Girlfriend's Contributions

Pug · 18 Jun 2015 at 12:12

CREATIVE!11 said:
Guess again.

If you let a woman live with you after a certain amount of time it is my understand that there are (Now this is America mind you) which is why I told the op to speak to a lawyer and just be clear about it.

but there aren't.

I went through this a few years back. Common-law is a myth, the only thing binding are dependents, marriage and co-signees, everything else is informal.

the shadow · 18 Jun 2015 at 12:20

if things go pear shaped :eek:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tting-girlfriend-including-car-TV-iPhone.html

EddScott · 18 Jun 2015 at 12:53

Pug said:
but there aren't.

I went through this a few years back. Common-law is a myth, the only thing binding are dependents, marriage and co-signees, everything else is informal.

I posted a link to "Beneficial Interest" - I think even if something is informal, in legal world they would call it a constructive trust.

If someone who was living with you can prove a beneficial interest in an asset (i.e. a property) then they might be able to claim.

The other thing to consider is if your partner isn't working or isn't earning that much, when they go to a lawyer, I assume, they'll get get legal aid. The one working gets to pay it all out of their own pocket.

Shoza · 18 Jun 2015 at 12:56

So much wrong and misinformation in this thread about "beneficial interests" etc. If they aren't contributing materially to a mortgage you have in your own name, you contributed the entire deposit and they moved in some years later then they have no claim, unless there are kids or you get married.

Shoza · 18 Jun 2015 at 12:57

For anyone interested look up the case law on constructing and resulting trusts.

Haggisman · 18 Jun 2015 at 12:59

Shoza said:
If they aren't contributing materially to a mortgage.

You mean like... paying half of it?

Shoza · 18 Jun 2015 at 12:59

EddScott said:
I posted a link to "Beneficial Interest" - I think even if something is informal, in legal world they would call it a constructive trust.

If someone who was living with you can prove a beneficial interest in an asset (i.e. a property) then they might be able to claim.

The other thing to consider is if your partner isn't working or isn't earning that much, when they go to a lawyer, I assume, they'll get get legal aid. The one working gets to pay it all out of their own pocket.

If the partner is living with you, doesn't work or earns very little then what are they doing? As I said before if they aren't contributing materially to your mortgage payments there is no risk, otherwise we would have lodgers claiming interests!

You would struggle very much getting any case off the ground in those circumstances and they won't get legal aid unless children are involved! Even then legal aid has been massively cut and will continue to be cut.

Shoza · 18 Jun 2015 at 13:00

Haggisman said:
You mean like... paying half of it?

Yup - if someone lives in a property and pays you half the mortgage but isn't on the title, why aren't they? Surely they should benefit from the equity built up in the property from the money they put in.

Pug · 18 Jun 2015 at 13:54

What there should and shouldn't be is irrelevant.

They are not formally contributing to the legal contract of the mortgage, therefore they get nowt.

They could be paying for sexual favours.

rG-tom · 18 Jun 2015 at 14:01

Shoza said:
Yup - if someone lives in a property and pays you half the mortgage but isn't on the title, why aren't they? Surely they should benefit from the equity built up in the property from the money they put in.

Do landlords have to give tenants a claim to the equity that has been built up if the landlord is using the rent to pay the mortgage?

aardvark · 18 Jun 2015 at 14:14

rG-tom said:
Do landlords have to give tenants a claim to the equity that has been built up if the landlord is using the rent to pay the mortgage?

no, because they aren't in a relationship.

Pug · 18 Jun 2015 at 14:30

Relationship has no meaning in law.

Who knows why there passing you that money reach month, there's no contract stating they expect to get anything in return for their monthly payment, and our of your own kindness you even gave them free lodgings

Marmot · 18 Jun 2015 at 14:35

aardvark said:
no, because they aren't in a relationship.

What the hell is a 'relationship' lol

aardvark · 18 Jun 2015 at 14:38

Pug said:
Relationship has no meaning in law.

Who knows why there passing you that money reach month, there's no contract stating they expect to get anything in return for their monthly payment, and our of your own kindness you even gave them free lodgings

nonsense, it does and there have a number of high profile court cases that says it does.

If they are in a relationship (provable with evidence) and the partner has been contributing to the mortgage then when they break up the partner is entitled to a portion of the asset - this has been tested in a court of law.

Pug · 18 Jun 2015 at 14:49

It really doesn't!

Exceptional cases |= the norm, and co-habiting does not entitle the the "other person" to any claim on the assets (unless as stated kids or marriage are involved).

I'd be interested to see the cases you are referring to as ownership is entirely linked to legal obligation, and a partner paying an arbitrary sum on a mutually agreed date is not legal obligation.

I'm even curious what legal evidence their is proving a relationship.

aardvark · 18 Jun 2015 at 15:29

Pug said:
It really doesn't!

Exceptional cases |= the norm, and co-habiting does not entitle the the "other person" to any claim on the assets (unless as stated kids or marriage are involved).

I'd be interested to see the cases you are referring to as ownership is entirely linked to legal obligation, and a partner paying an arbitrary sum on a mutually agreed date is not legal obligation.

I'm even curious what legal evidence their is proving a relationship.

it only applies if the person is contributing to the mortgage not otherwise.

i have no idea what form the evidence of relationship takes.

I vividly remember the last high profile case where this happened (a few years ago) because there was a jeremy vine show on the day where they had lots of legal experts explaining the situation and lots of people saying how they got around (or planned to get around) said situation.

ShakenNstirred · 18 Jun 2015 at 15:45

Haggisman said:
Quote:

Originally Posted by stuie

its mortgaged through nationwide

In which case be very careful what she contributes, and as suggested, maybe consult a solicitor. Yes, it sounds cynical and untrusting, but who knows what the future may hold, and otherwise you could end up seriously regretting it!

This 100%, a friend got done over with his ex, he had to buy her out or sell his house

Posted from Overclockers.co.uk App for Android

CREATIVE!11 · 18 Jun 2015 at 15:57

ShakenNstirred said:
This 100%, a friend got done over with his ex, he had to buy her out or sell his house

Posted from Overclockers.co.uk App for Android

Don't you dare be cynical of m'lady! she'd never do such a thing!!!

WantoN · 18 Jun 2015 at 17:57

Before I moved in with my missus we signed something to say that I had no stake in her house. It's for the best I feel.

I pay 50% of all bills that apply to me! including council tax.

Frankly, I think any less would be unfair.

arknor · 18 Jun 2015 at 18:02

Shoza said:
So much wrong and misinformation in this thread about "beneficial interests" etc. If they aren't contributing materially to a mortgage you have in your own name, you contributed the entire deposit and they moved in some years later then they have no claim, unless there are kids or you get married.

wasn't their a thing a few years ago where some woman claimed her bill payments contributed to the mortgage and she won? pretty sure it was only someones GF and no kids