Separation non married can he demand half of everything?

[Joanne2015]

Non married with 3 kids. My family paid £240k to the house, it’s now worth 290k over past 6 years. I was gifted £50k to pay deposit and I paid 15 of my own, he paid 10k. They then paid the mortgage company directly the remaining amount 3 years later. We are spreading and he says to sell the house and split it 50/50. I don’t want to do that as it means moving the kids out the house my family wanted for them. It’s a great and safe area, they have friends and school here. I am trying to find a way to buy him out but the max I can go to is 120k. He won’t accept that saying I’m forcing him to move back to England as he only earns 1380 a month. I’ve tried to say that to walk away with £120k after 6 years is more than most folk and if it means his kids get to stay in their family home then he’s being selfish.. he keeps saying he can’t see me stay here and be with another man.(not even on the card btw) but it’s all about him and he is literally taking me to the cleaners for the sake of 20/30k. I will now need to take 100k mortgage on just to give him this figure for the next 33 years. I’m so upset and angry now as I can’t believe he is so entitled to the house my family provided. Emotions running high right now but will I at least be able to make sure I get the 65k deposit back before the house is split 50/50? Anyone can offer any reassurance?

The advocate gave a very clear idea of what the outcome would be should it go to court. I had to give background information eg deposits, which accounts the mortgage was paid from, pension/earnings info.

The problem is that when you see solicitors, they will give you the best possible case scenario. So you & your ex are poles apart.

Your ex technically owns 50% of the house, so that's why is lawyer is telling him that (it's his best case scenario).

However if it went to court, the most likely is that respective deposits would be returned & the the remaining proceeds divided in two.

The family lawyers make their money finding the compromise between the two points.

@ProseccoThyme

The advocate gave a very clear idea of what the outcome would be should it go to court. I had to give background information eg deposits, which accounts the mortgage was paid from, pension/earnings info.

The problem is that when you see solicitors, they will give you the best possible case scenario. So you & your ex are poles apart.

Your ex technically owns 50% of the house, so that's why is lawyer is telling him that (it's his best case scenario).

However if it went to court, the most likely is that respective deposits would be returned & the the remaining proceeds divided in two.

The family lawyers make their money finding the compromise between the two points.

So sorry to ask so many questions, so is the advocate a solicitor? Will they explain the section 28?

Advocates are based in stables & are commissioned by your solicitor.

You cannot hire one yourself but you can access through your solicitor- some charge more (the more experienced/senior) but you can get a junior one for less

@godwingolly

Joint tenants in common on the house - mean it’s jointly owned and 50:50 - should have had a different legal arrangement drawn up. As you are unmarried, all pensions, single savings are yours and don’t need to be shared. I think it’s very clear cut

Again, so much incorrect advice on here. It's not clear cut, and a good lawyer would be able to tell you so.

@ProseccoThyme

Advocates are based in stables & are commissioned by your solicitor.

You cannot hire one yourself but you can access through your solicitor- some charge more (the more experienced/senior) but you can get a junior one for less

Ok thank you… I’ll look into it. Thanks for your advice

I was told by a family lawyer that as we were not married it was a matter for civil law not family law.

Also if you own as joint tenants rather than tenants in common you should sever the joint tenancy NOW otherwise if you get run over by a bus tomorrow he will automatically inherit the entire house. Your solicitor can help you with this - it's really easy.

Although of course if you don't sever it and he gets hit by a bus, it's all yours. But perhaps that's not the way to think about it!

The Stack v Dowden and Kernett v Jones cases above aren't family law cases - they are TOLATA claims which are very fact specific. From what you have said, you may have an arguable case. But you need very specific advice from a litigation solicitor (probably not a family solicitor) who has run these types of cases before. They will need huge amounts of detail from you. A poster above suggested getting counsel's opinion and I think this is excellent advice.

@FloraPostIt

Also if you own as joint tenants rather than tenants in common you should sever the joint tenancy NOW otherwise if you get run over by a bus tomorrow he will automatically inherit the entire house. Your solicitor can help you with this - it's really easy.

Although of course if you don't sever it and he gets hit by a bus, it's all yours. But perhaps that's not the way to think about it!

The Stack v Dowden and Kernett v Jones cases above aren't family law cases - they are TOLATA claims which are very fact specific. From what you have said, you may have an arguable case. But you need very specific advice from a litigation solicitor (probably not a family solicitor) who has run these types of cases before. They will need huge amounts of detail from you. A poster above suggested getting counsel's opinion and I think this is excellent advice.

The OP is in Scotland. This reply is based on English law. Both terminology and the law are different in Scotland. Scottish law does not use the terms "joint tenants" and "tenants in common". Property is simply owned jointly, possibly with a survivorship clause that stipulates what happens to ownership when one of the parties dies. Unlike England, where one party can sever a joint tenancy without the other party's consent, changing the survivorship clause in Scotland requires the other party's consent.