Please or to access all these features

Legal matters

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

Ex-partner wants house bought with inheritance despite my name on deeds

251 replies

Guffy · 06/09/2026 12:00

My partner and I were together for 10 years. I loved her dearly and believe we had a strong relationship. About 5 years in she came into a sum of money after her father sadly died and she decided to buy a house with the money so we could set up home together. She decided to put my name on the deeds effectively giving me half the house. I cautioned her at the time that it was a big step and a generous gift but she said she loved me and it was our home. A year or so ago, after 6 months of lying and deceiving me, she left me for a local man. I now live in the house on my own but she is indicating that the house belongs to her because she ‘paid for it with my dad’s money’. Where do I stand legally please?

OP posts:
prh47bridge · 09/09/2026 19:37

HouseBee · 09/09/2026 10:19

That is not automatically true.
Just like length of the marriage is taken into account, so is when the inheritance was received and what the money was used for.

It isn’t clear cut but loads of shade of grey hence my advice to check with a lawyer.

No, it isn't automatic. But using an inheritance to buy the marital home will usually mean that the funds lose their separate status and become part of the shared matrimonial pot.

What happens in divorce is, of course, irrelevant in this case as OP and his partner are not married. The approach to such matters when the parties are married or in a civil partnership is very different to the approach when they are unmarried and cohabiting.

I agree OP should consult a lawyer, but there really aren't shades of grey here. OP's partner gave him 50% of the house when she put him on the deeds (assuming there is no deed of trust). It was clearly their common intention that he should own 50% of the property. This would only change if they agreed something different later and she acted to her own detriment based on that. To give an example, if she paid for major renovations based on an agreement that she would own a bigger slice of the property, she could argue that she is entitled to more than 50%. There is no indication that anything like that has happened. OP is therefore entitled to 50% of the equity. The fact that he did not contribute to the purchase price and she bought it with her inheritance is irrelevant. It ceased to be relevant when she decided to give him 50% of the property by putting him on the deeds.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page