separation of non married couple

[lco]

hi, I lived with my ex for 10 years, we have 2 kids. 4 years ago we split because he assaulted me. He stayed in family home saying it was his because he paid for majority of mortgage repayments. We both worked nad this was how he wanted it. i however paid for all shopping, childminding, kids needs etc. I now have mortgage of €800 per month and he has no mortgage. He does not pay his maintenance eithere and owes €5,000 in arrears, he says im not entitle to anything form house as he paid mortgage, we are going to court to get this sorted but can anyone advise if I am entitled to anything, also we were engaged is this makes any difference

 

[Complainer]

Do you have a solicitor involved on your side?

 

[asknicely]

Get onto a Solcitor straight away. A promise to marry is a good as being married. Is the house in both names? Doesnt really matter who's name it is in if you can prove you were engaged and that you paid for childcre etc etc. A friend of mine went through something similar a few years back and they were subject to alot of media intrusion as these procedings (partition) are not held in camera.

I am not a Solicitor so my info might not be 100% correct. Get to a Solicitor asap

 

[lco]

I have a solicitor and court is coming up soon, i just want to hear from people with similar experiences. Solicitor says I have some entitlements, house is in joint names, and he can prove he paid mortgage, after that all i can really prove is my earnings I don't have any receipts etc. for stuff i would have paid for, and also he is denying we were ever engaged. I just would like to have some idea of what to expect at court

 

[Mr. C.J.H.]

I am not a Solicitor so my info might not be 100% correct. Get to a Solicitor asap

I am a solicitor and you're right your info is nowhere near 100% correct! I agree however that the OP needs to seek the assistance of a solcitor and probably counsel too.

A promise to marry is a good as being married.

Absolutely and totally incorrect. Constitutional protection is afforded the marital family and the various and very numerous ancillary orders that apply in family cases most certainly do not apply in non-marital family cases, even where the parties are engaged. There are very very limited additional protections afforded engaged couples by virtue of the Family Law Act 1981, but these can in no way way shape or form be equated to the very significant protections afforded married couples.

Is the house in both names? Doesnt really matter who's name it is in if you can prove you were engaged and that you paid for childcre etc etc.

It most certainly does matter who's name the property is in. If the property is in joint names, I don't see how the Op could have taken out a mortgage in her sole name as she appears to claim. Anyway, the issue of who the legal title to the property is vested in is central to the case and really then the only way to adjust the legal ownership is to claim some form of additional beneficial ownership, by say paying bills, mortgage, etc. but this is not easy to prove.

A friend of mine went through something similar a few years back and they were subject to alot of media intrusion as these procedings (partition) are not held in camera.

You are quite correct Partition Act proceedings are not held 'in camera'
and are thus heard in public, that is at unless, the recently enacted Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 amended the status quo.

 

[lco]

I have a mortgage now on the house I now live in with our 2 children. I had to try and buy somewhere as I was out of the family homeand knew it could take a few years for everything to get sorted. I had to live somewhere in the meantime. He continues to live in the original family home. The mortgage was paid off on that house so he has no mortgage to pay

 

[Tintagel]

A promise to marry is a good as being married. .

Is this information correct?

 

[mathepac]

Is this information correct?

From comprehensive expert answer above -

... Absolutely and totally incorrect. Constitutional protection is afforded the marital family and the various and very numerous ancillary orders that apply in family cases most certainly do not apply in non-marital family cases, even where the parties are engaged. There are very very limited additional protections afforded engaged couples by virtue of the Family Law Act 1981, but these can in no way way shape or form be equated to the very significant protections afforded married couples. ...

 

[asknicely]

As I said a friend of mine was in a similiar situation a few years ago and their house was not in joint names. It was bought by one party before they even met. Then they had two children together, separated 2 years after the last child and the other party walked away with a hefty sum resulting from the partition proceedings. The original purchaser of the house got to keep it, but had to remortgage to pay off the other party. Also my friend had to prove they were engaged. Luckily they had some photos and cards from the engagement, oh and of course, a ring.

I understand they would not have the same rights as a married couple but just because they didnt actually tie the knot does not mean the other party is not entitled to what they put into the house. The OP says they are not married but was just telling htem that i know someone who was in a similar position.

lco, has your Solicitor given you any indication what might be the outcome. Good, bad or indifferent???

 

[lco]

they havn't really committed, i get such conflicting responses, they say of course i'm entitled to my share but my ex can prove he paid most of the mortgage and as I siad I cant exactly prove how much I paid on groceries kids needs, childminding etc, I reckon I actually put more into the family than he did but its so easy for him to show mortgage repayments came from his account, i can only show what I earned but don't have receipts for everything else, i was so naive i never kept any of those