Co habitation agreement

[anonymous-user]

I add that there is a distinction between legal ownership and equitable or beneficial ownership. In most cases, the two are fused. For example, I am the legal and also the beneficial owner of my car. If I declare that I hold the car on trust for my daughter, I am now the legal owner but she is the beneficial owner.

If two people who are not married together have legal ownership of a house, the law assumes that they share the beneficial ownership 50/50 unless they have agreed otherwise or the evidence indicates otherwise. If two people live together but only one of them has legal ownership of the house, the other person may, depending on the facts, have or come to have some share in the beneficial ownership of the house, for example as a result of making contributions to the household bills and tasks.

Property claims as between married couples who split up are dealt with differently, and an agreement as to shares may be overriden by the court. The court could choose to recognise a "pre-nup" (as the Americans call it), but would not be bound to. The Court will uphold an agreement between unmarried people unless there is a good reason (eg duress or undue influence) not to do so.

[Old Merc]

lbc said:

Why did she have to pay you anything?

Where is the legal requirement?

Is a piece of paper stating this worth anything in a court of law?

Simple I owned 60% of the property and she "bought me out".As it happens the document that was drawn up years before was so precise it was 60.7%.As I said my share of the deposit was 60.7% and hers 39.3%,we then shared all the bills equally.When we split the house had to be "sold" to her as she wanted to stay,our duel name mortgage had to be paid off and she had to get a mortgage in her sole name. She worked for a solicitors so everything was done correctly and legally.We got three valuations on the property and agreed on the average,I was laughing all the way to the bank as the value of the house had rocketed.


I think Breadvan72 explains it better than I.

Edited by Old Merc on Monday 25th August 09:40

[9mm]

Old Merc said:

lbc said:

Why did she have to pay you anything?

Where is the legal requirement?

Is a piece of paper stating this worth anything in a court of law?

Simple I owned 60% of the property and she "bought me out".As it happens the document that was drawn up years before was so precise it was 60.7%.As I said my share of the deposit was 60.7% and hers 39.3%,we then shared all the bills equally.When we split the house had to be "sold" to her as she wanted to stay,our duel name mortgage had to be paid off and she had to get a mortgage in her sole name. She worked for a solicitors so everything was done correctly and legally.We got three valuations on the property and agreed on the average,I was laughing all the way to the bank as the value of the house had rocketed.


I think Breadvan72 explains it better than I.

Edited by Old Merc on Monday 25th August 09:40

I can see these agreements becoming more and more common in the future, particularly with second or third timers. It's simple for most first timers, each brings 50% to the party. That's less likely as you get older.

[HotJambalaya]

I always see these thoughts on what happens if people have been contributing jointly/partially to the mortgage. I'm curious as to what happens if one partner already owns the house outright when the other moves in and just pays bills but not rent. Any claim?

[anonymous-user]

Potentially yes: see my posts above on this page. All depends on the precise facts, and it is hard to generalise reliably about this.

[gaz1234]

Might buy the 35 quid jobbie. Stuff the legal expensive route

[Old Merc]

HotJambalaya said:

I always see these thoughts on what happens if people have been contributing jointly/partially to the mortgage. I'm curious as to what happens if one partner already owns the house outright when the other moves in and just pays bills but not rent. Any claim?

You have hit a personal nerve.
My sister bought a house with her own money and lived alone in it for some time.She later got married,her husband did not bring any capital or take over the mortgage,just paid some of the bills,he was a bit of a waster.
Years later my sister died in tragic circumstances without making a will.As they were married everything went to her husband,he sold the house and was off with my sisters money.I always had an idea that she wanted the house to go to my grandchildren.
I sought legal advice but was told as there was no will or any legal document regarding the house there was nothing I could do,everything passes to the husband (or wife).

[anonymous-user]

I am sorry for the loss of your sister, but the house was you sister's house, and she had her marriage. She may perhaps have wanted the house to go to her husband, and for that reason didn't make a Will. It's not worth missing what you (or your grandchildren) never had.

[Rude-boy]

gaz1234 said:

Might buy the 35 quid jobbie. Stuff the legal expensive route

Entirely your prerogative.

The one thing that does interest me is that you are considering the best way to protect your investment of many thousands of pounds, yet only wish to take the advice of some nut jobs like us lot on here and spend less than £50.

To put that into perspective my buildings and contents insurance costs me more than that per month, and that's not for some gin palace with diamond encrusted bath taps but a £325k 4 bedder in the middle of town with about £85k of contents!

[anonymous-user]

Well, this is PH, where people will spend nutso amounts on a car (that will be worth approximately 10p in a few years), and nutso amounts on toys for the car, but will bh and moan because they wanted to park for free and save themselves two quid. It is perfectly consistent with this to want to make watertight arrangements as to your single biggest asset without actually spending any or much money. See also: people buying houses without full surveys, etc.

I wonder how someone would get on trying to sue a website that sells 35 quid templates if things go Pete Tong. Not all that well, would be my hunch.

[gaz1234]

I see your point.

[9mm]

Breadvan72 said:

Well, this is PH, where people will spend nutso amounts on a car (that will be worth approximately 10p in a few years), and nutso amounts on toys for the car, but will bh and moan because they wanted to park for free and save themselves two quid. It is perfectly consistent with this to want to make watertight arrangements as to your single biggest asset without actually spending any or much money. See also: people buying houses without full surveys, etc.

I wonder how someone would get on trying to sue a website that sells 35 quid templates if things go Pete Tong. Not all that well, would be my hunch.

Harsh but fair.

[JustinP1]

gaz1234 said:

I see your point.

I don't think a solicitor would be that expensive to draw up a deed of trust.

Weigh up the pros and cons. You are going to erode a bit of goodwill with your missus (who is not yet officially your missus) by getting her to sign something anyway. So, if you are going to do it, you may as well do it with something that will actually cover you when the time comes.

It is one of those things, like going into business with a friend or family member for example that can work fine. As long as:

a) All parties totally agree what they are putting in

b) All parties agree how the assets are split should a party want to go, or a relationship break down, and

c) That all parties actually remember what they agreed all those months/years ago, with the knowledge that the goalposts may have changed and bias may have crept in.

The only way to do that is to confirm everything in writing. At least that way the house, business or asset does not end up being the end of the relationship, or something which creates years of animosity.

[gaz1234]

JustinP1 said:

I don't think a solicitor would be that expensive to draw up a deed of trust.

Weigh up the pros and cons. You are going to erode a bit of goodwill with your missus (who is not yet officially your missus) by getting her to sign something anyway. So, if you are going to do it, you may as well do it with something that will actually cover you when the time comes.

It is one of those things, like going into business with a friend or family member for example that can work fine. As long as:

a) All parties totally agree what they are putting in

b) All parties agree how the assets are split should a party want to go, or a relationship break down, and

c) That all parties actually remember what they agreed all those months/years ago, with the knowledge that the goalposts may have changed and bias may have crept in.

The only way to do that is to confirm everything in writing. At least that way the house, business or asset does not end up being the end of the relationship, or something which creates years of animosity.

It's a co hab. 500+ vat and her advice costs.
She is aware.

[9mm]

JustinP1 said:

gaz1234 said:

I see your point.

I don't think a solicitor would be that expensive to draw up a deed of trust.

Weigh up the pros and cons. You are going to erode a bit of goodwill with your missus (who is not yet officially your missus) by getting her to sign something anyway. So, if you are going to do it, you may as well do it with something that will actually cover you when the time comes.

It is one of those things, like going into business with a friend or family member for example that can work fine. As long as:

a) All parties totally agree what they are putting in

b) All parties agree how the assets are split should a party want to go, or a relationship break down, and

c) That all parties actually remember what they agreed all those months/years ago, with the knowledge that the goalposts may have changed and bias may have crept in.

The only way to do that is to confirm everything in writing. At least that way the house, business or asset does not end up being the end of the relationship, or something which creates years of animosity.

c) is so important. It's amazing how perspectives and interpretations change over time, just like relationships. And although no-one likes to think it will happen to them, when a relationship turns really sour, people will swear black is white.

[anonymous-user]

That fee, of course, is partly an insurance premium.

[JustinP1]

gaz1234 said:

It's a co hab. 500+ vat and her advice costs.
She is aware.

Outside of London, that would seem steep, that should be three hours fees of a very decent solicitor or four for a cheaper one - not sure it would take that long for someone efficient.


It's a difficult one. In my situation, my other half only paid a contribution towards food. I paid all the bills. But then we got married, so it's a bit of a moot point!

[anonymous-user]

Jsstin, I think that you are being optimistic about charging rates even outside London. 500 quid for (I assume) a bit of advice (for the OP) plus a draft agreement sounds fair to me.

Look at this way: 500 quid would get you a sheddy shed with an MoT, but, on the other hand, 500 quid would only get you a sheddy shed with an MoT.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 26th August 14:54

[JustinP1]

9mm said:

JustinP1 said:

gaz1234 said:

I see your point.

I don't think a solicitor would be that expensive to draw up a deed of trust.

Weigh up the pros and cons. You are going to erode a bit of goodwill with your missus (who is not yet officially your missus) by getting her to sign something anyway. So, if you are going to do it, you may as well do it with something that will actually cover you when the time comes.

It is one of those things, like going into business with a friend or family member for example that can work fine. As long as:

a) All parties totally agree what they are putting in

b) All parties agree how the assets are split should a party want to go, or a relationship break down, and

c) That all parties actually remember what they agreed all those months/years ago, with the knowledge that the goalposts may have changed and bias may have crept in.

The only way to do that is to confirm everything in writing. At least that way the house, business or asset does not end up being the end of the relationship, or something which creates years of animosity.

c) is so important. It's amazing how perspectives and interpretations change over time, just like relationships. And although no-one likes to think it will happen to them, when a relationship turns really sour, people will swear black is white.

Exactly.

Plus, things will happen that you just won't naturally think of. When you start a business, everyone is positive and friendly.

But, what happens, if a partner's wife wants to move abroad, and he wants to leave? So, he wants his shares out to buy a house. How to you value the shares, and is he even allowed? Where do the shares go, who can they be sold to?

That may happen when the company is £100k in debt, and may also happen if the company ends up being ten times as valuable as anyone thought. Of course, each party will have a very different view over what is 'fair'.

Unless of course, what is 'fair' has been agreed beforehand.

Edited by JustinP1 on Tuesday 26th August 14:53

[JustinP1]

Breadvan72 said:

Jsstin, I think that you are being optimistic about charging rates even outside London. 500 quid for (I assume) a bit of advice (for the OP) plus a draft agreement sounds fair to me.

Look at this way: 500 quid would get you a shed with an MoT, but, on the other hand, 500 quid would only get you a shed with an MoT.

Hmm... I think it depends on the level of service here.

If the solicitor is just going to spend five minute checking what's needed before letting a legal exec populate a template then it's steep.

However, if something more in-depth is being done, or it's being drawn up from scratch I can see where the cot comes from.

Around Shropshire way, a local family solicitor is £120 an hour (if that...!), an experienced litigator £180, and a specialist in a small field with a lot of national experience was £200.