for everything , next il be accused of sexism for claiming fathers often have difficulty gaining access to their children in the event of marriage breakdown

hanging labels on people for offering an opinion does nothing to address anything
 
But the last paragraph of your previous post wasn't an opinion though, it was a statement, and that's what I was referring to in point 3).
 
LS400 said:
But the last paragraph of your previous post wasn't an opinion though, it was a statement, and that's what I was referring to in point 3).
Click to expand...

the bit about how when a woman enters into a marriage or long term relationship , her personal wealth automatically increases where as for the man , it will decrease

i fully stand by that statement as its factual based on how the state - law operates right now
 
Last edited:
I'm not all that certain that under your circs you'd stand to lose as much as people say. For sure, under the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act
2010 (Sn 173), your partner could go to the courts to seek property rights and redress, but the court would take all of the circumstances into account.

Have you considered a cohabitants' agreement, to govern this? I'm copying Sn 202 below. Note that you both need to have satisfied certain conditions; that it COULD provide that your partner cannot apply under Sn 173 for redress; and that the court can vary or set aside altogether the agreement (I've put these bits in bold. Hree it is:

"(1) Notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law, cohabitants may enter
into a cohabitants’ agreement to provide for financial matters during the relationship
or when the relationship ends, whether through death or otherwise.

(2) A cohabitants’ agreement is valid only if—

(a) the cohabitants—
(i) have each received independent legal advice before entering into it, or
(ii) have received legal advice together and have waived in writing the right
to independent legal advice,

(b) the agreement is in writing and signed by both cohabitants, and

(c) the general law of contract is complied with.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), a cohabitants’ agreement may provide that neither
cohabitant may apply for an order for redress referred to in section 173, or an order
for provision from the estate of his or her cohabitant under section 194.

(4) The court may vary or set aside a cohabitants’ agreement in exceptional
circumstances, where its enforceability would cause serious injustice."

(5) An agreement that meets the other criteria of this section shall be deemed to
be a cohabitants’ agreement under this section even if entered into before the
cohabitation has commenced."

HeatherJ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top