Anyone know about ex partners claiming share of your house when not married?

[LilyLoo]

Anyone have any experience of this. Sil ex partner is taking her to court for money he says he contributed to house whilst they were together for two years. The house was hers. He only worked for about 6 months when they were together then had 6 months sick pay and then unemployed benefit for year. He contributed nothing to household bills or mortgage. They were engaged. He paid towards holidays as she did and contributed to weekluy food bill as she did. He claims that the house was in disrepair when they moved in together which wasn't true as she had just renovated it just wasn't to his taste. Therefore he paid towards some house improvements. He gave her cash for part of this and has evidence of some payments he made.
Anyone know if he likely to recover any of this or be entitled to any of her house ?
(long sorry )

if she owned teh house prior to him moving in i doubt he would have any claim to it now.

it is perfectly reasonable to contribute to househol;d bills during a relationship, it doesn't give you ownership of the house.

Yes it was all hers and he never contributed to any household costs. The court have said she has to get a valuation done, surely they would have gone up anyway ? He has been threatening to do this for two years since he left ?

Does she have a solicitor? I think she should get one if not.
What were the payments he has 'evidence' of for? And what is the evidence?
It seems a very specious claim to me and it sounds as if he is hoping she will pay him off.

He has pushed for her to pay him off and she has made a small offer to get rid of him effectively but he refused. She has made apt to see solicitor and looks like she will need barrister. Had directional hearing last week. He has eveidence of payments for new bathroom and bedroom furniture which he wanted to do as the current fittings weren't to his taste. He believes they added cost to the house so he is entitled to some of that.

I would have thought that bedroom and bathroom fittings are very subjective (he didn't like the existing ones) and they very rarely add any value to a property. Can your sis just not pay him whatever he paid towards the furniture?

A friend split up from her partner after being together for a few years. The house was hers before she even met him (ex-coucil, which she bought). He did not work and contributed nothing all the time they were together. In short, she ended up having to remortgage and it cost her over £15,000 to get rid of him.

Hi lilyloo - if the house is in her sole name and they are not married then it would be possible for him to take her to court to ask a judge to decide how much (if any) he should be entitled to. That's the bad news.

The good news is that he sounds like he has a snowball's chance in hell of getting anywhere To have a claim worth pursuing he would have had to have contributed or funded substantial works to the house, such as adding an extension or doing something that has really increased the value, or contributed directly towards the mortgage, or acted to his detriment in some way. The food and furniture expenditure is irrelevant.

I would be surprised if he has actually started proceedings if what you say is right because it wouldn't be cost-effective to pursue this through the courts. Also, I wouldn't have thought he would get legal aid to pursue such a hopeless case. If he has your sil should protest to the LSC (that's the new name for the Legal Aid Board)because he shouldn't be using public money in this way.

She might get a solicitor's letter asking for money and threatening proceedings if none is forthcoming but I just can't see any competent solictor advising him to pursue this.

do tell her to get half an hours' free legal advice somewhere as I don't know all the facts but hopefully it wil set her mind at rest.

The moral of the story is that if you meet a man who moves into your house make it clear from the outset that it is yours and do not let him contribute to the mortgage. Better that he pay for food etc than that.Hindsight is a wonderful thing

Just reread and seen that he has started court proceedings - ther must be more to it.

Freckle the money he paid towards the bathroom was quite a lot think bath was 8,500 and bedroom a couple thousand so she really hasn't got that money.
Joash that's what she worried about how much it will cost to get rid of him !
He does believe the works were substantial and have added value although we still think they were unneccessary and the added value is more due to the house cost rise anyway.He sin't getting legal aid as he is now working and she has recieved the letters asking for money and threatening court for the last two years. As she doesn't believe he is entitled to anything she has ignored it.
Basically he can take her to court under the married womans act because they were engaged. Wes still not sure how this works. Basically she is saying the sum of money he gave her paid for his upkeep and the work to the house was cosmetic and uneccesary. He thinks he is entitled to 20,000 and has put a restriction on her house stopping her getting new mortgage, selling house etc.

It's probably carried on because she has ignored everything - they are only getting his side of the story. The Act I think you mean won't apply if they were engaged.

Apparently there is a part of the act that they changed to accomodate engaged couples as well. But this act was supposedly tp protect the married woman and i don't really understand how he can site this ?

news to me! I will check though.

There was an amendment to the Married Woman's Property Act to extend its provision to engaged couples. There has to have been an acknowledged engagement (agreement to marry) and any claim brought under these provisions must be made within 3 years of the termination of the engagement.

When did their relationship break down? You say he has been harrassing your sil for 2 years, but is that the date of the end of the engagement?

Bloody hell Freckle - when was that - has passed me by completely!

It came in under Section 2 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (LRMPA) 1970.

I suspect that it's not used much because not many know about it and therefore it remains very much a dark horse.

This is the relevant law:

Section 17 MWPA

Section 17 of the Married Women?s Property Act 1882 states that:

In any question between husband and wife as to the title to or possession of property, either party may apply by summons or otherwise in a summary way (to the High Court or such county court as may be prescribed) and the court may be, on such an application (which may be heard in private), make such order with respect to the property as it thinks fit.

Property Rights

Section 2 of Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970 states that:

1. Where an agreement to marry is terminated, any rule of law relating to the rights of husbands and wives in relation to property in which either or both has or have a beneficial interest, including any such rule as explained by s37 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970, shall apply in relation to any property in which either or both of the parties to the agreement had a beneficial interest while the agreement was in force, as it applies in relation to property in which a husband or wife has a beneficial interest.

1. Where an agreement to marry is terminated, s17 of the Married Women?s Property Act 1882 and s7 of the Matrimonial Causes (Property and Maintenance) Act 1958 (which sections confer power on a judge of the High Court or a county court to settle disputes between husband and wife about property) shall apply, as if the parties were married, to any dispute between, or claim by, one of them in relation to property in which either or both had a beneficial interest while the agreement was in force; but an application made by virtue of this section to the judge under the said s17, as originally enacted or as extended by the said s7, shall be made within three years of the termination of this agreement.

thanks very much

It still might not help here. Obviously this is the law he is relying on, but he would have to prove that the work he paid for substantially improved the value of the property beyond what market forces would have produced anyway.

I'm not convinced that bedroom and bathroom furniture are likely to do that, as they are very personal taste and are not generally viewed by those in the property market as affecting the value of the property.

aah Freckle thanks very much. Yes they have only been seperated two years. This is what we thought luckily she had valuation done before he moved in and after he left. She has been asked to provide another one and she has to submit her affadavit to him in a week.

Anyone else know anything about this. She is frantic with worry !