Split up with odd house situation
Discussion
A couple with which I am very friendly are sadly in the process of splitting.
They are unmarried but have two lovely kids. They have lived together for about 7 years now.
The house is owned by the female partner and the mortgage is in her name. However, over the course of the last few years the male partner has poured in a large amount of money to renovate, extend and improve the property.
He also pays all the bills on a monthly basis - she just pays the mortgage.
The split was initiated by the female partner - now he is living at his parents and has begun to pay child maintenance. At present he is still paying the bills.
He feels as though he is entitled to some of that money back that he poured into the house. Legally, would it be possble for him to place some kind of a charge on the property forcing sale of said so that he can be paid out?
(I don’t wish to discuss the moral angle on this it’s too complicated given that he would effectively be forcing the sale of his kids family home and also I want to keep it factual so that I don’t cause offense if I show the thread to him if we are lucky enough to get a little learned advice.)
Thanks in advance,
They are unmarried but have two lovely kids. They have lived together for about 7 years now.
The house is owned by the female partner and the mortgage is in her name. However, over the course of the last few years the male partner has poured in a large amount of money to renovate, extend and improve the property.
He also pays all the bills on a monthly basis - she just pays the mortgage.
The split was initiated by the female partner - now he is living at his parents and has begun to pay child maintenance. At present he is still paying the bills.
He feels as though he is entitled to some of that money back that he poured into the house. Legally, would it be possble for him to place some kind of a charge on the property forcing sale of said so that he can be paid out?
(I don’t wish to discuss the moral angle on this it’s too complicated given that he would effectively be forcing the sale of his kids family home and also I want to keep it factual so that I don’t cause offense if I show the thread to him if we are lucky enough to get a little learned advice.)
Thanks in advance,
tty situation to be in.He should stop paying the bills, it's not his house. Just pay child maintenance. As for the money he's put in, he helped do up a house he was living in with the permission of the owner, no different to someone who is renting deciding to improve the house he is renting having agreed it with his landlord.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
As for the money he's put in, he helped do up a house he was living in with the permission of the owner, no different to someone who is renting deciding to improve the house he is renting having agreed it with his landlord.
Nonsense.He has a beneficial interest in the property. Feel free to google the term.
OP - You'll get all sorts of "facts" and "advice" on here.
Get your friend to speak to a lawyer. A proper one.
Sounds sensible - was rather hoping it would be black and white but I’m sensing shades of grey which normally means expensive in my experience!
One thing that I do find a tricky aspect is where he’s specified the finest quality everything which cost four times what it needed to - sure it’s very beautiful and no doubt makes a subtle contribution to the value but the fact remains that that was his choice - I don’t think she would have chosen to go that far if he hadn’t wanted to.
Really wanted to be able to be super objective for him as once they get the lawyers onto it you know what will happen - just horrible.
One thing that I do find a tricky aspect is where he’s specified the finest quality everything which cost four times what it needed to - sure it’s very beautiful and no doubt makes a subtle contribution to the value but the fact remains that that was his choice - I don’t think she would have chosen to go that far if he hadn’t wanted to.
Really wanted to be able to be super objective for him as once they get the lawyers onto it you know what will happen - just horrible.
Red 4 said:
Nonsense.
He has a beneficial interest in the property. Feel free to google the term.
OP - You'll get all sorts of "facts" and "advice" on here.
Get your friend to speak to a lawyer. A proper one.
This.He has a beneficial interest in the property. Feel free to google the term.
OP - You'll get all sorts of "facts" and "advice" on here.
Get your friend to speak to a lawyer. A proper one.
I had it done to me. The person claiming the beneficial interest can also register that claim at Land Registry by lodging a Caution (I think it was) on the Title.
If a deal cannot be agreed with the owner the matter would need to go to court. I was quoted £15,000 to defend the claim on my home and that was back in 2003.
If it is possible to infer from words or conduct a common intention that the two parties would each have an interest in the property, then a court can apportion the interests.
Contact
https://www.pitmans.com/people/matthew-heyworth/
Lawyers are expensive if their clients are silly. Less so if people are sensible.
Contact
https://www.pitmans.com/people/matthew-heyworth/
Lawyers are expensive if their clients are silly. Less so if people are sensible.
The leading Supreme Court decision on the principles -
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/53.html
A recent example of the principles in action -
http://landregistrationdivision.decisions.tribunal...
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/53.html
A recent example of the principles in action -
http://landregistrationdivision.decisions.tribunal...
In scotland in 2010 a partner paying some of the bills, but not the mortgage, didn't have a claim on the house. In the words of the Solicitor "they'd have paid bills anyway".
But if they had put money onto an improvement or the garden, that was still theirs. So the choice was give them money back or the turf...
But if they had put money onto an improvement or the garden, that was still theirs. So the choice was give them money back or the turf...
Breadvan72 said:
Each case depends on its own facts.
To add... what people should look for when reading cases like those BV posted above, are the principles and how they've been applied to the facts, rather than the facts in isolation. There are billions of potential factual variations- what the courts try to do is find principles that can apply across as many of them as possible.Breadvan72 said:
The leading Supreme Court decision on the principles -
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/53.html
A recent example of the principles in action -
http://landregistrationdivision.decisions.tribunal...
I know Malika very well, an interesting case.http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/53.html
A recent example of the principles in action -
http://landregistrationdivision.decisions.tribunal...
Thank you very much for taking the time to help. Appreciated very much - those links and that information are extremely helpful.
I now realise that the challenge for me as a friend is to get them to see reason outside of the courts, using what will likely happen as a guideline.
Wish me luck!
Best wishes
Julian
I now realise that the challenge for me as a friend is to get them to see reason outside of the courts, using what will likely happen as a guideline.
Wish me luck!
Best wishes
Julian
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff