Arguing over a share of assets

[NeverUseThisName]

A^^ couple are separating, and one is claiming a share of their home.

“The reason you didn’t work is because you didn’t want to, did you?” Ms Darlington asked Ms Ladwa.“You could have got a job in any number of things. The bottom line is you didn’t want to work.”

Should this make a difference? I don't think it should. If the non-earning partner did nothing but spend, then, perhaps, not wanting to work is relevant. But if they took on a SAH role, then they were working, albeit unpaid.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/housewife-seeks-share-of-girlfriend-s-1-3m-home-ljvkxxqj9

[Tobuyornot99]

This is why it's daft to leave yourself so financially vulnerable in a relationship. I wonder how much work at home there can possibly be to do without dc?

[NeverUseThisName]

I suppose it depends on whether the WOH partner ever did any of the housework. If the SAH partner did all the cooking, cleaning, shopping, maintenance etc, then their job would have been, effectively, Housekeeper.

[Tobuyornot99]

If you were a housekeeper you'd have an employment contract and rights at least. To not work outside home for over a decade and leave yourself completely financially vulnerable, and at the grace of someone else, is beserk.
She chose not to work, the gravy train has sailed without her, she has no legitimate claim as they weren't married.

[NeverUseThisName]

The difference, I suppose, between 'legal' and 'fair'.

[Jigglytuff]

A housekeeper would earn less than £30k a year in a house with one person in it (assuming you're not counting the actual housekeeper). I can't see why she chose not to work.

[prh47bridge]

If they were married or in a civil partnership it wouldn't make any difference. She would be entitled to a fair share of the assets regardless of whether or not she had worked while they were together.

As they were not married and the house was in joint names the assumption in law, absent any legal agreement to the contrary, is that they are each entitled to 50%. Ms Chapman is trying to argue that Ms Ladwa is not entitled to that much. She appears to feel that she has been used.

[prh47bridge]

Pressed send too early...

If Ms Chapman owned the house outright, the fact that Ms Ladwa did not contribute financially would make it difficult for her to make any claim on the property. As it is jointly owned she clearly does have a claim. I hesitate to predict the outcome based on this short summary but, if this was the entire case, I would have told Ms Chapman not to waste her money on legal action and accept that Ms Ladwa is entitled to 50%.

[ClashCityRocker]

The house is jointly owned, therefore she is entitled to half.

If she's not worked outside the home for sixteen years presumably the other party was in agreement with it at some point and was benefitting from it.

Who did what is a moot point. She legally owns half, whether she 'deserves' half or not.

[Exciting]

pfh, I agree. I am surprised she thinks there is much hope. They are an unmarried couple (so marriage law does not apply) and secondly the house is clearly in joint names presumably without any trust saying one has a much smaller share than the other.

Also the one who did not work had a £25k allowance from her mother for at least some of the time so if she does not work, just like any partner who might have £25k revenue from investments, if they do not need to work that is up to them. Also some of the non worker's equity from her previous place went into it.

It is going to be really hard to rebut that presumption that the asset they own in joint names is not really to be owned jointly. It is not as if they were married and with a child at home that needed a house to live in.

On the broader issue of whether married v unmarried live in lovers should have claims I support the current law - that if you do not marry then your rights should be different/less. If you want marriage and do not want to work then do not move in until you have the wedding ring.

[OutToGetYou]

The legal situation seems quite clear. They owned a previous house together and used funds from that plus other joint funds to buy the new house, it was put in one name as only Chapman could get the mortgage (there are ways to deal with this, I did it with my last partner), when the mortgage was paid off it was transferred to joint names.
Chapman is claiming Ladwa pressured her to make the transfer and so it should be overturned.
Both have been stupid. For a company director and a law graduate to behave like that is bonkers.
I agree the law should stay as it is, until we have enforceable pre nups marriage is a risk to anyone who already has some money.

[Exciting]

Yes, that all makes sense. Also whilst there is still a mortgage people tend not to transfer to joint names as you have to pay a load of stamp duty on the transfer so you often wait until the mortgage is repaid and then do the transfer. I had not realised there wa a period when it was not in joint names but even so moving it into joint names seems consistent with what they had always agreed.

She was hardly held against a wall with a gun and forced to move it to joint names.