Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Legal matters

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Original poster

legal matter regarding house and partner!

27 replies

goddess72 · 25/05/2011 15:05

ok, in a bit of a mess, I bought a house which I now live in, its all in my name, however my partner lent me £10 grand to buy the house. The idea being he sells his house then would live here and the house would then be put in both our names. There is no mortgage involved.

However the relationship is not going too well, and I'm wondering what rights he may have if any to the property, will the £10 grand be seen as a personal loan? He pays nothing finacially towards this house, be grateful for any advice. Thanks

OP posts:
OldLadyKnowsNothing · 25/05/2011 15:08

Does he live with you?

Original poster
goddess72 · 25/05/2011 15:22

sorry yes he kind of moved in when I did and not been home since!

OP posts:
Collaborate · 25/05/2011 15:30

When he sells his house will he give you some of the money, or did the agreement for him to have a share involve him just paying the £10k? Assuming the latter, he has a 50% equitable interest in the property.

Original poster
goddess72 · 25/05/2011 16:11

well yes if he sold that would be the case, however I am unsure if I want him to sell as the relationship is not going too well! So I kind of want to know were I stand at the moment?

OP posts:
Original poster
goddess72 · 25/05/2011 16:14

The rest of the house by the way has all been paid by me its worth around £230, 000! So how can he have rights to 50% at the moment....confused and worried!!

OP posts:
cestlavielife · 25/05/2011 16:18

but if the house is currently only in her name then he can only claim back the 10K?

Original poster
goddess72 · 25/05/2011 16:19

Surely yes cestlavielife!!!

OP posts:
Spero · 25/05/2011 16:24

Take it in stages.

Who has the legal right to the house? It is in your name?
therefore, the presumption is that equity follows the law i.e. you own all the equitable interest as well. That means you get all the money on a sale.

BUT this presumption can be rebutted if there is evidence of another agreement between you about how the equitable interest is to be shared out.

did you put anything in writing? If you didn't put it in writing, what was your understanding of the agreement between you? What do you think his understanding was?

If he can argue it would be unfair to deprive him of a share, he will get a share. He is certainly entitlted to his £10K back unless you have some copper bottomed evidence it was a gift.

What is a bit worrying is to what extent he could use that £10K to claim a percentage interest in the value of the house, so if it has gone up a lot in value since he put the £10K in he could get more than £10K out.

You need to try and resolve this amicably without going to the courts as that will swollow up the £10K and more.

Original poster
goddess72 · 25/05/2011 16:51

Thanks Spero, that makes more sense, yes its all in my name, we were going get something legal drawn up once he sold to say what %'s were owned by who, and a will to protect the children! I know he would be entitled to the £10 grand no matter what happened I was just worried he would be entitled to more, but it seems more complicate than I thought, as usual!

OP posts:
Collaborate · 25/05/2011 17:41

Agree with Spero. It might well be more than £10k you'd have to give him. The court would make a finding about what your agreement was, and then give effect to that. You need to take proper advice. Ask Resolution for details of a cohabitation specialist in your area.

Original poster
goddess72 · 25/05/2011 18:04

That is rather scary, wonder if he realises that!!!!

OP posts:
Spero · 25/05/2011 19:11

If you can sort it out between yourselves, that is great. If talking directly would be tricky, I really strongly advise you try some kind of mediation before any legal action.

Once people get a figure in their heads it is very hard to get them to let go - so if someone suggests he might have an argument for 50%, that is what he might latch on to.

I hope you can sort it out. In an ideal world we would never buy property with a partner without having a completely clear cut written agreement in place, but I appreciate this isn't an ideal world...

Original poster
goddess72 · 25/05/2011 19:31

Lesson learnt Spero! I wonder whether the fact I have 2 young children though would be taken into account, hopefully it won't get that far though! Thanks again

OP posts:
Spero · 25/05/2011 19:39

Your children probably won't have much impact, unless he was trying to force a sale. If you are not married, the argument will be resolved according to principles of trust law which do not have children as their focus.

But fingers firmly crossed it won't come to that.

Original poster
goddess72 · 25/05/2011 20:58

u know though as crazy as it sounds, it might be better to let him sell his house move in get this contract drawn up with who owns what %. Pay my exs charge on the house (not sure if mentioned that) split savings, and then ending it and get rid of both men. Crazy but maybe worth considering...... can't believe thinking this way!

OP posts:
Spero · 25/05/2011 21:21

Noooo! don't move him in if the relationship is really rocky! once he is in he might start getting more of an emotional attachment to the property as well as being in the position of having no where else to go.

If things are rocky, I would concentrate on trying to sort out your relationship before diving into worries about who owns what. How long have you been feeling like this? Does he feel the same? Have you tried talking about it? why not try some sessions at Relate before you move in?

Collaborate · 25/05/2011 22:34

Spero - he's already moved in.

The original purpose of the trust would be a relevant factor if the court is considering an order for sale.

Spero · 25/05/2011 22:40

Sorry missed that bit. Therefore even more urgent that you talk to him I think, if you are feeling like this.

It is going to be difficult to agree on the purpose of this trust as there is nothing in writing.

Collaborate · 25/05/2011 23:40

Isn't the purpose to provide a home for the family, ie the children?

Spero · 26/05/2011 10:02

They aren't his children. I wouldn't feel that comfortable arguing that he agreed to put in his 10K to provide a family home. This is why agreements should always be in writing.

Of course the fact that there are young children in the house will be a factor but if this goes to court it won't be Children Act or Matrionial Causes Act proceedings and thus interests of children are not paramount or the primary concern of the court.

Collaborate · 26/05/2011 11:15

A senior barrister told me recently he reckoned that it is often unnecessary to issue seperate Children Act proceedings as TOLATA tells the court they should take into accoun the purpose of the trust - this wouldn't depend upon the children being the natural children of both parties. Haven't tested it out though, but that comes from his experiences arguing before the courts.

Spero · 26/05/2011 12:25

Hmmm. Well as a senior barrister myself I wouldn't be sanguine about these kinds of cases at all. Taking into account the purposes of the trust is a long way from the children's welfare being the overriding consideration. They are very different Acts which operate under very different principles. Its easy for Family Lawyers to lose sight of this sometimes.

That is why I wish there was alot more publicity and encouragment given to cohabitants about the need for written agreements about all and any property transactions. I still have clients who think that 'common law wife' is a legally recognised status that gives them rights.

Collaborate · 26/05/2011 13:20

I agree. I would always issue both applications side by side, but although it isn't the paramount consideration in TOLATA cases, there is no requirement that the settlor has to be a natural parent. Also, the paramountcy principle doesn't apply to Schedule 1 cases, although being "a constant influence on the discretionary outcome" (lazy research here - from the footnote in the red book) elevates it to a special status that it doesn't quite acquire in TOLATA.

Blu · 26/05/2011 13:30

But they haven't bought a house together!
He has a house, he lent her £10k and she bought a house on her own in her name.

goddess - if it all works out, and you do stay together, make sure you own your house as 'tennants in common' with a covenenant showing the value of your share of the house. Don't buy as 'joint tennants' if you are not married and the bigger share of the house is yours!

Spero · 26/05/2011 18:15

Sorry but I can't see what relevance at all the Children Act has.

I thought he had moved in? To a house where he contributed £10K to asking price? and op has children of her own?

Its a trust case pure and simple. Children only relevant if he wants to try to force a sale to get his money back and even then they won't be that relevant.

Anyway op hope this has highlighted the legal pitfalls! It is obviously not straightforward as you are getting a variety of responses. So I really hope you can sort it out amicably.