To think that my contributions to our family home count for anything?

[Greenlife1]

I know that I have few rights as per current legislation but am I being unreasonable to think I have earned a segment of our next family home (I'm talking in terms of ethical principles not legality)

Living with partner of 15 years and our 4 children. He is buying a house outright which will be paid for by selling the house we have lived in for 10 years and is also owned by him. I have worked and contributed to running the household for 15 years and have, of course, sacrificed career progression to support my family and his career, not to mention, I have also grafted on the current house, helping to increase its value and spent small amounts of money on it when I have been able to.

Partner thinks I'm ludicrous to even have these thoughts as I've not put in any big amounts of money. I had hoped I might be able to aim for a small mortgage on our next home that I could pay off myself to give me some security and to just feel like I have a place in the world that I have earned but he wants to own it outright.

Marriage not on cards right now for various reasons.

The majority seem to think you are NOT being unreasonable

@sue20 is correct here. There is case law for claiming beneficial interest in a property after a long relationship (not “common law marriage” though). Proving it is mightily hard but if you can prove intention to share and have the communication to back it all up, there is a sliver of hope. However, the judge will need to infer proportion if none was ever discussed, which means you could end up with 10% or less (as is the case in some of the case law).

I don't understand that logic ether about bills and child care there living expenses irrelevant of who earns what .

You wouldn't borrow a car for a month put £400 of petrol in it then try and claim you own part of the car.

@sue20

Yes I know all this. I was in this situation 13 years ago and at the time accepted “common law doesn’t exist blah blah” we KNOW all the legal positions. I’m not making assumptions thank you!!! You don’t need to repeat all this detail.

Eh?! Calm down, you quite literally said:

There are now legal precedents which apply to common law marriage which you are in.

Which is absolutely false. OP cannot be in a common law marriage because they do not exist.

If you "KNOW" they don't exist enough to shout about it, saying she is in one is really odd and makes no sense.

This is ringing major alarmbells. He will basically own a house you have no rights over and have apparently made no financial contribution towards. There is nothing much stopping him from making your life intolerable so you have to leave or moving a girlfriend in! If he loves you, he will be happy for you to have your name in joint ownership of the house so that if he died you wouldn't be homeless or have to pay death duties on the house. If he says no, then I think you need to ask him about your relationship and him safeguarding his children. You may not be legally married but your finances and lives are entwined enough that you need to sort things out. If he's being emotionally abusive and gaslighting you saying he owes you nothing, or you've contributed nothing, you need to remind him you've been nanny, cook and housekeeper. You also sound like you've been contributing financially by buying things for the current house. If it gets messy, you might need to add up just how much including an hourly rate for cooking, cleaning and childcare.

If you can prove you’ve contributed to repairs you have rights over house actually. I’d talk too solicitor just to see.

Can you quote the precedent please? I don’t believe that you are right.

You aren't interested in being anyone's wife for financial reasons, but you want the financial benefits of being a wife/legal partner? Then what do you want?

I'm very confused by some of these posts. My friend had to give her ex half the equity made on her property for the time they lived together as a family (no children together). She fought in court and lost. Because they lived as a family and that was that. He paid for shopping ......

That is about basic contract law.

There is no need for a written contract just an clear intent to create a obligation and have an agreed payment.

The bar will be high as the Judges don't want to end up in a Judge Judy style Court where they have to rule on the economic value of a shag as payment for a romantic getaway or part share in a house.

If in England there’s a lot more to that story that paid for shopping. He would have had to prove with evidence he had accrued a beneficial interest eg perhaps he had paid for improvements or done diy renovations your friend didn’t mention. Or perhaps there was a Deed of Trust.
No one gets a share in another persons property simply by buying shopping - no one would live as flat mates or have a lodger if you could.

It won't be a case of "they lived as a family and that was that".

Maybe his name was on the deeds somewhere, maybe he had proof that he contributed to the value of the house (doing DIY, for example), or that he contributed regularly to the mortgage.

If all it took to stake a claim on someone's home was to pay for the shopping, nobody would have lodgers or flatmates!

@supadupapupascupa

I'm very confused by some of these posts. My friend had to give her ex half the equity made on her property for the time they lived together as a family (no children together). She fought in court and lost. Because they lived as a family and that was that. He paid for shopping ......

This can't have happened in UK law as you describe it, there's no precedent that would make that possible.

That is about basic contract law.

It's not basic contract law. It's based on the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. A notoriously tricky bit of law that many dispute resolution lawyers won't touch with a barge pole.

No your not being unreasonable in this situation but you are unreasonable for getting yourself into this mess by not being married.
Stop paying half immediately and save as much as possible. Sounds like your going to need it.

But why should she not pay her share of the shopping and bills?

Are you saying that as well as providing a house her partner now also has to pay to feed he and keep her warm?

But why should she not pay her share of the shopping and bills?

What payment did he make for the use of her womb and for her efforts in raising their children. I'd not be surprised if she did more than her share of general housework, too

Thought not.

Thanks for the reference to the act.

When i used basic i ment that it had zero to do with 'common law' marraige not that providing proof of interest in property was basic. More per Decidualcast 's point, which I believe was, that the basic stumbling block (a fundemental starting point for evidence) is that without a marraige/civil partnership contract, the presumption is of an altruistic relationship, and that there was never an intention to enter into a contract.

“Thought not” is infantile whatever post it’s appended to. Appending it to a post without a yes / no question in it just looks illiterate too.

She has no right to expect to be fed and clothed as well as housed without continuing to contribute to the costs.

That’s creepy. You don’t have the right to payment for the “use of your womb”.

he should of course contribute equally to childcare and house work. But she should contribute equally to bills (as already discussed neither party has housing costs as his parents gifted him the house). I don’t think you have any entitlement to someone else’s property that you didn’t contribute towards just because you share children.

When i used basic i ment that it had zero to do with 'common law' marraige not that providing proof of interest in property was basic. More per Decidualcast 's point, which I believe was, that the basic stumbling block (a fundemental starting point for evidence) is that without a marraige/civil partnership contract, the presumption is of an altruistic relationship, and that there was never an intention to enter into a contract.

Oh that makes more sense, sorry @SolasAnla !

This article summarises the legal position on property claims arising from cohabitation.

www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed68884

It also lists case authorities for those interested.

Based on the OP, sadly there is no evidence she will satisfy the legal tests (summarised in para 11) for establishing a beneficial interest in the home shared with her DP.

Yep I’m having my case looked at under ToLATA. 3 different lawyers were very happy to take it on (although explained the risks).

This is very useful. Thank you!

This is also a useful piece of analysis on beneficial ownership.

www.christophercant.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/beneficial_ownership.pdf

@chilliesandspices

No worries !

I worded it too loosely, and other readers may have also assumed that it could be easy to win in court.