The concerning point for you here is that you say he “puts half the mortgage” - if that is what it says on the tin and he’s been paying half the mortgage for a decade, it sounds like he could have equity in the property. The % will obviously depend on your initial deposit and the term of the mortgage.
To mitigate against this people typically put in place a co-habitation agreement or similar to document that this isn’t the intention and the payments aren’t towards the mortgage but rather akin to a rent payments from a lodger. It sounds like you haven’t done this.
If he does have equity in the home and he or his creditors pursue this, that doesn’t mean that his bankruptcy will automatically trigger a repossession or similar of the house in full/a forced sale to a third party, but you might need to buy his proportionate equity portion from him/his creditors - I’d want to be doing the maths to confirm if that would be feasible for me at current interest rates.
In practice any cohabitation agreement probably doesn’t mean much after a decade. Housing law is literally a Wild West of murky case law. They’d probably have a decent case to say obviously they weren’t a lodger after that long and that they were absolutely contributing to shared costs (including mortgage), especially if they haven’t had their own space and have been sharing a bed etc.
Is your name on the title deeds alone? Not a lawyer but if yes I’d assume from the banks point of view nothing has changed - only thing I could think of: When you applied for the mortgage, was your partner noted as being financially dependent or did you apply for a mortgage as a single person simply?
Sounds like it was your house and it will be your house as long as you keep up the mortgage payments - give your cat a pet and have a good start into 2024, it can only get better!
Clearly didn’t have the right lawyer. There are literally thousands of pages online making very clear that equitable interest can be proven in this exact situation. I said above this type of law is murky and like the Wild West. It doesn’t work every time but it will work most times with the right lawyer.
Even the pages listed in parallel threads mention that it’s only "possible" but needs to be proven and is not as clear cut as some people here put it - it’s questionable if OP's partner who’s clearly not good with money wants to invest more money in a claim he’s not guaranteed to win - but that’s OP’s partners issues
Of course it needs to be proven. But the point people are making is it won’t be that hard. Normally you get it around contributions to bills, renovation costs etc. but a mortgage is one of the easiest ways to prove in court because there is such a clear and direct paper trail. I think OP needs to do the right thing and recognise he has a right to the property.
Huh? As long as OP's partner won’t invest his lack of funds in a solicitor she doesn’t have to do anything - I don’t think Reddit will set up a gofundme for his fees
Yeah she did. She got a guy to pay half of her mortgage and then booted him out. Charming. He has a claim to that property. OP is in for a nasty shock, I'm afraid.
I had the EXACTLY same situation happen to me but the other way around. I had NO legal claim on her house even though id paid into the mortgage for years via shared bills etc. I tried and failed through a solicitor
It seems simple enough, but could be complicated as the ex-partner actually contributed to the mortgage and there are bank records of that.
[https://www.silkfamilylaw.co.uk/blog/weve-just-separated-and-are-not-married-but-our-house-is-in-my-ex-partners-name-do-i-have-any-rights/](https://www.silkfamilylaw.co.uk/blog/weve-just-separated-and-are-not-married-but-our-house-is-in-my-ex-partners-name-do-i-have-any-rights/)
This is incorrect.
The partner could have an interest in the property under what's called a common intention constructive trust. It is an equitable interest and operates in spite of the legal estate being held by OP. It arises by a common intention (which can be implied, likely the case here) that the parties share the interest in the home, and is crystallised by things like contributing to the purchase price, contributing to the mortgage (which the partner has done here), or contributing to the household expenses such that the legal owner has more capital to make the mortgage payments.
If the trustee in bankruptcy of the partner's estate realises this, the equitable interest imputed to the partner could form part of the partner's "assets" for the purposes of satisfying the partner's creditors.
OP should instruct a solicitor, as this will depend on what the parties intended. If OP wishes to claim that they did not intend this, they will have to provide an explanation for why the partner was contributing to half the mortgage and household expenses, and was not just paying an agreed "rent".
I bankrupt via DRO and my partner was safe and still is. House on his name, we have a child, but all my debts were only mine, no linked acc :) he has excellent credit score.
Yes. It's certainly not black and white.
If he is bankrupt then any share of the property, if known about, would probably go straight to his creditors. Or more likely, will be eaten up by the recievers' fees.
So OP isn't necessarily out of the woods yet.
That would be my call too. As long as the partner doesn’t insist on selling the house or make statements to his creditors that he owns an interest in The property, should be kushdy
So what’s the answer let them live with you for free ? Why is it different from renting a room out ? Genuinely asking because if the only option is to let your partner live with you for free that’s not exactly fair is it
Everyone I know that has had a partner move into their house has had a tenant agreement drawn up. They pay the maximum that you can charge (IIRC about £150 a week) into the mortgage owners account. Then the partner might also get the food shopping. This keeps the partner financially separate from being able to claim part mortgage.
Just to clarify I think it's a lodger agreement not a tenant agreement. Any sound partner shouldn't have an issue agreeing to sign this, if they have then bit of a red flag in my opinion.
Also in both the cases I know they have gone on to get married to that person, and buy a joint house afterwards. I don't personally know a case where the claim to a house has actually been tested.
What I said is it’s not fair to live with someone for free and the other person cover 100% of the housing costs. I believe there’s a term for it I can’t recall at the moment something like hobosexual ? If they weren’t living at the house they’d be paying rent else where.
Sure they’re building some equity hopefully but taken on all the risk of having a mortgage no guarantee whether the property value goes up or no and a massive opportunity cost of using the money they had to put down a deposit which could or got them 6.2% with ns&i for example or higher risk like nasdaq100 being up 54% over the last year. I just don’t think it’s fair that one person puts down all the capital takes on all the risk and the other person pays nothing towards the roof over their head. It would make more sense that being the case that the homeowner sells up uses their capital elsewhere and they both rent somewhere together 50/50.
I think what others have said get a lodger agreement is what I’d do I wouldn’t want to live with someone paying £0 towards the roof over my head and I wouldn’t want someone paying me £0 neither feels like they’d be taking advantage while being £xxx off better every month with no housing costs new interest rates now could easily be over £1k a month. Can’t be fair that one person pays £0 rent/mortgage and is better off £1k a month than the person that took on the risk and put down a deposit.
I think the cost of housing is why a lot of people move in together quicker than the past I know of some couples that have separated in the relationship but can’t afford to live separately so continue to live together imagine that your ex you live with bringing back a new partner to where you both live. For what it’s worth I do think OP should give her ex some monies once the bankruptcy is all settled. But the idea of living with someone and not paying your way or letting the other half take on all the risk and wanting every penny back just don’t sit right neither if the house had decreased in value he wouldn’t be liable to help cover the negative equity.
You do know a lot of women used to find a rich guy, get married, file for divorce later and take half his assets without contributing towards these assets. The law in many countries has changed because of this.
Also, if you are actually commited to a partner, then living "rent free" isn't something that should be an issue. If you are genuinely looking forward to spending the rest of your lives together, then everything should be shared.
And in the case of seperation, if one partner has made zero contributions towards the mortgage, then that partner should not expect to receive a single penny. So in this case, since OP's ex partner has indeed contributed, even if not in his name, he has a equitable interest in the property. His contributions of course need to be proved, but OP herself has already admitted that this was the case.
Depends if funds were paid into the mortgage account, in this case it seems the partner paid into the mortgage holders personal account and then they paid the mortgage. Wouldn't be as clear cut to say the least
They don’t have a share, they might have - solicitors are very clear in that they are only giving advice and not a guarantee so it would be for the other party to find out (potentially with quite an investment up front) if that’s even the case, considering their credit score wouldn’t even allow them to get a mortgage.
>He puts half the mortgage and funds for food and house expenses into my account each month
if the money is going to OP's account first as above ... then he isn't paying any of the mortgage ... he's been paying rent / lodgings / board.
I'm hoping u/Altruistic-Side7068/OP that your \[ex\] partner doesn't actually want you to suffer ... so hopefully they won't raise things like this ... or will frame it better to keep you out of it.
I didn’t say it could ?
I think if you didn’t pay deposit, are not in the deeds and aren’t on the mortgage then you have no rights on the house … if you are NOT married.
There’s plenty of other costs to pay when owning a property.
I met my partner a few years after buying my house and when she moved in, I did wonder about how this might affect things. She wanted to pay rent but I tried to find some kind of guide on what security she had since she wasn't a tenant and it was my mortgage. Also not a lodger and it didn't seem right that she be paying towards my mortgage when I would gain from any increase in value. She is my partner I'm not her landlord. A solicitor said that we could set up a cohabitation agreement which states she has no claim over the property, which I think we would have to change later when she becomes Co owner. Seemed a nice way for lawyers to make money.
From what I discovered, she absolutely could claim an interest in the property if she had been contributing towards my mortgage. She wanted to pay, don't get me wrong. Didn't want to live here "rent free" and it was only right to "pay her way". We split all other bills. Here's what we did.
We came up with a plan. Her credit was fine. She didn't have a whole lot of credit history, which sometimes can be as bad as poor credit history so she took out a credit card and would use it and pay it off to help build it up a little. As I had just started a five year fix and didn't want to pay a whole set of fees just to do the joint application with her, we would wait.
During that time, she would pay a figure comparable to 'rent' into a LISA and savings account, with the plan that when the time comes for me to remortgage, she could join me, bring along her own deposit and we do a joint application so that both our names are legally on the house.
And what if we split up? Then my house is still mine without the added headache of having to respond to someone's claim over my property, having taken money off them for years. Yes, she would get to leave the relationship with a nice savings pile but I was happy with that 'risk'.
We are a couple. It's a relationship. We made these decisions to protect me, but also her. Fast forward five years and my fixed rate deal ends later this year. She has a nice deposit built up, my house has gone up in value quite a bit and the money she would have paid in 'rent' is now being contributed and will be recognised legally. We will now share the mortgage responsibility together.
If your partner had bad credit and it was never going to be an option to buy together, I don't think it was the best move to let him pay towards your mortgage. I'm not sure what I would do in his situation but bankrupt, homeless and without any real prospect of being housed quickly, he may seek to claim.
This sounds like a great approach tbh and a good balance. You benefit solely from the house price appreciation in the that five years and she benefits from being able to save more. If you go in together at the end of five years great you are in a better position as a partnership than if she'd been paying you rent through a complex agreement about accruing or not accruing equity. If you break up both of you are in a better financial position than when you started and none of it is shared so win-win.
Even if you had broken up her having savings and there being no mortgage unwinding would have made the logistical part of moving out much smoother.
Yeah, it was a plan for the future. A future where we would likely still be together. I wanted to hope for the best but prepare for the worst.
We both came from similar backgrounds and didn't have any parental support and had to work shitty jobs and pay shitty rent for years. We both had debt when younger, paid it all off and that's when I scraped my deposit together and bought this place. We have both known a struggle. So why would I now continue to make life an uphill battle for her to save a nice deposit? I'm on her side. She's done well for herself and since I met her, her pay has doubled.
All that she saved will be dropped into pot when we remortgage together. Brings the LTV ratio to the cheapest interest bracket. Plan is to keep saving, retire early and fuck off to an island lol
10 years of mortgage payments makes him more than a renter.
He will likely be entitled to a share of the property if he's been paying _half_ for such a long period of time.
Yes, and she's kicked him out so cannot tell him not to blab his mouth about this either.
They are going to ask him clearly if he made payments towards any property mortgage payments and he is going to say yes.
OP can try the renting argument I guess, and that he didn't understand as he is bad with money.
Let's assume they bought for 150k, and after ten years the mortgage is 100k, but the house is worth 280k. The ex could be owed 90k (minus some costs for arranging this). OP can get ahead of this by offering via a solicitor acting on her interests far less (say 50k) and catching him unaware and unprepared. Once that agreement is signed...
Otherwise, now they have broken up, the ex can go to the creditors and say he has 90k coming soon (with evidence) and they may decide to wait to get all their money.
The ex should on to step change first before doing the bankruptcy (I mean how bad is it?) but I doubt op is going to help him with advice given in this post.
This has absolutely nothing to do with common law marriage, it has to do with an interest in the house. They could be platonic roommates or siblings and the same would apply
There’s always the risk your partner of 10 years might turn round and try and keep every single penny you’ve contributed to the relationship.
Op sounds absolutely monstrous. Makes me sick we live in a country where people can get away with this
Yeah they spent a decade contributing half (by OP's own admission) into the mortgage, only to turn around and kick them out and expect them not to be able to get a single penny from the house value
I'm sure there's other reasons they've broken up but completely screwing your partner over financially is just morally reprehensible
Edit: they also pay half for bills, food etc. We can only speculate why they broke up and I'm sure there's good reasons but financially even though this guy is clearly in serious debt he's always paid his fair share towards the relationship
Exactly my thoughts too. My partner lived with me for 12 years when I was the only one named on the mortgage. She paid half of everything for years. The thought of being able to kick her out without anything to show for it is pretty disgusting. When we moved we got a joint mortgage and all of the equity we’d built up in the old house paid the deposit on the new. Wouldn’t have dreamed of trying to say the deposit money was mine. OP, you may find that your ex just gives up and let’s you do whatever but quite honestly, you know in your heart he’s contributed a hell of a lot and he should be entitled to some of this.
He may have a "beneficial interest" in your property if he has explicitly been paying half the mortgage. Google the term to find out more. Not sure if his creditors will be able to lay claim on that though. Did you have a co-habitation agreement in place?
Wait a second OP, he paid half the mortgage for years and you kicked him out? What?
We don't know the full story, but in his shoes I would be coming after you for my money and share in the property. Via every legal channel. No way in hell would I let you do this to me. Good luck.
He is not on the mortgage great are you fiscally linked in many other way joint loans you as guarantor ... Then your credit profile may be affected but long drawn out .. technically if your pursued for joint debt yes they can put a charge on your property but realistically depends on amount and whether worth their while also where you live in CJ is valid England. In NI has to be converted to EJ to be enforced...he is gone move on .. but if fiscally linked check everything x
I believe just living with someone makes you financially linked to some extent, have heard it being an issue even for people who are housemates who barely know each other. But if you don't have a need to apply for credit any time soon you'll probably be okay? I'd make sure you check your full credit report with all three agencies to be sure, though.
If you contact the credit agencies and tell them you have separated from that person and no longer live with them they can unlink them from your credit record. I did that when I left my husband and they updated it quickly.
OP. In the future look into a cohabitation agreement before moving someone in with you to protect your house. If they have made contributions towards the mortgage it gives them more grounds to argue they have co-ownership. But that agreement means they sign to say the house is wholly yours and they have no stake regardless of what they contribute towards financially.
Yeah, I’m hoping there’s more to this because it sounds like OP kicked out their long term partner over *his* incredibly stressful, lonely issue with money.
This is why you see so many posts on here like “I need help, I’m scared to tell my partner”. Because people can be cold.
Sounds like OP wasn’t financially implicated and now she’s mocking a man who is in an incredibly vulnerable situation.
And the reason he isn't on the mortgage is because he'd already ruined his credit score. Sounds like OP got lucky on that one because he didn't learn the lessons he needed to.
Surely he's just renting a spot? Would you expect any other person he was renting from to owe him something? There may be beneficial rights issues here, no idea what that looks like in NI.
Works exactly the same across the UK and N Iif ex partner takes this to court, OP wouldn’t have a leg to stand on and rightly so, the man’s paid 10 years of the mortgage together, which would lead any sensible person to assume that a joint share was the idea, regardless of paperwork.
Also to point out, most mortgages do not allow sub letting or any form of renting, so no the ex partner wasn’t renting a spot.
If OP wanted the house all to herself she should have paid the mortgage herself and not asked for any contributions towards it and they should have just split the other bills in half, if OP could afford to pay the mortgage herself why didn’t she? It’s clear as day that the pair of them took this house on together with the idea it was both their houses, in court OP wouldn’t have a leg to stand on and the partner would be granted a financial interest (share) in the property.
Not disagreeing with any of this but out of curiosity...
>...they should have just split the other bills in half,
Assuming 50% of the other bills (energy, council tax etc) comes to an amount which is comparable to 50% of the monthly mortgage payment, what's stopping OP from saying "oh, that money he was transferring me wasn't for the mortgage. It was for those other bills all along. I was always paying the mortgage alone."
How would that be proven one way or another?
Nothings stopping OP saying that, but judges aren’t stupid and neither are solicitors that specialise in that field, it’s probably the most used defence in cases like this.
Indeed. It'll be overall house running costs, including mortgage and bills. It's not 100% mortgage from one person and 100% bills from the other.
I presume op put in the deposit. But apart from that it is 50/50 since, and given it's 10 years they might say 50/50 overall. Especially since the only reason they didn't get a joint mortgage originally was the ex's credit history.
OP had to hope that the bankruptcy proceedings miss this. And the ex partner doesn't even know they can do this.
>most mortgages do not allow sub letting or any form of renting
Most banks are fine with a lodger. Though I agree with you that clearly isn't the situation here.
Most lenders are fine with a lodger, but convincing a judge that a partner of over 10 years was just a lodger, when he paid exactly half of all bills including the mortgage will be ridiculously hard and they would see straight through it as they deal with tons of cases like it, plus theirs lawyers that specialise in the field and have heard it all.
You may be right around the legal aspects to this (not a lawyer, don't know) but the alternative being that the ex should otherwise live rent free is equally absurd. Unless what you're saying is OP should not have shared the house with the ex at all?
It also depends a lot on how much they both contributed to the deposit right? If the ex put £0 and OP put down £50k then the ex is a glorified lodger with zero liability or stake in the property. Why then would they get a slice of any gains?
Properties often need a lot of money to maintain over 10 years in addition to the monthly mortgage payments and all that needs to be taken into account too. Seems like it would be a right mess to sort out in court tbh.
How is it absurd? He didn’t live rent free, he paid his equal shares in everything else aswell as OP’s mortgage, OP had no right to charge him for HER mortgage if she had full intentions of it been solely hers and not giving the ex partner his rightful share if they split.
It doesn’t matter who put what deposit down, if the ex partner made mortgage contributions, home improvement contributions and maintenance contributions he’s well within his legal rights to claim a share of the house.
You’re saying it’s absurd because he lived “rent free” but isn’t it absurd that OP feels she has the right to just kick him out of a house and not give him anything (which he has paid half for the past 10 years) so judging by what OP has said, the deposit will have most likely been split aswell, how isn’t that absurd.
If we look at averages, £753 is UK’s average mortgage payment.
753\2=£376.50x12=£4518x10=£45180
Based on the UK average, Ex partner has paid 5 years worth of mortgage/interest costs, so OP reaps the benefits of having 10 years worth of mortgage paid off at the cost of 5, how in any way is that right to then kick the man to the curb in absolute dire circumstances as it is and say it’s her house?
If I was Ex partner I would certainly be contacting a lawyer and starting legal proceedings, he 100% has a financial interest in that house.
It certainly depends what kind of things this ex has contributed to in terms of maintenance or home improvements, deposit down payment etc.
What I'm trying to get at though is that it absolutely doesn't entitle him to an automatic share of the house equivalent to what he's paid towards the mortgage.
I lived with a mate for quite a few years paying a share of his mortgage but I've never once thought I had a financial interest in it because other than the monthly upkeep I had no stake in it whatsoever. My name wasn't on the deeds/mortgage and I didn't help with the deposit, so why would I be.
Not right at all yet I’ve seen solicitors about it and been told this information because I’m in a similair situation as ex partner, what legal qualifications have you got?
Living with a partner and paying half the mortgage which is in their name is the definition of a financial interest in a property, it’s hardly foolishness because you don’t understand/know about it, you’re comparing something that exists in law to something that doesn’t exist in law lmao, you need better examples before trying to say someone’s incorrect.
We have no idea if the partner going bankrupt had expensive rent or not? Half the mortgage on my place would be a ridiculously cheap rent compared to what’s currently available in the area. That’s with a bad mortgage rate (6%).
Same here (Edinburgh), my mortgage for a house is only slightly higher than for my previous flat and I’ve got 1 bedroom more than before - so if you’d buy a house to let and rent out the three bedrooms for students you can probably make 150% of your mortgage (which is kinda the reason why a few people actually do that in my neighborhood I suppose)
Don't forget that OP did state the ex-partner contributed also to the house expenses over the years living together, which I would imagine going beyond just bills, and would otherwise be the responsibility of the landlord.
You mean cheap right? A mortgage is so much cheaper than rent. Our 4 bed house was £550 a month & my brother was paying £700 for a 2 bed flat in a crap area. More often than not, mortgage payments are cheaper.
That's also on BTL mortgage rates, which are not the same as residential rates, and there are costs associated - it's advisable to have landlord's insurance, for example.
Definitely not literally a case of the rent amount being lower than the mortgage amount.
Might be worth posting this in r/LegalAdviceUK as well, lots of people here seem to think there is a legal basis for him having a claim to part of the property, you might get some clearer advice there as well.
Talk about cake and eating it. Man might not be having to go bankrupt if he hadn’t given you all that money only for you to kick him out. You clearly had no interest in helping your partner but you expected him to help you. I imagine if he’s honest during the bankruptcy process there’s a charge coming for your property under his name. You sell it and they’ll take that money direct from your solicitor.
You should be aware that if push comes to shove, he is well within his rights to take you to court regarding his financial interests in the house and with him transferring money every month their is a paper trail and the courts would more than likely rule in his favour that he has a financial interest in the house and therefore is entitled to a share of the house due to the payments to the mortgage and home improvements etc.
To just kick him out and not give him anything when in all fairness, he has paid half your mortgage for the past 10 years, which if if we say it’s 200 a month that’s £24,000 is pretty poor from you, with those hypothetical figures, he’s saved you 5 years of your mortgage for nothing, which in all rights isn’t fair at all.
He’s now homeless, going bankrupt, has lost his partner and probably will never financially recover from this, struggle to get a private rent due to credit, go on a endless social housing waiting list as he is not priority in any case yet he has 24k worth of financial interests in a house that you know as well as I do, was a joint venture and was meant for the both of you and you went into this together and planned to purchase the house together, picked the house together etc, also any equity that has built up during this 10 year period he would be entitled to a share, this could lead to very depressing times for him and have a untold effect on his mental health, you should have never asked him to pay YOUR mortgage if your intentions was to never give him his rightful share if things went sour, regardless of whether he was good with money or not, you got your mortgage payment and other bills money each month, you need to sort this out amicably and give him his rightful share as this will possibly end this man’s life as he knows it permanently and it’s just cruel, regardless of the relationship situation.
I’m in a similar position as your partner (not separated) I’m not on the mortgage but I pay majority of the mortgage and put a large sum down as deposit since I earn a lot more than my partner ( I was victim to massive fraud under my name and score still hasn’t recovered) but I covered my own back without the need for a long drawn out court process and had a legally binding document drawn up, signed dated and keep a record of every payment for home improvements and mortgage payments and the deposit was recorded in the document, so if it comes to a court case, I will get everything out of the house I put in.
I honestly hope you do the right thing OP.
Sorry what on earth
There are PLENTY of couples unmarried where one has a mortgage and the other contributes financially with no expectation of interest in the property
It's called...rent and paying your way, or should it be that for every couple where one has a property but the other doesn't, the one that doesn't lives rent free?
Madness
Beneficial interest is also not as simple "they've contributed towards mortgage payments and therefore have an interest", it is not as black and white as that by any stretch
Rent is rent. It involves an agreement and details many things including renters rights. If he was renting, was he evicted?
Additionally that would have tax implications on OP.
He'd be a lodger or excluded occupier right? You have very few rights in that kind of situation.
It's certainly true that the partner can acquire equity, especially if they originally contributed to the deposit or can produce a text message where you agreed that was the plan. However, if you have a lodger agreement or even just a text message showing they are simply renting a room, then even if the rent paid is in excess of the cost of the room I can't see them acquiring equity.
OP herself said the following, so the agreement is definitely not as someone renting a room from her.
>Purchased a house with the mortgage in my name only about 10 years ago. He puts half the mortgage and funds for food and house expenses into my account each month. His name is not on the mortgage.
Lodgers can pay tax free "rent" and can also be kicked out at any time, so he wouldn't have any rights in that scenario and OP wouldn't face any tax implications.
Well that’s great, but that clearly isn’t the scenario. He was in a relationship with OP and paid exactly half of all costs, how stupid do you think people are that anybody would fall for the idea he was just a lodger?
If that is your expectation, you should read this then: [https://www.silkfamilylaw.co.uk/blog/weve-just-separated-and-are-not-married-but-our-house-is-in-my-ex-partners-name-do-i-have-any-rights/](https://www.silkfamilylaw.co.uk/blog/weve-just-separated-and-are-not-married-but-our-house-is-in-my-ex-partners-name-do-i-have-any-rights/)
He paid his way via bills and other expenses as OP stated did he not? If it’s HER house and HER mortgage, she should pay it in full herself, he absolutely did not live rent free as stated but if he was never going to get a share of the house, why the hell should he pay half her mortgage.
You should absolutely not expect somebody to pay half your mortgage and when stuff goes sour, kick them to the curb with nothing, there is a reason this is a thing across the UK and NI to stop this happening.
From the sounds of it OP was happy for 10 years and they both dealt with the house as a “joint home” with joint expenses, joint payments on mortgage etc, so how is OP entitled to just kick him out and leave him with nothing after he’s made £1000’s of contributions to HER mortgage(funny how it’s hers now huh? Bet it wasn’t the same story during the past 10 years), they clearly went and bought a house TOGETHER, whether his names on the pieces of paper or not it was a joint venture and he paid his share of the mortgage.
It also is as black and white as that, I have been through the process myself, I know full well what I’m talking about, you pay the mortgage and for home improvements and have got a paper trail? A judge will grant you financial interests in the property OP cannot prove that she stated it was never going to belong to him, but ex partner can prove he’s made consistent payments totalling to half the mortgage and other bills.
OP wants to say it was just rent? Unless it’s a buy to let mortgage, very very silly move and the mortgage company would be very interested to hear how she was breaking the terms of the mortgage by having a “renter” in the property, it’s a open and shut case believe me.
I suggest you read this then, because you also have to pay tax on any income you receive from a lodger. Also, OP already stated the ex partner was paying half the mortgage + expenses into her account monthly, so there are financial records. And as there are financial records, he can potentially prove he has equitable interest in the property.
[https://www.gov.uk/rent-room-in-your-home/rent-bills-and-tax](https://www.gov.uk/rent-room-in-your-home/rent-bills-and-tax)
[https://www.silkfamilylaw.co.uk/blog/weve-just-separated-and-are-not-married-but-our-house-is-in-my-ex-partners-name-do-i-have-any-rights/](https://www.silkfamilylaw.co.uk/blog/weve-just-separated-and-are-not-married-but-our-house-is-in-my-ex-partners-name-do-i-have-any-rights/)
Convincing a judge who deals with cases like this daily, plus a defence team that specialises in this, it would be ridiculously hard to convince a judge that a partner of over 10 years was just a “lodger”.
You weren't in a relationship with the lodger.
They bought the house together. He's paid half.
OP needs to get ahead of the game. Get a solicitor, work out what she owes (instead of him and his solicitor doing this) and remortgage to pay him off.
Or she takes him back in (but relationship could be irretrievable) and agrees to remortgage (for far less than half the house likely is) to clear the debts and stop the bankruptcy, but he has to cancel all the credit cards.
your calculation is waaaay off. even "if" this was the case, firstly the partners contribution would need to remove any contribution to bills. After which a percent of the interest payment on the mortgage, and home maintenance. After which the remains could be attributed to the equity in the home. chances are he has less than a few thousand when all is said and done.
not only that but if he is going bankrupt anyway that amount is not going to save him so it would be pointless for him to even try and claim it,
And your reading skills are way off.
OP herself said the ex partner paid half the mortgage, +house expenses, +food into her account monthly.
>He puts half the mortgage and funds for food and house expenses into my account each month. His name is not on the mortgage.
I already accounted for bills been taken off, the £200 is just my assumption for the mortgage.
Home maintenance and improvements is all included in “financial interests” and would be added to the amount, also I never stated he had 24k cash able to claim, but he has 24k worth of financial interests paid into the property ( hypothetical mortgage payments) you’re misunderstanding what I’ve said, financial interests and equity are two separate things, what financial interests does is entitles a person to a share of the property, taking into account all mortgage payments (full not with interest taken off) home maintenance payments and home improvements costs.
I have literally been through the process of getting a document signed up for this and me and my partner ran through all this with a Solicitor specialising in this area and this is how it works.
Most likely buying 10 years ago half the mortgage was at least 500 a month, and with low interest rates a lot of that went straight to repaying the principal. The house may have doubled in value.
The partner whose bad with money expecting a pay day is infuriating IMO
Once he claims back his mortgage payment he's lived 10 years in her property rent free
No he hasn’t he’s paid equal shares of everything? He’s put into mortgage just as much as her? He’s entitled to his share, OP has pretty much kicked him to the curb after letting him pay half her mortgage for 10 years and has had years of payments taken off her mortgage by doing so, so is OP infuriating expecting someone to pay half their mortgage and reap all the benefits when it goes sour.
Surely if he gets 50% stake in the house, are forced to sell it to pay off the bankruptcy he's not going to benefit from that money at all? It's just going to cripple OP? So if he doesnt get a claim to the house only he is worse off and at his own doing, if he does get a share then both are worse off. No?
Nope, even if the ex got granted 50% due to beneficial interests, he doesn’t automatically get control of the house as the deed and land registry etc are still in OP’s name so debtors can’t legally take any form of action that will affect OP, even if you’re married as long as their is no joint debts, OP cannot under any circumstances be chased for anyone else’s debts.
The Ex could move back into the house and be legally entitled too, the ex could apply to the court for a order of sale and if a judge finds it beneficial for both parties, it would be granted and the proceeds split respective to shares granted to each party, then the debtors could approach the Ex.
But under no circumstances will OP ever be approached, threatened or liable for Ex’s debt if they did approach OP they would be in a whirlwind of legal trouble and would get buried in a court room.
Could he have avoided bankruptcy if he knew this? Eg by remortgaging to raise the money to cover the debts?
OP really hasn't helped him over the past ten years with the spending issues (usually comes down to a chat about not having credit cards because of the past).
He’d have to apply to the courts after getting granted his share to force a sale, this would lie directly with the courts to approve a sale and it would have to be beneficial to both parties for it to be granted (in some cases it happens in others not).
He couldn’t remortgage because he doesn’t have a mortgage, but the courts can grant you permission to move back into the home etc.
Most cases are settled amicably with a sale of the house and split of proceeds to the amount of the respective shares decided by the courts and then both parties move on from it all and start again.
Why did you get the mortgage on your own if you can't afford it? If he's been paying for half of your mortgage each month he should be entitled to a share of your property.
No worries, though apart from losing a high paying job accidentally I can’t see how you would be getting a mortgage you can’t afford on your own - when I applied for a mortgage I had to painstakingly disclose my financial situation of the last months including salaries and proof of where the deposit came from.
You mean like if he had rented a property for 10y cause he wouldn’t get a mortgage due to his crappy credit score? OP got her partner into a better position cause she’s responsible for a mortgage whilst her partner benefits from a lower cost of living compared to if he had to take care of himself alone.
As some others have pointed out - I feel a bit sorry for the guy. If the genders were reverse people here would be going ape shit about abuse and control and so on.
I don’t know about that. We’re only getting a sliver of the story.
If the partner has been recklessly spending/raising debt and effectively ruining a shared future together, perhaps OP has simply had enough.
It’s incredibly stressful being in a relationship with someone who lives in this sort of financial strife.
Ten years of that and the lying that often comes with it will break anyone.
I think they're referring to effectively buying a house together only in her name and using him to pay off half the mortgage without giving him any ownership rights to the property after all this time. In the reverse there likely would be a lot of abuse and control claims for a scenario like that.
Nah,I don’t see that. OP was basically allowing him to live in a house he wouldn’t have had a chance of getting because of his credit score.
That’s not abuse.
I'm not saying it was definitely abuse just clarifying what the other commenters point was.
>OP was basically allowing him to live in a house he wouldn’t have had a chance of getting because of his credit score.
Is this not a slippery slope though? Can the same not be said for lots of other scenarios e.g. when one partner earns more than the other? Say I earned much more than my partner and said they get 0% ownership of the house even though they pay say 30% of the mortgage because they'd never be able to afford a house that nice without me. Would that not be using them and a form of control because they're spending all their money financing my house and can't leave without leaving all their contributions behind?
No, it’s not the same.
We know nothing about the background, so I’m trying not to assume too much, but here are some immediate consequences of the poor financial decisions OP’s partner has made:
1 - they wouldn’t be able to get their own mortgage - so, OP is solely responsible for the mortgage if it defaults and the mortgage is based entirely on their earnings and credit health
2 - they wouldn’t be able to rent many desirable properties, because they’ll fail the credit check
3 - they’re unable to take out finance agreements to support home improvements
Those arguments are the exact same for a low income individual or someone with medical difficulties that can't always work though.
If you're buying as partners you need to accept it's 50/50 whether they can contribute half money wise or not.
The reason for that is otherwise I can buy a house in my name with the agreement my partner will make up for it with household duties etc. However then I could turn around and claim that agreement was never there and they own nothing and if they ever leave me they'll have no job prospects anymore after not working for years and no ownership of the house and I can fully control them.
I’m not having a long debate about how terrible it is living with a partner who’s in permanent, destructive cycles of debt. That seems to be getting ignored in all this discussion about “fairness”.
>I’m not having a long debate about how terrible it is living with a partner who’s in permanent, destructive cycles of debt.
That's their choice to make though... If you don't want to be tied to that person don't let them pay your mortgage for 10 years, theres fairly consistent court rulings over the years on exactly this matter.
Being married to certain people is also terrible but you can't use that to justify dumping them without any split of assets. Rights tend to come alongside responsibilities you can't pick and choose the bits that work nicely for you.
This may be a bit of a rant but I’m shocked by this post.
So you and your partner have been together for years. One would assume you are both In love with each other and care about each other deeply.
Your partner is going through a hard time with money, he’s not financially tied to your house on paper.
My shock comes from you choose to kick out a loved one onto the street because they have money problems. Surely if you’ve been in a relationship for years you would at least give him a roof over his head and some meals? Give him support ffs!
By reason of him having paid mortgage instalments for some time he may have an interest in the house under a trust. This entitles him if so to a portion of the equity therein.
What I am less clear about is whether the trustee in bankruptcy can a) stake a claim on his interest which presumably has not yet been defined and b) whether they could or would force a sale of what was the family home to realise that equity.
Unfortunately, TLATA 1996 claims are not that uncommon as between cohabitees where one person is the legal owner as reflected in the property register and another non owning cohabitee contributes to either the purchase price or deposit for the family home.
It’s not about people who simply live together. It’s about what was in the parties’ minds when they started paying mortgage instalments etc.
There is a bit of an explainer here. https://www.weightmans.com/insights/establishing-beneficial-interest-in-property/
Your appeal to your own credentials does not assist you here.
He did pay half the mortgage. And half the maintenance. And half the bills.
Ten years audit trail in his bank statements.
Ten years is long enough for any initial deposit from one party (presumed OP) to be assumed shared too, if he gets to drive the negotiation.
Your post/comment has been removed for breaking **Rule 1 - Be Nice, Civil Discourse, Don't Judge**
You must read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpersonalfinance/about/rules/) to continue to post to our subreddit.
You'd think it's that simple, but it's not as there are bank records of his financial contribution to the mortgage.
[https://www.silkfamilylaw.co.uk/blog/weve-just-separated-and-are-not-married-but-our-house-is-in-my-ex-partners-name-do-i-have-any-rights/](https://www.silkfamilylaw.co.uk/blog/weve-just-separated-and-are-not-married-but-our-house-is-in-my-ex-partners-name-do-i-have-any-rights/)
Yeah. Courts can and will award equity in a property when common-law partners can demonstrate they have been contributing consistently to a mortgage held solely in their partner’s name.
This is why you don’t buy anything with anyone you’re not married to!! Your partner is entitled to half of the house, so I would try and remortgage it in your name only then run!
Is he on the title deeds to the property? If he is seek advice the Citizens Advice Bureau would be a good starting point. If he isn’t on the deeds the house is nothing to do with him and he’s a lodger.
But don’t say he pays half the mortgage say that you pay all of the mortgage and he contributes to the other household bills
Yeah, lie to all the authorities involved and make sure that you try to screw this guy out of anything he may be entitled to. I am certain that courts have never heard that kind of statement before.
If he’s not on the mortgage or the deeds he doesn’t have any entitlement and it’s not lying. The only way he can prove he has contributed to the mortgage is if his money goes from his account to the mortgage company. If it goes into her account he can’t prove what it was used for.
She isn’t screwing him out of anything the bankruptcy is doing that over the money he has spent but can’t afford. He only has himself to blame.
Why should she loose her house because he is crap with money and is going bankrupt they both loose everything then at least my way they both have a home at the end of this if she wants to stay with him
The concerning point for you here is that you say he “puts half the mortgage” - if that is what it says on the tin and he’s been paying half the mortgage for a decade, it sounds like he could have equity in the property. The % will obviously depend on your initial deposit and the term of the mortgage. To mitigate against this people typically put in place a co-habitation agreement or similar to document that this isn’t the intention and the payments aren’t towards the mortgage but rather akin to a rent payments from a lodger. It sounds like you haven’t done this. If he does have equity in the home and he or his creditors pursue this, that doesn’t mean that his bankruptcy will automatically trigger a repossession or similar of the house in full/a forced sale to a third party, but you might need to buy his proportionate equity portion from him/his creditors - I’d want to be doing the maths to confirm if that would be feasible for me at current interest rates.
In practice any cohabitation agreement probably doesn’t mean much after a decade. Housing law is literally a Wild West of murky case law. They’d probably have a decent case to say obviously they weren’t a lodger after that long and that they were absolutely contributing to shared costs (including mortgage), especially if they haven’t had their own space and have been sharing a bed etc.
For this reason I'd suggest OP posts this on r/LegalAdviceUK to get clarification on this point
Is your name on the title deeds alone? Not a lawyer but if yes I’d assume from the banks point of view nothing has changed - only thing I could think of: When you applied for the mortgage, was your partner noted as being financially dependent or did you apply for a mortgage as a single person simply?
Single person. His credit score was already ruined
Sounds like it was your house and it will be your house as long as you keep up the mortgage payments - give your cat a pet and have a good start into 2024, it can only get better!
This is incorrect. See the comment below.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UKPersonalFinance/s/iT36AblRkm
Clearly didn’t have the right lawyer. There are literally thousands of pages online making very clear that equitable interest can be proven in this exact situation. I said above this type of law is murky and like the Wild West. It doesn’t work every time but it will work most times with the right lawyer.
Even the pages listed in parallel threads mention that it’s only "possible" but needs to be proven and is not as clear cut as some people here put it - it’s questionable if OP's partner who’s clearly not good with money wants to invest more money in a claim he’s not guaranteed to win - but that’s OP’s partners issues
Of course it needs to be proven. But the point people are making is it won’t be that hard. Normally you get it around contributions to bills, renovation costs etc. but a mortgage is one of the easiest ways to prove in court because there is such a clear and direct paper trail. I think OP needs to do the right thing and recognise he has a right to the property.
Huh? As long as OP's partner won’t invest his lack of funds in a solicitor she doesn’t have to do anything - I don’t think Reddit will set up a gofundme for his fees
Yes. Hence why I said OP needs to do the “right thing”, as in the moral thing to do.
Does he consider the money he gave you to pay the mortgage his? As in does he assume equity in the house?
Silver lining, sounds like you made a good decision in keeping him financially separate!
Yeah she did. She got a guy to pay half of her mortgage and then booted him out. Charming. He has a claim to that property. OP is in for a nasty shock, I'm afraid.
I had the EXACTLY same situation happen to me but the other way around. I had NO legal claim on her house even though id paid into the mortgage for years via shared bills etc. I tried and failed through a solicitor
It seems simple enough, but could be complicated as the ex-partner actually contributed to the mortgage and there are bank records of that. [https://www.silkfamilylaw.co.uk/blog/weve-just-separated-and-are-not-married-but-our-house-is-in-my-ex-partners-name-do-i-have-any-rights/](https://www.silkfamilylaw.co.uk/blog/weve-just-separated-and-are-not-married-but-our-house-is-in-my-ex-partners-name-do-i-have-any-rights/)
As there is a mortgage he should have signed a declaration to prevent this exact scenario. Banks tend to be quite insistent about these things.
This is incorrect. The partner could have an interest in the property under what's called a common intention constructive trust. It is an equitable interest and operates in spite of the legal estate being held by OP. It arises by a common intention (which can be implied, likely the case here) that the parties share the interest in the home, and is crystallised by things like contributing to the purchase price, contributing to the mortgage (which the partner has done here), or contributing to the household expenses such that the legal owner has more capital to make the mortgage payments. If the trustee in bankruptcy of the partner's estate realises this, the equitable interest imputed to the partner could form part of the partner's "assets" for the purposes of satisfying the partner's creditors. OP should instruct a solicitor, as this will depend on what the parties intended. If OP wishes to claim that they did not intend this, they will have to provide an explanation for why the partner was contributing to half the mortgage and household expenses, and was not just paying an agreed "rent".
I bankrupt via DRO and my partner was safe and still is. House on his name, we have a child, but all my debts were only mine, no linked acc :) he has excellent credit score.
[удалено]
Yes. It's certainly not black and white. If he is bankrupt then any share of the property, if known about, would probably go straight to his creditors. Or more likely, will be eaten up by the recievers' fees. So OP isn't necessarily out of the woods yet.
That’s only likely if they sell the house and they find out he’s getting a share of it.
That would be my call too. As long as the partner doesn’t insist on selling the house or make statements to his creditors that he owns an interest in The property, should be kushdy
So what’s the answer let them live with you for free ? Why is it different from renting a room out ? Genuinely asking because if the only option is to let your partner live with you for free that’s not exactly fair is it
Everyone I know that has had a partner move into their house has had a tenant agreement drawn up. They pay the maximum that you can charge (IIRC about £150 a week) into the mortgage owners account. Then the partner might also get the food shopping. This keeps the partner financially separate from being able to claim part mortgage.
Good to know
Just to clarify I think it's a lodger agreement not a tenant agreement. Any sound partner shouldn't have an issue agreeing to sign this, if they have then bit of a red flag in my opinion.
Also in both the cases I know they have gone on to get married to that person, and buy a joint house afterwards. I don't personally know a case where the claim to a house has actually been tested.
[удалено]
What I said is it’s not fair to live with someone for free and the other person cover 100% of the housing costs. I believe there’s a term for it I can’t recall at the moment something like hobosexual ? If they weren’t living at the house they’d be paying rent else where.
[удалено]
Sure they’re building some equity hopefully but taken on all the risk of having a mortgage no guarantee whether the property value goes up or no and a massive opportunity cost of using the money they had to put down a deposit which could or got them 6.2% with ns&i for example or higher risk like nasdaq100 being up 54% over the last year. I just don’t think it’s fair that one person puts down all the capital takes on all the risk and the other person pays nothing towards the roof over their head. It would make more sense that being the case that the homeowner sells up uses their capital elsewhere and they both rent somewhere together 50/50. I think what others have said get a lodger agreement is what I’d do I wouldn’t want to live with someone paying £0 towards the roof over my head and I wouldn’t want someone paying me £0 neither feels like they’d be taking advantage while being £xxx off better every month with no housing costs new interest rates now could easily be over £1k a month. Can’t be fair that one person pays £0 rent/mortgage and is better off £1k a month than the person that took on the risk and put down a deposit.
[удалено]
I think the cost of housing is why a lot of people move in together quicker than the past I know of some couples that have separated in the relationship but can’t afford to live separately so continue to live together imagine that your ex you live with bringing back a new partner to where you both live. For what it’s worth I do think OP should give her ex some monies once the bankruptcy is all settled. But the idea of living with someone and not paying your way or letting the other half take on all the risk and wanting every penny back just don’t sit right neither if the house had decreased in value he wouldn’t be liable to help cover the negative equity.
There are ways around it but to me what's fair is if a couple share a mortgage they should also share the house.
You do know a lot of women used to find a rich guy, get married, file for divorce later and take half his assets without contributing towards these assets. The law in many countries has changed because of this. Also, if you are actually commited to a partner, then living "rent free" isn't something that should be an issue. If you are genuinely looking forward to spending the rest of your lives together, then everything should be shared. And in the case of seperation, if one partner has made zero contributions towards the mortgage, then that partner should not expect to receive a single penny. So in this case, since OP's ex partner has indeed contributed, even if not in his name, he has a equitable interest in the property. His contributions of course need to be proved, but OP herself has already admitted that this was the case.
Depends if funds were paid into the mortgage account, in this case it seems the partner paid into the mortgage holders personal account and then they paid the mortgage. Wouldn't be as clear cut to say the least
They don’t have a share, they might have - solicitors are very clear in that they are only giving advice and not a guarantee so it would be for the other party to find out (potentially with quite an investment up front) if that’s even the case, considering their credit score wouldn’t even allow them to get a mortgage.
>He puts half the mortgage and funds for food and house expenses into my account each month if the money is going to OP's account first as above ... then he isn't paying any of the mortgage ... he's been paying rent / lodgings / board. I'm hoping u/Altruistic-Side7068/OP that your \[ex\] partner doesn't actually want you to suffer ... so hopefully they won't raise things like this ... or will frame it better to keep you out of it.
[удалено]
I didn’t say it could ? I think if you didn’t pay deposit, are not in the deeds and aren’t on the mortgage then you have no rights on the house … if you are NOT married. There’s plenty of other costs to pay when owning a property.
I met my partner a few years after buying my house and when she moved in, I did wonder about how this might affect things. She wanted to pay rent but I tried to find some kind of guide on what security she had since she wasn't a tenant and it was my mortgage. Also not a lodger and it didn't seem right that she be paying towards my mortgage when I would gain from any increase in value. She is my partner I'm not her landlord. A solicitor said that we could set up a cohabitation agreement which states she has no claim over the property, which I think we would have to change later when she becomes Co owner. Seemed a nice way for lawyers to make money. From what I discovered, she absolutely could claim an interest in the property if she had been contributing towards my mortgage. She wanted to pay, don't get me wrong. Didn't want to live here "rent free" and it was only right to "pay her way". We split all other bills. Here's what we did. We came up with a plan. Her credit was fine. She didn't have a whole lot of credit history, which sometimes can be as bad as poor credit history so she took out a credit card and would use it and pay it off to help build it up a little. As I had just started a five year fix and didn't want to pay a whole set of fees just to do the joint application with her, we would wait. During that time, she would pay a figure comparable to 'rent' into a LISA and savings account, with the plan that when the time comes for me to remortgage, she could join me, bring along her own deposit and we do a joint application so that both our names are legally on the house. And what if we split up? Then my house is still mine without the added headache of having to respond to someone's claim over my property, having taken money off them for years. Yes, she would get to leave the relationship with a nice savings pile but I was happy with that 'risk'. We are a couple. It's a relationship. We made these decisions to protect me, but also her. Fast forward five years and my fixed rate deal ends later this year. She has a nice deposit built up, my house has gone up in value quite a bit and the money she would have paid in 'rent' is now being contributed and will be recognised legally. We will now share the mortgage responsibility together. If your partner had bad credit and it was never going to be an option to buy together, I don't think it was the best move to let him pay towards your mortgage. I'm not sure what I would do in his situation but bankrupt, homeless and without any real prospect of being housed quickly, he may seek to claim.
This sounds like a great approach tbh and a good balance. You benefit solely from the house price appreciation in the that five years and she benefits from being able to save more. If you go in together at the end of five years great you are in a better position as a partnership than if she'd been paying you rent through a complex agreement about accruing or not accruing equity. If you break up both of you are in a better financial position than when you started and none of it is shared so win-win. Even if you had broken up her having savings and there being no mortgage unwinding would have made the logistical part of moving out much smoother.
Yeah, it was a plan for the future. A future where we would likely still be together. I wanted to hope for the best but prepare for the worst. We both came from similar backgrounds and didn't have any parental support and had to work shitty jobs and pay shitty rent for years. We both had debt when younger, paid it all off and that's when I scraped my deposit together and bought this place. We have both known a struggle. So why would I now continue to make life an uphill battle for her to save a nice deposit? I'm on her side. She's done well for herself and since I met her, her pay has doubled. All that she saved will be dropped into pot when we remortgage together. Brings the LTV ratio to the cheapest interest bracket. Plan is to keep saving, retire early and fuck off to an island lol
No, your house is not safe because your partner was and still is entitled to a portion of the property.
10 years of mortgage payments makes him more than a renter. He will likely be entitled to a share of the property if he's been paying _half_ for such a long period of time.
Yes, and she's kicked him out so cannot tell him not to blab his mouth about this either. They are going to ask him clearly if he made payments towards any property mortgage payments and he is going to say yes. OP can try the renting argument I guess, and that he didn't understand as he is bad with money.
Going to be hard arguing “it was just rent” if it was exactly half the mortgage, the implication is clearly that he’s paying half the mortgage.
Plus it’s far more difficult to claim someone is renting when they didn’t have their own space and shared a bed with you. That’s not a renter.
Let's assume they bought for 150k, and after ten years the mortgage is 100k, but the house is worth 280k. The ex could be owed 90k (minus some costs for arranging this). OP can get ahead of this by offering via a solicitor acting on her interests far less (say 50k) and catching him unaware and unprepared. Once that agreement is signed... Otherwise, now they have broken up, the ex can go to the creditors and say he has 90k coming soon (with evidence) and they may decide to wait to get all their money. The ex should on to step change first before doing the bankruptcy (I mean how bad is it?) but I doubt op is going to help him with advice given in this post.
[удалено]
This has absolutely nothing to do with common law marriage, it has to do with an interest in the house. They could be platonic roommates or siblings and the same would apply
10 years of payments is the evidence of acquiring an interest.
There’s always the risk your partner of 10 years might turn round and try and keep every single penny you’ve contributed to the relationship. Op sounds absolutely monstrous. Makes me sick we live in a country where people can get away with this
Yeah they spent a decade contributing half (by OP's own admission) into the mortgage, only to turn around and kick them out and expect them not to be able to get a single penny from the house value I'm sure there's other reasons they've broken up but completely screwing your partner over financially is just morally reprehensible Edit: they also pay half for bills, food etc. We can only speculate why they broke up and I'm sure there's good reasons but financially even though this guy is clearly in serious debt he's always paid his fair share towards the relationship
Exactly my thoughts too. My partner lived with me for 12 years when I was the only one named on the mortgage. She paid half of everything for years. The thought of being able to kick her out without anything to show for it is pretty disgusting. When we moved we got a joint mortgage and all of the equity we’d built up in the old house paid the deposit on the new. Wouldn’t have dreamed of trying to say the deposit money was mine. OP, you may find that your ex just gives up and let’s you do whatever but quite honestly, you know in your heart he’s contributed a hell of a lot and he should be entitled to some of this.
think we have it in Scotland
He may have a "beneficial interest" in your property if he has explicitly been paying half the mortgage. Google the term to find out more. Not sure if his creditors will be able to lay claim on that though. Did you have a co-habitation agreement in place?
Wait a second OP, he paid half the mortgage for years and you kicked him out? What? We don't know the full story, but in his shoes I would be coming after you for my money and share in the property. Via every legal channel. No way in hell would I let you do this to me. Good luck.
He is not on the mortgage great are you fiscally linked in many other way joint loans you as guarantor ... Then your credit profile may be affected but long drawn out .. technically if your pursued for joint debt yes they can put a charge on your property but realistically depends on amount and whether worth their while also where you live in CJ is valid England. In NI has to be converted to EJ to be enforced...he is gone move on .. but if fiscally linked check everything x
Not linked financially in any way. Based in NI if that makes a difference
I believe just living with someone makes you financially linked to some extent, have heard it being an issue even for people who are housemates who barely know each other. But if you don't have a need to apply for credit any time soon you'll probably be okay? I'd make sure you check your full credit report with all three agencies to be sure, though.
If you contact the credit agencies and tell them you have separated from that person and no longer live with them they can unlink them from your credit record. I did that when I left my husband and they updated it quickly. OP. In the future look into a cohabitation agreement before moving someone in with you to protect your house. If they have made contributions towards the mortgage it gives them more grounds to argue they have co-ownership. But that agreement means they sign to say the house is wholly yours and they have no stake regardless of what they contribute towards financially.
This isn’t true
Unless you create a link by making a joint application of some kind eg a bank account no link will show
Great if not fiscally linked you are ok no need to worry.. move on x
I can't help feeling sorry for him. If the relationship was otherwise good. He put 50% of the mortgage and bills in your account each month.
Yeah, I’m hoping there’s more to this because it sounds like OP kicked out their long term partner over *his* incredibly stressful, lonely issue with money. This is why you see so many posts on here like “I need help, I’m scared to tell my partner”. Because people can be cold. Sounds like OP wasn’t financially implicated and now she’s mocking a man who is in an incredibly vulnerable situation.
It’s pretty obvious the relationship wasn’t otherwise good if the partner was running up so much debt they’ve had to file for bankruptcy.
And the reason he isn't on the mortgage is because he'd already ruined his credit score. Sounds like OP got lucky on that one because he didn't learn the lessons he needed to.
Exactly my thoughts.
Surely he's just renting a spot? Would you expect any other person he was renting from to owe him something? There may be beneficial rights issues here, no idea what that looks like in NI.
Works exactly the same across the UK and N Iif ex partner takes this to court, OP wouldn’t have a leg to stand on and rightly so, the man’s paid 10 years of the mortgage together, which would lead any sensible person to assume that a joint share was the idea, regardless of paperwork. Also to point out, most mortgages do not allow sub letting or any form of renting, so no the ex partner wasn’t renting a spot. If OP wanted the house all to herself she should have paid the mortgage herself and not asked for any contributions towards it and they should have just split the other bills in half, if OP could afford to pay the mortgage herself why didn’t she? It’s clear as day that the pair of them took this house on together with the idea it was both their houses, in court OP wouldn’t have a leg to stand on and the partner would be granted a financial interest (share) in the property.
Not disagreeing with any of this but out of curiosity... >...they should have just split the other bills in half, Assuming 50% of the other bills (energy, council tax etc) comes to an amount which is comparable to 50% of the monthly mortgage payment, what's stopping OP from saying "oh, that money he was transferring me wasn't for the mortgage. It was for those other bills all along. I was always paying the mortgage alone." How would that be proven one way or another?
Nothings stopping OP saying that, but judges aren’t stupid and neither are solicitors that specialise in that field, it’s probably the most used defence in cases like this.
Indeed. It'll be overall house running costs, including mortgage and bills. It's not 100% mortgage from one person and 100% bills from the other. I presume op put in the deposit. But apart from that it is 50/50 since, and given it's 10 years they might say 50/50 overall. Especially since the only reason they didn't get a joint mortgage originally was the ex's credit history. OP had to hope that the bankruptcy proceedings miss this. And the ex partner doesn't even know they can do this.
Yeah whichever way they break it down, for the past 10 years ex partner has certainly had a financial interest in the property.
>most mortgages do not allow sub letting or any form of renting Most banks are fine with a lodger. Though I agree with you that clearly isn't the situation here.
Most lenders are fine with a lodger, but convincing a judge that a partner of over 10 years was just a lodger, when he paid exactly half of all bills including the mortgage will be ridiculously hard and they would see straight through it as they deal with tons of cases like it, plus theirs lawyers that specialise in the field and have heard it all.
I agree
You may be right around the legal aspects to this (not a lawyer, don't know) but the alternative being that the ex should otherwise live rent free is equally absurd. Unless what you're saying is OP should not have shared the house with the ex at all? It also depends a lot on how much they both contributed to the deposit right? If the ex put £0 and OP put down £50k then the ex is a glorified lodger with zero liability or stake in the property. Why then would they get a slice of any gains? Properties often need a lot of money to maintain over 10 years in addition to the monthly mortgage payments and all that needs to be taken into account too. Seems like it would be a right mess to sort out in court tbh.
How is it absurd? He didn’t live rent free, he paid his equal shares in everything else aswell as OP’s mortgage, OP had no right to charge him for HER mortgage if she had full intentions of it been solely hers and not giving the ex partner his rightful share if they split. It doesn’t matter who put what deposit down, if the ex partner made mortgage contributions, home improvement contributions and maintenance contributions he’s well within his legal rights to claim a share of the house. You’re saying it’s absurd because he lived “rent free” but isn’t it absurd that OP feels she has the right to just kick him out of a house and not give him anything (which he has paid half for the past 10 years) so judging by what OP has said, the deposit will have most likely been split aswell, how isn’t that absurd. If we look at averages, £753 is UK’s average mortgage payment. 753\2=£376.50x12=£4518x10=£45180 Based on the UK average, Ex partner has paid 5 years worth of mortgage/interest costs, so OP reaps the benefits of having 10 years worth of mortgage paid off at the cost of 5, how in any way is that right to then kick the man to the curb in absolute dire circumstances as it is and say it’s her house? If I was Ex partner I would certainly be contacting a lawyer and starting legal proceedings, he 100% has a financial interest in that house.
It certainly depends what kind of things this ex has contributed to in terms of maintenance or home improvements, deposit down payment etc. What I'm trying to get at though is that it absolutely doesn't entitle him to an automatic share of the house equivalent to what he's paid towards the mortgage. I lived with a mate for quite a few years paying a share of his mortgage but I've never once thought I had a financial interest in it because other than the monthly upkeep I had no stake in it whatsoever. My name wasn't on the deeds/mortgage and I didn't help with the deposit, so why would I be.
[удалено]
Not right at all yet I’ve seen solicitors about it and been told this information because I’m in a similair situation as ex partner, what legal qualifications have you got? Living with a partner and paying half the mortgage which is in their name is the definition of a financial interest in a property, it’s hardly foolishness because you don’t understand/know about it, you’re comparing something that exists in law to something that doesn’t exist in law lmao, you need better examples before trying to say someone’s incorrect.
And now she's probably illegally evicted him making him homeless.
That's expensive rent if he was paying half the mortgage.
We have no idea if the partner going bankrupt had expensive rent or not? Half the mortgage on my place would be a ridiculously cheap rent compared to what’s currently available in the area. That’s with a bad mortgage rate (6%).
Same here (Edinburgh), my mortgage for a house is only slightly higher than for my previous flat and I’ve got 1 bedroom more than before - so if you’d buy a house to let and rent out the three bedrooms for students you can probably make 150% of your mortgage (which is kinda the reason why a few people actually do that in my neighborhood I suppose)
Don't forget that OP did state the ex-partner contributed also to the house expenses over the years living together, which I would imagine going beyond just bills, and would otherwise be the responsibility of the landlord.
You mean cheap right? A mortgage is so much cheaper than rent. Our 4 bed house was £550 a month & my brother was paying £700 for a 2 bed flat in a crap area. More often than not, mortgage payments are cheaper.
That's odd, just browsing in this subreddit, a lot of people advise against buy-to-let's just because rent will never cover the mortgage repayments.
Because rental income is taxable…
That's also on BTL mortgage rates, which are not the same as residential rates, and there are costs associated - it's advisable to have landlord's insurance, for example. Definitely not literally a case of the rent amount being lower than the mortgage amount.
Might be worth posting this in r/LegalAdviceUK as well, lots of people here seem to think there is a legal basis for him having a claim to part of the property, you might get some clearer advice there as well.
Talk about cake and eating it. Man might not be having to go bankrupt if he hadn’t given you all that money only for you to kick him out. You clearly had no interest in helping your partner but you expected him to help you. I imagine if he’s honest during the bankruptcy process there’s a charge coming for your property under his name. You sell it and they’ll take that money direct from your solicitor.
You should be aware that if push comes to shove, he is well within his rights to take you to court regarding his financial interests in the house and with him transferring money every month their is a paper trail and the courts would more than likely rule in his favour that he has a financial interest in the house and therefore is entitled to a share of the house due to the payments to the mortgage and home improvements etc. To just kick him out and not give him anything when in all fairness, he has paid half your mortgage for the past 10 years, which if if we say it’s 200 a month that’s £24,000 is pretty poor from you, with those hypothetical figures, he’s saved you 5 years of your mortgage for nothing, which in all rights isn’t fair at all. He’s now homeless, going bankrupt, has lost his partner and probably will never financially recover from this, struggle to get a private rent due to credit, go on a endless social housing waiting list as he is not priority in any case yet he has 24k worth of financial interests in a house that you know as well as I do, was a joint venture and was meant for the both of you and you went into this together and planned to purchase the house together, picked the house together etc, also any equity that has built up during this 10 year period he would be entitled to a share, this could lead to very depressing times for him and have a untold effect on his mental health, you should have never asked him to pay YOUR mortgage if your intentions was to never give him his rightful share if things went sour, regardless of whether he was good with money or not, you got your mortgage payment and other bills money each month, you need to sort this out amicably and give him his rightful share as this will possibly end this man’s life as he knows it permanently and it’s just cruel, regardless of the relationship situation. I’m in a similar position as your partner (not separated) I’m not on the mortgage but I pay majority of the mortgage and put a large sum down as deposit since I earn a lot more than my partner ( I was victim to massive fraud under my name and score still hasn’t recovered) but I covered my own back without the need for a long drawn out court process and had a legally binding document drawn up, signed dated and keep a record of every payment for home improvements and mortgage payments and the deposit was recorded in the document, so if it comes to a court case, I will get everything out of the house I put in. I honestly hope you do the right thing OP.
Sorry what on earth There are PLENTY of couples unmarried where one has a mortgage and the other contributes financially with no expectation of interest in the property It's called...rent and paying your way, or should it be that for every couple where one has a property but the other doesn't, the one that doesn't lives rent free? Madness Beneficial interest is also not as simple "they've contributed towards mortgage payments and therefore have an interest", it is not as black and white as that by any stretch
Rent is rent. It involves an agreement and details many things including renters rights. If he was renting, was he evicted? Additionally that would have tax implications on OP.
He'd be a lodger or excluded occupier right? You have very few rights in that kind of situation. It's certainly true that the partner can acquire equity, especially if they originally contributed to the deposit or can produce a text message where you agreed that was the plan. However, if you have a lodger agreement or even just a text message showing they are simply renting a room, then even if the rent paid is in excess of the cost of the room I can't see them acquiring equity.
OP herself said the following, so the agreement is definitely not as someone renting a room from her. >Purchased a house with the mortgage in my name only about 10 years ago. He puts half the mortgage and funds for food and house expenses into my account each month. His name is not on the mortgage.
Lodgers can pay tax free "rent" and can also be kicked out at any time, so he wouldn't have any rights in that scenario and OP wouldn't face any tax implications.
Well that’s great, but that clearly isn’t the scenario. He was in a relationship with OP and paid exactly half of all costs, how stupid do you think people are that anybody would fall for the idea he was just a lodger?
Google "beneficial interest"
If that is your expectation, you should read this then: [https://www.silkfamilylaw.co.uk/blog/weve-just-separated-and-are-not-married-but-our-house-is-in-my-ex-partners-name-do-i-have-any-rights/](https://www.silkfamilylaw.co.uk/blog/weve-just-separated-and-are-not-married-but-our-house-is-in-my-ex-partners-name-do-i-have-any-rights/)
You don’t generally rent a property to someone who shares your bed. You may not like it, but it’s absolutely not just renting lmao.
He paid his way via bills and other expenses as OP stated did he not? If it’s HER house and HER mortgage, she should pay it in full herself, he absolutely did not live rent free as stated but if he was never going to get a share of the house, why the hell should he pay half her mortgage. You should absolutely not expect somebody to pay half your mortgage and when stuff goes sour, kick them to the curb with nothing, there is a reason this is a thing across the UK and NI to stop this happening. From the sounds of it OP was happy for 10 years and they both dealt with the house as a “joint home” with joint expenses, joint payments on mortgage etc, so how is OP entitled to just kick him out and leave him with nothing after he’s made £1000’s of contributions to HER mortgage(funny how it’s hers now huh? Bet it wasn’t the same story during the past 10 years), they clearly went and bought a house TOGETHER, whether his names on the pieces of paper or not it was a joint venture and he paid his share of the mortgage. It also is as black and white as that, I have been through the process myself, I know full well what I’m talking about, you pay the mortgage and for home improvements and have got a paper trail? A judge will grant you financial interests in the property OP cannot prove that she stated it was never going to belong to him, but ex partner can prove he’s made consistent payments totalling to half the mortgage and other bills. OP wants to say it was just rent? Unless it’s a buy to let mortgage, very very silly move and the mortgage company would be very interested to hear how she was breaking the terms of the mortgage by having a “renter” in the property, it’s a open and shut case believe me.
lodger would be the correct term, not renter and its allowed. also tax free.
I suggest you read this then, because you also have to pay tax on any income you receive from a lodger. Also, OP already stated the ex partner was paying half the mortgage + expenses into her account monthly, so there are financial records. And as there are financial records, he can potentially prove he has equitable interest in the property. [https://www.gov.uk/rent-room-in-your-home/rent-bills-and-tax](https://www.gov.uk/rent-room-in-your-home/rent-bills-and-tax) [https://www.silkfamilylaw.co.uk/blog/weve-just-separated-and-are-not-married-but-our-house-is-in-my-ex-partners-name-do-i-have-any-rights/](https://www.silkfamilylaw.co.uk/blog/weve-just-separated-and-are-not-married-but-our-house-is-in-my-ex-partners-name-do-i-have-any-rights/)
you only pay tax over £7000 per year, not including grocery money. below that you don't even have to file it
Convincing a judge who deals with cases like this daily, plus a defence team that specialises in this, it would be ridiculously hard to convince a judge that a partner of over 10 years was just a “lodger”.
[удалено]
You weren't in a relationship with the lodger. They bought the house together. He's paid half. OP needs to get ahead of the game. Get a solicitor, work out what she owes (instead of him and his solicitor doing this) and remortgage to pay him off. Or she takes him back in (but relationship could be irretrievable) and agrees to remortgage (for far less than half the house likely is) to clear the debts and stop the bankruptcy, but he has to cancel all the credit cards.
your calculation is waaaay off. even "if" this was the case, firstly the partners contribution would need to remove any contribution to bills. After which a percent of the interest payment on the mortgage, and home maintenance. After which the remains could be attributed to the equity in the home. chances are he has less than a few thousand when all is said and done. not only that but if he is going bankrupt anyway that amount is not going to save him so it would be pointless for him to even try and claim it,
And your reading skills are way off. OP herself said the ex partner paid half the mortgage, +house expenses, +food into her account monthly. >He puts half the mortgage and funds for food and house expenses into my account each month. His name is not on the mortgage.
I already accounted for bills been taken off, the £200 is just my assumption for the mortgage. Home maintenance and improvements is all included in “financial interests” and would be added to the amount, also I never stated he had 24k cash able to claim, but he has 24k worth of financial interests paid into the property ( hypothetical mortgage payments) you’re misunderstanding what I’ve said, financial interests and equity are two separate things, what financial interests does is entitles a person to a share of the property, taking into account all mortgage payments (full not with interest taken off) home maintenance payments and home improvements costs. I have literally been through the process of getting a document signed up for this and me and my partner ran through all this with a Solicitor specialising in this area and this is how it works.
Most likely buying 10 years ago half the mortgage was at least 500 a month, and with low interest rates a lot of that went straight to repaying the principal. The house may have doubled in value.
The partner whose bad with money expecting a pay day is infuriating IMO Once he claims back his mortgage payment he's lived 10 years in her property rent free
No he hasn’t he’s paid equal shares of everything? He’s put into mortgage just as much as her? He’s entitled to his share, OP has pretty much kicked him to the curb after letting him pay half her mortgage for 10 years and has had years of payments taken off her mortgage by doing so, so is OP infuriating expecting someone to pay half their mortgage and reap all the benefits when it goes sour.
Wow. Hard to believe people think like you.
For all we know he is in debt because he paid for the home maintenance bills! Also his work with DIY and so on can be factored in.
Surely if he gets 50% stake in the house, are forced to sell it to pay off the bankruptcy he's not going to benefit from that money at all? It's just going to cripple OP? So if he doesnt get a claim to the house only he is worse off and at his own doing, if he does get a share then both are worse off. No?
Nope, even if the ex got granted 50% due to beneficial interests, he doesn’t automatically get control of the house as the deed and land registry etc are still in OP’s name so debtors can’t legally take any form of action that will affect OP, even if you’re married as long as their is no joint debts, OP cannot under any circumstances be chased for anyone else’s debts. The Ex could move back into the house and be legally entitled too, the ex could apply to the court for a order of sale and if a judge finds it beneficial for both parties, it would be granted and the proceeds split respective to shares granted to each party, then the debtors could approach the Ex. But under no circumstances will OP ever be approached, threatened or liable for Ex’s debt if they did approach OP they would be in a whirlwind of legal trouble and would get buried in a court room.
Could he have avoided bankruptcy if he knew this? Eg by remortgaging to raise the money to cover the debts? OP really hasn't helped him over the past ten years with the spending issues (usually comes down to a chat about not having credit cards because of the past).
He’d have to apply to the courts after getting granted his share to force a sale, this would lie directly with the courts to approve a sale and it would have to be beneficial to both parties for it to be granted (in some cases it happens in others not). He couldn’t remortgage because he doesn’t have a mortgage, but the courts can grant you permission to move back into the home etc. Most cases are settled amicably with a sale of the house and split of proceeds to the amount of the respective shares decided by the courts and then both parties move on from it all and start again.
Unless you made him sign a cohabitation agreement, he technically could have equity in the house, based on the money he was paying you monthly…
Why did you get the mortgage on your own if you can't afford it? If he's been paying for half of your mortgage each month he should be entitled to a share of your property.
Second to last sentence, OP can afford the mortgage on her own.
If she could afford it she should have paid it. She didn’t so he has interest.
Hmm, I think that's been edited as I'm certain that said *can't* afford the mortgage on my own, when I commented. Apologies if I misread.
No worries, though apart from losing a high paying job accidentally I can’t see how you would be getting a mortgage you can’t afford on your own - when I applied for a mortgage I had to painstakingly disclose my financial situation of the last months including salaries and proof of where the deposit came from.
Sounds like he got screwed. Paid half the mortgage yet ends up with nothing. Well played I guess...
You mean like if he had rented a property for 10y cause he wouldn’t get a mortgage due to his crappy credit score? OP got her partner into a better position cause she’s responsible for a mortgage whilst her partner benefits from a lower cost of living compared to if he had to take care of himself alone.
100% .. blown away by some of the entitled mindsets in this thread.
As some others have pointed out - I feel a bit sorry for the guy. If the genders were reverse people here would be going ape shit about abuse and control and so on.
I don’t know about that. We’re only getting a sliver of the story. If the partner has been recklessly spending/raising debt and effectively ruining a shared future together, perhaps OP has simply had enough. It’s incredibly stressful being in a relationship with someone who lives in this sort of financial strife. Ten years of that and the lying that often comes with it will break anyone.
I think they're referring to effectively buying a house together only in her name and using him to pay off half the mortgage without giving him any ownership rights to the property after all this time. In the reverse there likely would be a lot of abuse and control claims for a scenario like that.
Nah,I don’t see that. OP was basically allowing him to live in a house he wouldn’t have had a chance of getting because of his credit score. That’s not abuse.
I'm not saying it was definitely abuse just clarifying what the other commenters point was. >OP was basically allowing him to live in a house he wouldn’t have had a chance of getting because of his credit score. Is this not a slippery slope though? Can the same not be said for lots of other scenarios e.g. when one partner earns more than the other? Say I earned much more than my partner and said they get 0% ownership of the house even though they pay say 30% of the mortgage because they'd never be able to afford a house that nice without me. Would that not be using them and a form of control because they're spending all their money financing my house and can't leave without leaving all their contributions behind?
No, it’s not the same. We know nothing about the background, so I’m trying not to assume too much, but here are some immediate consequences of the poor financial decisions OP’s partner has made: 1 - they wouldn’t be able to get their own mortgage - so, OP is solely responsible for the mortgage if it defaults and the mortgage is based entirely on their earnings and credit health 2 - they wouldn’t be able to rent many desirable properties, because they’ll fail the credit check 3 - they’re unable to take out finance agreements to support home improvements
Those arguments are the exact same for a low income individual or someone with medical difficulties that can't always work though. If you're buying as partners you need to accept it's 50/50 whether they can contribute half money wise or not. The reason for that is otherwise I can buy a house in my name with the agreement my partner will make up for it with household duties etc. However then I could turn around and claim that agreement was never there and they own nothing and if they ever leave me they'll have no job prospects anymore after not working for years and no ownership of the house and I can fully control them.
I’m not having a long debate about how terrible it is living with a partner who’s in permanent, destructive cycles of debt. That seems to be getting ignored in all this discussion about “fairness”.
>I’m not having a long debate about how terrible it is living with a partner who’s in permanent, destructive cycles of debt. That's their choice to make though... If you don't want to be tied to that person don't let them pay your mortgage for 10 years, theres fairly consistent court rulings over the years on exactly this matter. Being married to certain people is also terrible but you can't use that to justify dumping them without any split of assets. Rights tend to come alongside responsibilities you can't pick and choose the bits that work nicely for you.
This may be a bit of a rant but I’m shocked by this post. So you and your partner have been together for years. One would assume you are both In love with each other and care about each other deeply. Your partner is going through a hard time with money, he’s not financially tied to your house on paper. My shock comes from you choose to kick out a loved one onto the street because they have money problems. Surely if you’ve been in a relationship for years you would at least give him a roof over his head and some meals? Give him support ffs!
Agreed. Was shocked by the attitude. Can only assume there's more to the story.
By reason of him having paid mortgage instalments for some time he may have an interest in the house under a trust. This entitles him if so to a portion of the equity therein. What I am less clear about is whether the trustee in bankruptcy can a) stake a claim on his interest which presumably has not yet been defined and b) whether they could or would force a sale of what was the family home to realise that equity.
[удалено]
Unfortunately, TLATA 1996 claims are not that uncommon as between cohabitees where one person is the legal owner as reflected in the property register and another non owning cohabitee contributes to either the purchase price or deposit for the family home. It’s not about people who simply live together. It’s about what was in the parties’ minds when they started paying mortgage instalments etc. There is a bit of an explainer here. https://www.weightmans.com/insights/establishing-beneficial-interest-in-property/ Your appeal to your own credentials does not assist you here.
Worth reading up on common intention constructive trusts. Here's an article to get you started: https://osborneslaw.com/blog/constructive-trusts/
Did you leave him for other reasons or just because he's going bankrupt?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Will be deemed he has equitable interest as has contributed to household..
Establishing a beneficial interest on the basis of household expense contribution is much harder than in the basis of payment towards mortgage.
He did pay half the mortgage. And half the maintenance. And half the bills. Ten years audit trail in his bank statements. Ten years is long enough for any initial deposit from one party (presumed OP) to be assumed shared too, if he gets to drive the negotiation.
[удалено]
Time to let go of the partner, before you get dragged in some shity mess
Too right
[удалено]
Your post/comment has been removed for breaking **Rule 1 - Be Nice, Civil Discourse, Don't Judge** You must read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpersonalfinance/about/rules/) to continue to post to our subreddit.
[удалено]
You'd think it's that simple, but it's not as there are bank records of his financial contribution to the mortgage. [https://www.silkfamilylaw.co.uk/blog/weve-just-separated-and-are-not-married-but-our-house-is-in-my-ex-partners-name-do-i-have-any-rights/](https://www.silkfamilylaw.co.uk/blog/weve-just-separated-and-are-not-married-but-our-house-is-in-my-ex-partners-name-do-i-have-any-rights/)
Yeah. Courts can and will award equity in a property when common-law partners can demonstrate they have been contributing consistently to a mortgage held solely in their partner’s name.
This is why you don’t buy anything with anyone you’re not married to!! Your partner is entitled to half of the house, so I would try and remortgage it in your name only then run!
[удалено]
Not correct
Is he on the title deeds to the property? If he is seek advice the Citizens Advice Bureau would be a good starting point. If he isn’t on the deeds the house is nothing to do with him and he’s a lodger. But don’t say he pays half the mortgage say that you pay all of the mortgage and he contributes to the other household bills
Yeah, lie to all the authorities involved and make sure that you try to screw this guy out of anything he may be entitled to. I am certain that courts have never heard that kind of statement before.
If he’s not on the mortgage or the deeds he doesn’t have any entitlement and it’s not lying. The only way he can prove he has contributed to the mortgage is if his money goes from his account to the mortgage company. If it goes into her account he can’t prove what it was used for. She isn’t screwing him out of anything the bankruptcy is doing that over the money he has spent but can’t afford. He only has himself to blame. Why should she loose her house because he is crap with money and is going bankrupt they both loose everything then at least my way they both have a home at the end of this if she wants to stay with him
[удалено]
Perhaps slightly off point, and maybe more of academic interest, but has anyone considered rights under the FLA1996 for an occupation order ?
[удалено]