Court ruling where a woman bought a flat, had her BF move in (as SAH partner), then he tried to claim half the flat but failed?

[miljee]

Quite recent, maybe 6 months ago? I gather she put down the deposit from the sale of a previous flat, he MUST have gone in as a 'joint tenant' (otherwise presumably he wouldn't have attempted a claim at all) and was living with her (she was in a well paid job and was paying the mortgage) and I recall he either didn't work or did minimal paid employment; no kids, relationship fell apart, he took her to court for half the flat but lost?

Need to find out as precedence for a brewing case close to my heart!

Bump?

Was it this case, miljee?

Oh, not that case because he did work, and they did have kids...sorry.

Thanks and yes, that was indeed the case I was thinking about! Got a few details wrong, though, didn't I?

My bro has done a stupid thing, albeit due to lack of knowledge or lack of legal advice. He was buying a house and struggling with the repayments. He felt needed to get hold of some more cash so asked his more or less casual girlfriend if she'd 'go in' on the mortgage, implying more money was available for repayments, which is what happened via remortgaging. This allowed them some 'play money' as well which she availed herself of to the tune of 5k or so. She MAY have paid 100 a month to my brother as her 'share' of the debt/mortgage but that lasted no more than 18 months when they split and she disappeared into the wide blue yonder. They never cohabited and were possibly together for 2 years all up. This was in 2000. My bro has been paying the mortgage single handedly ever since.

She's now come out of the woodwork via a solicitor demanding 50% of the equity of the house (possibly half of 90K?)! It seems, madly, that they became 'joint tenants'. My bro cannot remember being legally advised at all about tenancy arrangements. I can't believe that if he were he would have happily signed over half his house to someone purely to get a signature of convenience on a mortgage. Anyway, the long and short of it is he'll almost certainly lose his home but we're trying to find ways of fighting to get as much money as possible out of it for him.

If she didn't provide any capital but took some of the refinance money and only paid a small amount for a short time, surely they'd laugh her out of court? The bloke in the court case had lived with the woman for 20 years, and must have contributed some of the £59000 in savings that helped buy the house as well as some of the payments. I think she got a larger share because she'd had her own house first.

That precedent says that if a property is in joint names then they start from a premise of 50% each - but a long legal case would cost her much more than she'd get, probably.

If she took £5000 and paid in max £1800 then she's just trying it on. I reckon he should get a solicitor to call her bluff!

I mean they weren't even a couple! If she never lived in the house she won't have any mail addressed to her there, or her name on any bills or anything, or any evidence of her making mortgage payments.

I would say this one was pretty unusual!

My brother's less than useful solicitor seemed to think it was a case of rescuing what he could from the situation but he did blanch when he saw which solicitor the ex girlfriend has gone to -bit of a 'ball breaker' I gather. Maybe he's scared of her- or married to her!
I do believe there may be an issue of my brother 'owing her rent' for the use of her half of the house in the intervening years or somesuch nonsense.
For me the Big Issue apart from the blatant unfairness of a system that might allow her a case is my brother, bless him's- easy come/easy go attitude to it. He just assumes he'll move back home to mum who's just got her head around widowhood. He's been in his house for 16 years (he's 46, well old enough to know better) AND my parents did, in the past help bail him out financially when the going got tough with mortgage payments (which is why instead of going to them when he was getting into trouble financially again he entered into this ill advised and fool hardy deal!). He can afford his mortgage and has managed, more or less to keep his head above water for these 16 years. I worry that he has NO IDEA what renting can be like. He keeps cats, he smokes (another issue) and his house does look like the ultimate bachelor pad, though it's a nice 'starter home' in a reasonable area near Salisbury. He assumes that if mum puts strict time limits on how long her can stay with her, he'll just go rent. He's never rented before so hasn't a clue about how intrusive and borderline unreasonable landlords can be, the 3 monthly inspection malarkey for instance. It's going to be a nasty way to find out, but in this market and on 25K p.a. he's too old to 'start again!

Actually, one more point, I can clearly recall how our solicitor (in Oz) was desperately trying to get my husband-to-be and I to go 'tenants in common' on the purchase of the first place we bought together, trying to make it as clear as possible what the implications of joint tenancy would mean in case of a split up. My brother's solicitor thinks he MAY have a case against the remortgaging solicitor for failing to ensure my brother understood exactly WHAT he was signing away by going joint tenant. The girl concerned would have been equally clueless- in fact, she only discovered she had this potential major claim against my brother when she went to a solicitor in order to get her name taken off my brother's (and her) title deed!

God what a mess!