Where does he stand, does she keep all or can he get some????

[aj101]

Quick run down of the situation.

 

My dad lived with someone for 17.5 years, and has recently been, shall we say, right royally screwed over by her. She kicked him out with not much other than his vehicle, his tools and his clothes. Meanwhile she sits pretty in the house that he half built. He contributed £400 a month into the joint account, which he can prove via bank statements. He built an extension onto the house, and also did various other home improvements over the 17 years, leaving her now with a house that is more than likely worth more now than it was then. She own that house (sole ownership) but also 2 other properties which she rents out.

While she is living the effective high life, dad is having to stay with his sister as he quite simply, cannot afford to rent anywhere.

 

Does he have any rights whatsoever to at least a %age of the house value seeing as he was contributing to the finances and also the work he did on the house over the years. He has been speaking to a solicitor who is quite literally useless at the minute, not giving any answers and that is when he can be bothered to get in touch. Is it worth him carrying on, or can she get away with leaving him with nothing?????

 

Thanks guys, if anyone knows the answer to this, then it will be you.

 

AJ

[gizmo111]

I'm sorry to have to say that if they weren't married and the property is in her sole name, and there was no agreement to say different, it is unlikely that he will be entitled to anything.

What was the £400 per month for?

[falcon185]

Hi,

I do believe that if he has contributed in any way to the upkeep etc of the property, although they are not married he IS entitled to half of the property value, dont quote me on this but I'm pretty sure there have been other stated cases that have been resolved in this way. I'm sure someone with a better knowledge of his type of problem will be along shortly to offer more help that I'm able to offer and correct me if I'm wrong.

[falcon185]

Found this....

 

addToAdArray('TopAdCenter', 'AAMSZ=468x60'); Weather

 

 

News

 

Unmarried couples who live together must split assets if they break up, court rules

 

Last updated at 17:12pm on 24th April 2008 Comments (73)

 

A man was yesterday ordered to sell his home and give his ex-partner half the proceeds - even though they aren't married.

 

 

Carl Barron lived with Lynne Fowler for 17 years in the home where they raised their two children. But despite the fact that he paid for the mortgage, the Court of Appeal decided she is entitled to half of the £150,000 property.

 

The ruling could set a legal precedent that unmarried couples who live together and buy a home must split the proceeds equally.

 

However, other cases have directly contradicted this judgement. Government proposals on cohabiting couples, which are designed to address the issue of home ownership, were recently put on hold. Scroll down for more...

Equal share: The ruling could set a legal precedent that unmarried couples who live together and buy a home must split the proceeds equally

 

 

Retired firefighter Mr Barron and Miss Fowler, 43, moved into their house in Bognor Regis, Sussex in 1983, which they registered in both their names.

They were together for a total of 23 years during which time they had two children Nicholas , now 20, and Sarah, now 13.

In court it was agreed that Mr Barron had paid the deposit, the mortgage and the bills on the property out of his pension.

Miss Fowler, for her part, worked most of the time and spent her income on family holidays, food and looking after the children.

When the couple split in 2005 Mr Barron was declared the 'beneficial' owner in a county court ruling.

Yesterday, however, Lady Justice Arden, and two other Appeal Court judges, overturned that decision.

The judge said the joint name registry was a deliberate choice and it must be legally presumed that ownership was equal.

Justice Arden said: "I do not think that it is reasonable to infer that the parties intended that Miss Fowler should have no share of the house if the relationship broke down.

"That might leave Miss Fowler dependent on state benefits and housing for support."

A previous ruling at The House of Lords, however, came to the exact opposite conclusion.

In April last year five Law Lords ruled that a father of four was not entitled to half of the family home he had shared with his girlfriend of 20 years because she had contributed more money to buy it.

Plans for reform of the law for cohabiting couples was finalised last year by the Law Commission.

They suggested that the better-off partner of a live-in couple that splits up would pay compensation to the other if they have children.

A live-in partner would also be liable for compensation once the couple had lived together for more than two years.

The reforms are currently on hold while ministers investigate how much it will cost in legal aid. One in six couples living together are unmarried, 67 per cent more than ten years ago. This is expected to rise to one in four by 2031.

Share this article:

What is this?

[PriorityOne]

Quick run down of the situation.

 

My dad lived with someone for 17.5 years, and has recently been, shall we say, right royally screwed over by her. She kicked him out with not much other than his vehicle, his tools and his clothes. Meanwhile she sits pretty in the house that he half built. If he contributed to structural improvements/alterations, then he has a claim. Yes..... although theoretically, it may amount to no more than a charge against the property until/unless she sells. He contributed £400 a month into the joint account, which he can prove via bank statements. I doubt that he can claim against this, as this would be perceived as payments for living costs, etc. He built an extension onto the house, and also did various other home improvements over the 17 years, This is what he needs to focus on, but he'll need to dig out ALL proof that he paid for this work himself. If these payments have come from the same joint account, then his chances of success will be weaker. leaving her now with a house that is more than likely worth more now than it was then. She own that house (sole ownership) but also 2 other properties which she rents out.

While she is living the effective high life, dad is having to stay with his sister as he quite simply, cannot afford to rent anywhere.

 

Does he have any rights whatsoever to at least a %age of the house value seeing as he was contributing to the finances doubtful... and also the work he did on the house over the years. Yes... He has been speaking to a solicitor who is quite literally useless at the minute, not all of them are good... but CAB may be able to refer you to one who knows something about this area. Alternatively, there are legal people on this site who can advise you for nothing. JonCris is a solicitor... if you PM him with the link to this thread, then he may be able to assist you. not giving any answers and that is when he can be bothered to get in touch. Is it worth him carrying on, or can she get away with leaving him with nothing?????

 

Thanks guys, if anyone knows the answer to this, then it will be you.

 

AJ

 

[aj101]

The £400 a month was for bills and food.

[raydetinu]

the upshot is he should seek legal advise, but that will not be cheap, unless he qualifies for aide.

[PriorityOne]

The £400 a month was for bills and food.

 

This would probably be seen as normal living costs, but if he's got proof of paying the bills... it may be taken into account. The focus of any claim really needs to be the structural improvements to the property.

 

I had friends who touched on this scenario not so long ago. She had the house in her sole name and he paid for various extensions, a loft conversion, kitchen, bathroom... you name it. He kept all receipts and when they hit a rocky patch, went for legal advice and was told that he would have a claim if he decided to pursue it.

 

They've since "made up".... .... but he's obviously learned something from it because he's now on her deeds and papers have been signed giving him 60% of anything, should they split for good (silly girl, eh ?). Presumably, this was to make life much easier for him if they did.

[Gogivit]

From my own experience-

 

1) He is entitled to a share of the property value! The monthly contribution of £400.00 is his contribition!

 

2) If he has lived in the house for more than six months-she has in fact no legal right to deny him access to his home! He should speak to a solicitor.

 

3) Any building work he has done that has increased the value of his home should be taken into account also!

 

The above comments are issues I dealt with 12 years ago so I know from back then dealing with my solicitor and my exes solicitor that they do stand as law. Were lived together and were not married!!!

[PriorityOne]

I find the above 2 points difficult to accept as LAW.... since the contribution has nothing to do with the property itself.... and it's also solely in her name.

 

Can you give a few more details re. your own situation Gogivit ? Did you have joint ownership for example ?

[JonCris]

The OP's father should have his solicitor place caution on the property with the Land Registry post haste. This will mean that the current occupant will not be able to dispose of it until the matter is settled or with the other parties agreement.

 

Its not unusual for property to 'change' hands once it becomes the subject of litigation.

 

Before today & because of the former & quite recent HOL ruling I would have, in the absence of registration, said he was on a loser......However now as a result of this recent CA I think he may have a chance to recoup something.

 

Whilst the £400 is important in it's own right I agree with the poster who remarked that the building improvements are the most important factor in establishing an entitlement to some sort of financial compensation....that & the fact he's lived there for 17 years

 

As for the solicitor is he a Family Law Practitioner?? if not change him forthwith

[Gogivit]

Hello Priority one,

 

No I did not have joint ownership, but had lived at the property for several years. It was stated that although I did not own half a mortgage I did contribute to the bills.

 

Also the solicitor representing my ex admitted that I did not have to leave the property as I had lived there for a long period.

 

Many of you will be aware of homes sold but lodgers remain!

 

On that note my ex was happy to pay me off and me be on my merry way

[PriorityOne]

Crikey !.... result !! Did you get a slice of the equity in the property... or was it just a stipulation that you didn't have to leave ? I assume your ex paid you to leave... otherwise you could have carried on staying ?

[pugsley]

he is in a good position to get a share of the house, and needs to get legal advice asap

 

If his solicitor is no good he needs to get another one pronto.

 

alot of the information you need you can find in any recent family law textbook

 

example if married

As Peter owns the legal estate of the matrimonial home you as his wife have the right to occupy it. This right is not protected if the house is sold to a third party. You have a beneficial interest in the property as you have supported Peter in his business by answering the phones and doing bookkeeping and been a home carer for his children You have also acted to your detriment by funding holidays and doing DIY on the house plus spending £20k of your inheritance paying off joint debts and adding a conservatory to the house. Yet at this moment do not share the legal estate. By s30 of the Family Law Act 1996 the non-owning spouse is given matrimonial home rights in the home. As you are still in occupation of the home you have the right not to be evicted from your home without leave of the court.

 

 

These rights exist until the termination of the marriage decree absolute

 

You must if the house is unregistered register matrimonial home rights as either a land charge Class F (for unregistered land). If the land is registered then you need to submit a notice. To protect your interests, any future purchaser will be able to see you interest in the property and act accordingly.

 

In the case of Watchel 19731, it was stated that a wife should receive one third of joint earnings and assets. This has now been updated by a sophisticated principle known as “Net Effect Principle” see Stockford (1981)2.

Edited May 8, 2008 by pugsley

[JonCris]

I don't think are married Pugsley.........but he's still in with a chance

[Bookworm]

Ok, no opinion here, just questions because I am confused:

 

Reading 1st post, I read it that the lady of the house owns the house by herself. She then meets Mr-turns-out-not-Right-after-all, and he moves in with her. During those years, he contributes to living expenses etc..., and spends his week-ends and bank holiday DIYing on the house. Now the relationtionship breaks down, and you guys are saying that he could have a claim on the property which he doesn't own and has not paid for? How? :-?

 

As I said, not arguing, just very confused. :-?

[Esio Trot]

I concur with Bookworm here.

 

The points made that there is a case for a share relate to non-similar situations.

 

The situation looks bleak, but nevertheless I would get a caution registered on the property without delay, and preferably yesterday.

[PriorityOne]

I also need some clarification on this one. If her name ONLY is on the deeds... then I can understand how her partner may be able to get a charge on the property and continue to live there BUT... I do not understand how by law, he gets an entitlement to a slice of the equity.... unless he's able to prove that he's paid for structural improvements to that property.

 

That's not what Matrimonial Home Rights means... MHR give an ex-partner the right to remain in the house (usually until the youngest child reaches the age of 16 or leaves f/t education), but does not give an ex-partner an automatic entitlement to equity if his name is not on the deeds.

 

If the property-owning partner agrees to handing equity to the ex-partner for some reason, then that's a different matter. There could be a number of reasons for this... amicable parting, paying the ex to leave (as seems to have happened above), intimidation, fear of litigation, etc.

 

If it went as far as court though... then where's the legal basis for such a claim from the ex (assuming there are no children involved and they are not married anyway) ?

Edited May 8, 2008 by PriorityOne

[pugsley]

News & Articles

Recent Case Law and the implications for cohabiting couples

On 25th April 2007, the House of Lords heard a case called Stack –v- Dowden, a case about the property rights of an unmarried cohabiting couple in a house in which they lived together until the breakdown of their relationship. This case establishes new guidelines within which future cases about cohabitants’ rights are to be decided. It is thought by legal practioners that this case will give couples greater certainty and simplicity in view of the uncertainty which faces unmarried couples upon the breakdown of their relationship.

 

What does this mean for Future Cases?

In those cases where only one of the parties owns legal title to the property, sole beneficial ownership is the starting point (i.e. the legal owner is entitled to 100% of the proceeds of sale). The onus falls on other party to show that s/he has any beneficial interest in the property and, if so, what the extent of that interest is.

 

In those cases where there is joint legal ownership of a property by an unmarried couple, joint beneficial ownership is the starting point (i.e. they are each entitled to 50% of the proceeds of sale). If one of the parties wishes to show that the beneficial interests are to be divided other than equally, the onus falls on that party to establish it.

[PriorityOne]

In other words, the unmarried ex would need to supply receipts/bank account statements for any structural alterations spent on a property owned 100% by someone else.

 

As I thought in the first place.

 

The rest are just "guidelines"; probably referring to matrimonial home rights.

[JonCris]

No he won't. She only has to admit he did do the work That's all the proof he would need plus a historic & present day valuation . Unless of course you think she might tell porkies

[PriorityOne]

Not very likely though, is it ?