Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Other subjects

Flip

Original poster

Your Experiences please. Division of assets when unmarrieds separate

21 replies

JoolsToo · 06/11/2006 17:35

Hope that title makes sense.

Someone I know has split from her partner they have one ds (9 months).

When they met she had her own house and a car. He eventually moved in. Earlier this year they moved house which is now in joint names (although the depsoit came from the equity on her previous home) and had their ds. During the relationship she let him have the car as he worked a good distance away and it made sense.

Since the break up he has kept the car. He works on contract but has not been in since the break up and he doesn't get paid for sick or holidays. He has just, after initially making no contribution, paid half of the mortgage and ?30 for the ds.

She has seen two solicitors who both say it will be 50/50 split. he said she could have all the house contents and he would keep the car. He privately agreed with her 65/35 from the inevitable sale of their home in her favour but then changed his mind to 60/40 - this what he keeps doing, changing his mind, he now wants to know what the house contents are worth. He won't tell her why he's off work, if he's going back or anything really and just keeps parroting 'emotional blackmail' to anything she says.

She has just gone back to work 3 days a week and her mum is looking after her ds (partner has said he wants ds for the 3 days but they don't know how serious he is about that and they're not happy about it either. I don't think they could stop him could they?)

is it as black and white as the solicitors are saying ie 50/50? - I'd have thought not.

OP posts:

Blu · 06/11/2006 17:45

I don't know the bottom line legal answer to this, JT, but I thought that normally when a married couple split, the woman gets 60% or more if she has kids that will be living in the house - so I don't see why she should get less.
Did they buy as joint tennants or tennants in common? I had a covenant drawn up by our sloicitor that states how much DP and i respectively put into our house - because like your friend, the majority of the deposit / equity was mine.

Surely she could fight it in court if she is able to show how much money she put in - which she would because she will have the sale details of her house? Although if he claims he contributed to the mortgage on her first house....

Freckle is your woman on this one, I think!

Original poster

JoolsToo · 06/11/2006 19:08

thanks Blu. Apparently when they bought the new house there was something on the mortgage she could have 'ticked' to say she put the most in (or something to her benefit anyway) but of course she wasn't expecting to split so didn't tick it!

I just thought that no two settlements were ever the same and to say a blanket 50/50 seems strange to me.

OP posts:

Blu · 06/11/2006 22:42

JT - why not try this in 'legal'? or even relationships? that's where the lawyers with know-how seem to hang out!

hairymclary · 06/11/2006 22:47

in terms of the house then yes, you have to choose whether you have joint tenancy or be tenants in common.
if you're tenants in common you have to state what percentage of the house each person has a right to.
if you're joint tenants then you get a 50/50 share.

but that is JUST the house, not anything else

Original poster

JoolsToo · 06/11/2006 23:59

Ah!, that 'tenants in common' rings a bell. I think that's where she went wrong!

Funny though. One of our other friends who was married got divorced and ended up with nothing. His wife (who never worked outside the home) got 100% of the house AND £400 per month and their kids were 19 and 22 at the time which is why I thought this 50/50 thing cannot be right!

OP posts:

Freckle · 07/11/2006 05:42

The starting point is 50/50 if they are joint tenants. However, if there is evidence that she provided a large portion of the deposit (through her previous house), she may be able to argue that she should receive more. Rather depends on how long ago they bought the second house. Also, if she was given the opportunity to indicate her greater contribution but declined, it might be considered that it was never her intention to receive more from any sale.

In any case, in order to do this, she will need to involve the courts.

Who purchased the house contents? Did some come from her previous house? If so, I think her ex is being a little disingenuous if he's offering her own furniture in exchange for his keeping her car.

Original poster

JoolsToo · 07/11/2006 09:07

Thanks Freckle

well, they have been in this new house less than 12 months and yes a lot of the furniture was hers (if not all) and other stuff given by her parents. Her parents have just loaned her (before the break up) money to put a new kitchen in which is now installed!!!!!!!

is it more cost effective to try and come to an agreement that doesn't include the courts or would she be better with a brief, seeing as he is being somewhat uncommunicative? What impact does the fact that they are unmarried have, if any?

OP posts:

Freckle · 07/11/2006 09:18

To be honest, it's about as long as a piece of string. The issuing of proceedings might be enough to bring him to heel and get him to agree to a more reasonable settlement (given the potential cost to him of employing a solicitor - if he loses the case he may have to pay her costs as well as his own), but, if it doesn't, then she's faced with fairly costly proceedings, which probably won't benefit either party.

Was the loan from her parents to the both of them? Or just to her? If the house were to be sold, it could be argued that they should be refunded out of the proceeds.

To be pretty blunt, she's been very silly. If she wanted to show her commitment to the relationship by willingly giving up protection (when she chose not to tick the box on the mortgage form), she should have held out for marriage. Not very helpful, I know, but it might serve as a warning to other women (and indeed men) who, in the throes of passion, give up their security and then want it back when it all goes pear-shaped.

Original poster

JoolsToo · 07/11/2006 09:32

Yes, silly girl indeed and that's that the solicitors have told her too! Her parents also tried to warn her, but who listens to parents? (maybe there's a warning there too!)

The loan was to her but it was whilst they were still together and for the benefit of both I guess.

Another point which may be valid(?). He is not working currently (see below) but he is still dj-ing at weekends. I think they are concerned how he will continue to contribute to his sons upkeep.

OP posts:

Blu · 07/11/2006 10:23

Freckle - why wouldn't she be entitled to a bigger share because she has the child to house?

Bibliophile · 07/11/2006 10:35

Being unmarried makes a huge difference. If the house is jointly owned and there is nothing to say different, then yes, unless he agrees otherwise or they want to go to court and lose everything in legal fees, they do each own half. But that's only the house. Otherwise, what was hers is hers and what was his is his. So if she owned the furniture, it's hers, ditto the car unless she gave it to him as a gift.
She doesn't have to 'let' him have the baby three days a week. They can agree something or he can take her to court.
If I were her, I'd try to get him to agree to a quick 60/40 split or better if she can asap.
And let that be a lesson to her! (Obviously I don't mean that, but it is so sad when women don't realise that by mixing up love and money, they do themselves no favours at all)

Original poster

JoolsToo · 07/11/2006 11:08

Exactly Blu and that is her main concern. She will have to sell the current house and needs as much equity as poss to get something reasonable in which to bring up their son.

She needs 65% at least to afford another house - she's only working 3 days at the moment.

Good point about the other assets Biblio but I think if she started saying she wants the car back he'll dig his heels in even more. (ALthough they have been playing the 'be nice to him' game to no avail as yet!)

OP posts:

Original poster

JoolsToo · 07/11/2006 11:10

another question - if he agrees, without solicitors being involved, to a 60/40 split how binding is it? not very?

OP posts:

Bibliophile · 07/11/2006 11:23

If its property then you have to do it legally. But if he put it in writing that he was going to let her have, say, 60 - 65% in return for, say, the car, that would be pretty binding in court. You need a legal agreement asap, anything else just won't be binding enough. Tempt him by saying if he signs over 65% she will put the house on at a really high asking price in Jan (for best market) and really work to sell it - ie keep it in best condition etc. He might be tempted by the prospect of a nice cash sum. he sounds such a bastard, he really does.
Giving up your money/property when you aren't married is such a mug's game.

Freckle · 07/11/2006 11:24

Blu, the reason she wouldn't automatically get more because she has a child is because they weren't married. That sort of division of equity is really only something the courts can impose. Without marriage, the general rule is be guided by what the documents say. The documents in this case state that they each own the house, so the split will be 50/50, unless they agree otherwise.

If he agrees to a different division, get him to sign a document to that effect (i.e. in return for her letting him keep the car, he agrees that she is entitled to 65% of the equity. It's important that the document contains some sort of "consideration" by each party as it then becomes a legally binding contract, which is why she needs to be seen to be giving something.

They will need to instruct solicitors to do the conveyancing and, without any documentation signed by both parties indicating a different division of equity, all the solicitors can do is account to each party with their 50%.

She should be able to keep all the furniture as it was hers in the first place.

Freckle · 07/11/2006 11:25

Crossed posts, Bibliophile. So glad that our advice is the same!

Original poster

JoolsToo · 07/11/2006 12:25

Thanks everyone, really appreciate this and I think it will help them a lot.

OP posts:

Bibliophile · 07/11/2006 12:36

Freckle you put it a lot more elegantly and concisely than I did!
Jools, I hope your friend is able to persuade him to do what's best for their child
Good luck to her.

Blu · 07/11/2006 12:48

Thanks Freckle.

JT - I hope it works out as well as possible for your friend - he sounds a complete bastard - no-one with any morals would take more than what he had put into the house, under those circumstances.

They should teach thse things to girls in schools as part of the PHES curriculum.

redshoes · 07/11/2006 21:29

Could she claim a lump sum settlement out of his share of the house for the child under the Children Act?

mumblechum · 08/11/2006 16:08

Red Shoes, possibly. Under Schedule 1 of the Children Act, the Court can order that the property be used for the exclusive use of the woman and child until the child's majority, and also order that the man pays some of the outgoings in addition to the CSA formula maintenance. That order can contain a portability clause so she can move if she wants within that time. Usually, at the end of the term, the house will still be split 50/50.

Flip