girlfriend wants half!
Discussion
Angrybiker said:
If she'd been living in the house for around 3 years then I think commonlaw wife would apply and she would be entitled (I think that's when commonlaw partner applies), but 3 months I think you're pretty safe telling her to eff off and you'll respond to her solicitor if she wants.
From the CAB siteCommon-law spouses
Although the terms common-law wife or husband are frequently used to describe a couple who live together, these relationships do not have legal recognition.
James_B said:
Yipper said:
All she has to say is you verbally gave an agreement to share, and she thought her cash was going toward the mortgage, or she gave you cash-in-hand for the mortgage, and with a good brief and some tears she stands a good chance of getting a chunk of your house.
Why do you post this rubbish? You must be aware that you're just making it up as you go along, and that your bad advice could cause genuine harm, yet you keep doing it.Are you just a wind-up merchant? Do you get a kick out of scaring people by making up lies?
ks postings.98elise said:
What is she expecting to get half of? If the house is mortgaged and you put up the deposit then what does she actually want?
If you've only owned it since may then there won't even be any capital gain
That's exactly what I thought. What does she was half of .. the mortgage? You don't own it you can't give half of what you don't own to her.If you've only owned it since may then there won't even be any capital gain
garyhun said:
James_B said:
Yipper said:
All she has to say is you verbally gave an agreement to share, and she thought her cash was going toward the mortgage, or she gave you cash-in-hand for the mortgage, and with a good brief and some tears she stands a good chance of getting a chunk of your house.
Why do you post this rubbish? You must be aware that you're just making it up as you go along, and that your bad advice could cause genuine harm, yet you keep doing it.Are you just a wind-up merchant? Do you get a kick out of scaring people by making up lies?
ks postings.tecplumbing said:
bit of back ground:-
me and the now ex have been together 7 years, lived with at hers for 5 years before i brought a house in may and then she moved in. was all my deposit, mortgage is in my name, shes just been paying the electric and virgin bill.
3 months later and she tells me shes leaving, trying to be civil but shes turned nasty and telling me shes entitled to half.
where do i stand?
She has no legal right to the property by virtue of being your girlfriend and living in it with you.me and the now ex have been together 7 years, lived with at hers for 5 years before i brought a house in may and then she moved in. was all my deposit, mortgage is in my name, shes just been paying the electric and virgin bill.
3 months later and she tells me shes leaving, trying to be civil but shes turned nasty and telling me shes entitled to half.
where do i stand?
There is no such thing as a common law partner, regardless of the length of the relationship.
To get money from you she has to sue you, and there is no marriage contract to sue against.
If you were engaged however, she would have the same rights on the property as if you were married - not many people know this.
Given the time frame involved since you bought the property the threat is ludicrous in any event.
I am concerned that she was paying the insurance however. Content insurance is one thing, but there is an argument that if she was paying the building insurance then she must of had some form of insurable interest in the property.
If she suggests that you had an agreement between the two of you whereby you paid the deposit and the mortgage because your earnings allowed for this but hers wouldn't (on a joint basis) and you both otherwise contributed equally to what was always a joint property (and this is the only argument she realistically has) then her paying building insurance would very strongly back this up.
I can't really offer any further assistance without more facts. I am also assuming that the two of you were previously renting and contributing equally to those expenses (or at least pro rata based upon your earnings).
JulianPH said:
.
If you were engaged however, she would have the same rights on the property as if you were married - not many people know this.
How does that work there is no contract, I assume the proposal was verbal. If you and your girlfriend test drive a car its not yours until you sign the paperworkIf you were engaged however, she would have the same rights on the property as if you were married - not many people know this.
I guess she could say she thought that there was an agreement to share and make a claim for an interest in the property under what's called an 'implied trust'. But it'd be very thin ice.
An engagement is just a commitment to marry with a metal washer from Elizabeth Duke, not a legally binding contract.
An engagement is just a commitment to marry with a metal washer from Elizabeth Duke, not a legally binding contract.
Cotty said:
JulianPH said:
.
If you were engaged however, she would have the same rights on the property as if you were married - not many people know this.
How does that work there is no contract, I assume the proposal was verbal. If you and your girlfriend test drive a car its not yours until you sign the paperworkIf you were engaged however, she would have the same rights on the property as if you were married - not many people know this.
Therefore the other party can fully expect marriage as a result and if this is withdrawn can sue for property on the same basis as if the marriage had actually taken place.
If it is she who calls off the proposal you are in a very grey area. She would need to prove unreasonable behaviour (and the burden of proof is on her).
A proposal is not a test drive!
Cobnapint said:
I guess she could say she thought that there was an agreement to share and make a claim for an interest in the property under what's called an 'implied trust'. But it'd be very thin ice.
An engagement is just a commitment to marry with a metal washer from Elizabeth Duke, not a legally binding contract.
You responded whilst I was taking a phone call in the middle of my response!An engagement is just a commitment to marry with a metal washer from Elizabeth Duke, not a legally binding contract.
"Commitment" is the key word here.
You have made an offer (of marriage), she has accepted your offer, in doing so both parties show full intent and that metal washer is the consideration.
You now have a legally binding contract between the two of you for marriage, hence her having some of the rights a married woman would now automatically receive.
JulianPH said:
Cobnapint said:
I guess she could say she thought that there was an agreement to share and make a claim for an interest in the property under what's called an 'implied trust'. But it'd be very thin ice.
An engagement is just a commitment to marry with a metal washer from Elizabeth Duke, not a legally binding contract.
You responded whilst I was taking a phone call in the middle of my response!An engagement is just a commitment to marry with a metal washer from Elizabeth Duke, not a legally binding contract.
"Commitment" is the key word here.
You have made an offer (of marriage), she has accepted your offer, in doing so both parties show full intent and that metal washer is the consideration.
You now have a legally binding contract between the two of you for marriage, hence her having some of the rights a married woman would now automatically receive.
Cobnapint said:
Perhaps you should have gone on to section 2 of the act...Link here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/33
Summary below:
2 Property of engaged couples.
(1)Where an agreement to marry is terminated, any rule of law relating to the rights of husbands and wives in relation to property in which either or both has or have a beneficial interest, including any such rule as explained by section 37 of the M1Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970, shall apply, in relation to any property in which either or both of the parties to the agreement had a beneficial interest while the agreement was in force, as it applies in relation to property in which a husband or wife has a beneficial interest.
(2)Where an agreement to marry is terminated, section 17 of the M2Married Women’s Property Act 1882 and section 7 of the M3Matrimonial Causes (Property and Maintenance) Act 1958 (which sections confer power on a judge of the High Court or [F1the family court] to settle disputes between husband and wife about property) shall apply, as if the parties were married, to any dispute between, or claim by, one of them in relation to property in which either or both had a beneficial interest while the agreement was in force; but an application made by virtue of this section to the judge under the said section 17, as originally enacted or as extended by the said section 7, shall be made within three years of the termination of the agreement.
Still not buying it. How far do you go back with this?
I've been going out with him for 6 months and I expected to get engaged, and then married so give me half?
He took me out for a meal on the first date, looked me in the eyes and said I was marriage material - verbal contract! Half please!
Ridiculous. Not going to happen.
I've been going out with him for 6 months and I expected to get engaged, and then married so give me half?
He took me out for a meal on the first date, looked me in the eyes and said I was marriage material - verbal contract! Half please!
Ridiculous. Not going to happen.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff