My name is not on the mortgage and I pay him £700 per month

[Star54]

I have been with my partner for 30 plus years, we have grown up children and I work full time in a high pressured role. I have always worked and paid towards the house and the bills. We never married although we got engaged. He is now retired and has been for circa 10 years, I give him £700 per month and pay a significant part of the food bill, I also pay when we go out for meals etc. I have left him before twice but returned in part because he refused to give me any money from the house to start anew. My name is not on the house deeds and there is no mortgage, if I raise it the issue always causes a row and he says that he is saving the family as I could walk off and take money from him. I am at the end of my tether and now fel I should leave. Am I being unreasonable given that he had a property in his own right when we first met (I was 21 and am now in my 50s). I am strong him my job but not assertive in my relationship as I have felt bad for leaving him before.

I think you would benefit from some legal advice .After so long I would hope you would be entitled to some share of the property .As unfair as it may seem if you are not married it is not straightforward sadly .

Ok, if common law wife isn't legally recognised, but motherhood still is. It's a technicality.he has entered into an in written contract with her by excepting money every month for thirty years. Judges have discretion.she is not a lodger .

Sorry meant unwritten!

@Spodocomod0

Ok, if common law wife isn't legally recognised, but motherhood still is. It's a technicality.he has entered into an in written contract with her by excepting money every month for thirty years. Judges have discretion.she is not a lodger .

No he hasn’t.

@Spodocomod0

Ok, if common law wife isn't legally recognised, but motherhood still is. It's a technicality.he has entered into an in written contract with her by excepting money every month for thirty years. Judges have discretion.she is not a lodger .

I hope you're not a solicitor.

@Spodocomod0

Ok, if common law wife isn't legally recognised, but motherhood still is. It's a technicality.he has entered into an in written contract with her by excepting money every month for thirty years. Judges have discretion.she is not a lodger .

What do you mean he has entered a written contract with her? He hasn't (ie marriage) and thats the issue.

Motherhood isn't a status that means you automatically get a chance of assets. Surely you know that? Why would yiu think it is?

Judges can't just make things up as they go along.

Besides which, that's a lengthy and costly process. Which isn't guaranteed to win. People say 'go to court' like you cab rock up there tomorrow and get it sorted.

Obviously, rules send laws are different in different countries. But unless op drip feeds she lives in a country where having a child means you get a chuck of assets (do any?) it's all irrelevant.

@Momijin

Unfortunately this stupid country's rules doesn't have anything about common law spouse. So, speak to a solicitor but I suspect you've just been paying rent all these years. Stop paying tent and look to buy your own property

Because marriage and its benefits should be an active choice.

Nothing stupid about not having common law rules. If the shit hits the fan it's easier to remove the other person from your life. If we had this it would have been a lot harder to remove my violent ex from my property. He would have also had access to my property, savings etc. Things that he couldn't be bothered with.

As for the Will, doesn't matter what it says today and if he's included the op. He could quite easily change it tomorrow, same with he could easily remove her name from his pension and vice versa. You also don't have to put your spouse on your pension, mine has always been named to my eldest (SN), adult dc have named each other.

We do have common law rules in this country.

We just don’t have legal recognition of common law wife as a status.

Edit. In England Wales and Northern Ireland.
Not sure on Scotland but believe it is similar.

@Inspectorslack

We do have common law rules in this country.

We just don’t have legal recognition of common law wife as a status.

What are those common law rules? I’ve never heard of them.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

Common law is the law as decided in cases and recorded in judgements.

The question isn't do we have common law of course we do. The question is, is common law wife a thing.

I looked it up years ago in Scotland, the answer was year circa 1906 a Judge ruled a woman was wife after 9 mths because of the element of pretence to be man / wife. Circa 1969 a Judge ruled a woman wasn't a wife because they didn't pretend to be married in any way they were co-habitees. I do believe some law change this century means co-habitees have some rights but I don't know about England.

She really needs legal advice.

I was responding specifically to this comment /

Today 11:20 canigooutyet

Nothing stupid about not having common law rules.

Which is legally incorrect.

@Inspectorslack

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

Common law is the law as decided in cases and recorded in judgements.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

Spodocomodo0 That’s incorrect. Op is in England. There is no common law marriage. Judges don’t have discretion to take ‘motherhood’ into account.
The Op needs to take specialist legal advice. As several posters have stated she might have a case to try and claim a beneficial interest. This isn’t straightforward. Advice won’t be cheap - specialist solicitor and probably barrister, private paying, will want monies on account. Whether op may have a case depends on evidence. What documents she has, what she can prove was agreed, what payments she can prove she’s made and for what eg home improvements. No one on here can say yes or no it’s very complex.
Poster sandgrown is currently going through this. I won’t be crass and ask how much paid in legal costs but I suspect it’s a lot.
This gives an idea of what’s involved if Op goes down that route.
www.3pb.co.uk/content/uploads/TOLATA-A-brief-guide-to-issuing-proceedings-by-Luke-Nelson.pdf

@Inspectorslack

I was responding specifically to this comment /

Today 11:20 canigooutyet

Nothing stupid about not having common law rules.

Which is legally incorrect.

As I said. I was responding specifically to the above Comment.

It's not relevant though.

England and Wales has a common law legal system, yes. That means that the law develops through jurisprudence as judges interpret the law on the basis of what has been decided before in relation to a specific point of law. Sometimes a higher court can disagree with a previous decision made by a lower court and the law effectively changes. Sometimes the issue has never come up before and the judges are breaking new ground. But they are interpreting statute, not simply making it up as they go along.

There is no law in this country that gives unmarried partners rights to their partner's property as though they were married when they are not. The phrase "common law wife" (curiously we hear this a lot more than "common law husband"), or "common law marriage" is quite simply meaningless. There is no such thing. If you are not married, in the eyes of the law you are two single people who happen to live together.

The statement I quoted did not refer to common law wife. It said specifically common law rules.

Yes. The point is, it wasn't relevant to the problem being discussed here.

www.natcen.ac.uk/blog/common-law-marriage-a-peculiarly-persistent-myth
I dug this out for a similar thread recently. I’ll admit I was surprised that stats for believing ‘common law marriage’ exists were so high - 46% of adults incorrectly believe it exists. Interestingly stats have remained unchanged since previous survey in 2005. You’d think with internet etc people would be more clued up.

I agree with PP that the £700 figure is irrelevant without knowing where and how OP lives. Round here it would get you a two bed house to rent, round other parts it would get you a small room in a house share.

The issue is two fold. OP (respectfully) being stupid enough to accept this situation for 30 years and her "partner" refusing to put her on the deeds and get married.

I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to keep a house you owned yourself prior to a relationship (I appreciate the DP here bought it during the relationship with OP though), but in that case I would not accept any payment toward household expenses precisely because I'd be worried they could then lay claim to the equity in a split.

Why oh why you didn't insist on purchasing in joint names at the time I have no idea. I could understand more if you still lived in the house he owned before you got together but not one you moved into after children and years together.

I'd see a solicitor and even if I weren't entitled to any equity, I'd cut my losses and leave anyway. You'll be £700 a month better off and this isn't a partnership anyway, he's fleecing you whilst giving you no assurance.

[quote alwaysontheloo]@RandomLondoner can you read the panic in the OP?

Can you imagine that's how your 'soon-to-be-ex-partner' might feel? You know the one that gave birth to your children and no doubt raised them?

Because I mean only a cold, hard-hearted mercenary cunt would have taken that money all those years, whilst doing his little calculations, and would now turf the mother of his children out onto the streets with nothing after a lifetime together.
And you're not like that are you?[/quote]
@alwaysontheloo don't forget while also managing to remember that his partner lost 1.5 months pay by dropping to half pay for 3 months.

I was only on maternity leave last year, I can guarantee that my DH has no idea what I got paid, how long for, when I dropped to SMP or what part was unpaid. Never mind remembering this many many years later to hold against me.

*Can you imagine that's how your 'soon-to-be-ex-partner' might feel? You know the one that gave birth to your children and no doubt raised them?

Because I mean only a cold, hard-hearted mercenary cunt would have taken that money all those years, whilst doing his little calculations, and would now turf the mother of his children out onto the streets with nothing after a lifetime together.
And you're not like that are you?*

Read tft. Randomlondoner updated: the 25/75 split of household expenses enabled his ex to build up significant savings and pension. She’s just bought a 600k house which will be paid off when she retires.

Hardly turfing her out with nothing.

If your £700pcm went towards upkeep, maintenance, remodelling, extensions, plumbers etc then yes I think you may have a reasonable argument that the value of the house has been maintained, in part, by your contributions.

Collate some evidence of transfers you have made to above contractors, or of any suppliers who completed work and were paid for by your partner immediately after you made the transfer to your partner. Ie your money clearly went to him, to be pay for the house work. I would then take that evidence and seek legal advice.