Mortgage advice please!

[smicer07]

Hi guys, I'm writing this on behalf of my housemate. It's a bit of a long one but I'll try to shorten it as much as possible.

Basically, he lived in a house with his ex girlfriend (never married), but they split up 3 years ago. She was NEVER on the mortgage at all, so basically she lived in the house and both of them paid towards paying the mortgage off, as well as buying things for the house. They ended up splitting up when he found out she was sleeping with someone else, and he kicked her out. She then found a new partner. My housemate and his ex have a child together, whom he still sees and pays maintenance etc for.

3 years on. Last night she phoned him, saying that she's spoken to a solicitor, and she wants all of the money that she paid into paying off his mortgage back, not only that, but at the current rate, not the rate she paid back then. She has debt issues and is also looking at getting on the property ladder, which is basically why she needs the money.

I don't believe she is entitled to any money whatsoever as she was never on the mortgage and while paying half the rent she was in fact living here too.

My housemate is worrying, can anyone advise? He's already got an appointment to see a solicitor next week. She claims her solicitor has advised her she is entitled to half of the house, and is threatening court action.

Thanks , Simon.

[skyblueheroes]

If she isn't on the mortgage then I don't see she is entitled to half the value of the house. But, I'm no solicitor, so best he sees an expert and make sure its a good one !

Sounds like she's trying to blag it though.

[peanut]

So does that mean everyone who's shared a house in the past or let out a room, those tenants can now claim all their money back, which means anyone could effectively live rent free.

I don't think she's got any chance what-so-ever but I ain't a solicitor either.

[smicer07]

I agree, I don't think she has, just interested in other people's views :D

[superbiatch]

If she can prove she has been paying towards the rent - i.e. a standing order into your friends account which is solely for bills, then maybe she might have a 'small' entitlement to something. I really don't think any solicitor would take her complaint seriously, it seems like a threat to me.

I've been through something similar and the worst being he might have to pay her off equivilent to what she's put into the house. I'm sure it wouldn't amount to much though.

I'm no legal expert, but it seems some common sense is required here. I wouldn't give in to her threat out of principal :p:

[TheDaddy]

Hi guys, I'm writing this on behalf of my housemate. It's a bit of a long one but I'll try to shorten it as much as possible.

Thanks , Simon.

I think she is entitled to something as she contributed towards the bills and up keep as his partner, a friend of mine was in a similar situation, she had to pay her ex partner of, it came to a few grand and fortunately for her it didn't even get to the court

[danielf]

Hi guys, I'm writing this on behalf of my housemate.

Are you sure of that? :erm: :p:

[smicer07]

She was paying 350 a month towards rent whilst living in the house, but that was over 3 years ago!

---------- Post added at 16:23 ---------- Previous post was at 16:22 ----------

Are you sure of that? :erm: :p:

Yeah, I promise! Knew someone would say that :D

[Chris]

Are you sure of that? :erm: :p:

My thoughts exactly. There are a couple of changes to the story but that might be just to throw us off the scent. Are you sure this isn't 'The Saga of Smicer's House, Part 4'? :D

[smicer07]

Oi! :D

[Paul K]

If she can show she has contriuted towards the house then she is entitled.

[smicer07]

Really? Even though she isn't on the mortgage and that was over 3 years ago?!

[TheDaddy]

Really? Even though she isn't on the mortgage and that was over 3 years ago?!

Yep that's what happened to my friend, admittedly it wasn't three years but it was still quite a long time, you should tell him to seek legal advice, the first hour is usually free with a solicitor, just remember to tell him to keep an eye on the clock

[smicer07]

Yeah he's going next week. What a bummer.

[Chris]

Oi! :D

:p:

In all seriousness, she may have a claim to the share of the value of the house that she invested in by helping to pay the mortgage. That would be limited to what she contributed though. She can't claim half the entire house simply for paying some of the mortgage for a short period. However she will have to have been living there, and contributing, for a certain minimum time for this to have effect.

I don't remember the details, although I do know it came up as a consideration in a certain thread from a year or so ago, so maybe you have some notes you could refer to? ;)

It strikes me that the amount she could get back could be wiped out by the cost of claiming. If your friend makes things difficult for her it may prove not to be worth her while to pursue it.

[danielf]

I would *think* (but I may well be wrong) that she might be entitled to a share of the increase in value of the house over the period she contributed. This would then (presumably) be related to how big a proportion of the mortgage she paid.

[Chris]

Sounds familiar. I do think that there is a minimum period for her to have been resident for it to be claimable though.

[etccarmageddon]

I think she's made it up - I dont believe she has seen a solicitor.

---------- Post added at 17:28 ---------- Previous post was at 17:18 ----------

and she will need to prove what she has paid/contributed for. e.g. if she has paid dosh towards a bathroom refit - she will need to have receipts.

if she has paid £350 a month - she will need to prove it and your friend could counter that the £350 a month was for her half 1/2 of the gas/electric/sky etc.

if there is proof the £350 a month was given but no proof as to what it was for, as 3 years have passed I'd recon she would be heading for a very expensive legal battle.

you used the term 'rent' ("350 a month towards rent") - if that's her claim then she has shot herself in the foot as she is claiming back "rent" rather than a contribution towards the mortgage or capital costs (money towards new conservatory, money towards wall paper, money towards repointing etc).

"rent" money of £350 a month means your friend is probably in the clear - whereas a mortgage contribution of £350 a month would mean your friend is most definitely screwed.

as she is claiming back what she paid in, I'd recon she hasn't seen a solicitor as I'd expect a solicitor to say that she is owed the value of the increase of the house in proportion to the amount of money she contributed towards the mortgage.

---------- Post added at 17:42 ---------- Previous post was at 17:28 ----------

check this out though - see how it mentions just paying money towards food and utility bills could be enough to get a stake in a property:-

http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/basics/cohabit.htm

---------- Post added at 17:43 ---------- Previous post was at 17:42 ----------

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/library.asp?i=2020

after reading the court case in detail I see that the girl put money in for the house deposit - so the headline about paying towards food and utility in order to have a claim is scare mongering.

[joglynne]

The fact that they have a child together seems to make this a legal minefield and it is really important to get legal advice. Here's a small :rolleyes: extract from a piece written by Law Commissioner Stuart Bridge
Partners should be regarded as equals in many important senses, but we do not consider that that equality should necessarily be accorded recognition on separation by means of a presumed entitlement to an equal share of a particular property pool. Simply cohabiting with another person, for however long, in the absence of the specific legal commitment made on marriage or registration of a civil partnership, does not seem to us to justify the degree of interference with the parties’ existing property rights which is implicit in a regime of equal sharing. While there is substantial public support for equal sharing between spouses (see Baroness Hale, at para [141]), surveys relating to cohabitants yield more mixed responses. In relation to couples without children, surveys find a preference for property division based more closely on the parties’ actual contributions to the accumulated wealth. This finding corresponds with research into couples’ money management practices, cohabitants without children being the more likely to adopt ‘independentà¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ money management systems, in preference to forms of pooling .There is considerably greater support for equal sharing between cohabiting parents, among whom pooling of resources is also much more common (details of the relevant research are to be found at CP, paras 5.69,6.102, 6.106- 6.108). But the category cohabitants with children’ is itself diverse, as it potentially includes not only relationships where the cohabitants are the child’s parents, but also those where only one cohabitant is parent of the child or where neither is parent. An equal sharing norm may be considered appropriate for some but not all of these circumstances.

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/Cohabitation_FamLaw_082006.pdf[QUOTE]Cohabiting

A free hour with a solicitor would be time well spent:)

[Vlad_Dracul]

If she can demonsatrate that she made a financial contribution toward the mortgage,bills and general upkeep of the household then she may have a claim though its all a question of scale and her ability to demonstrate such contributions. The best thing your "mate" can do is blank her,sit tight and see if she takes it further. The ball is in her court and he need do nothing. She might be trying to stampede him into making some kind of informal settlement. It is best he gets along with his life and ignores her.

[smicer07]

If she can demonsatrate that she made a financial contribution toward the mortgage,bills and general upkeep of the household then she may have a claim though its all a question of scale and her ability to demonstrate such contributions. The best thing your "mate" can do is blank her,sit tight and see if she takes it further. The ball is in her court and he need do nothing. She might be trying to stampede him into making some kind of informal settlement. It is best he gets along with his life and ignores her.

It is my mate by the way, and yeah I agree with you.

[smicer07]

Another thing - what my mate does have is a statement from a building society account in his name alone that shows the deposit for his house being paid from it, a copy of his mortgage agreement (and various other letters relating to the mortgage), and statements from his and his ex's joint bank account showing the direct debits, and the standing order being paid in each month by both him and his ex from their own accounts. He also has old bills, all addressed to him.

[TheNorm]

... basically she lived in the house and both of them paid towards paying the mortgage off, as well as buying things for the house. ...

If I had contributed to someone's mortgage for three years, then I would feel that I owned part of the property. Wouldn't you?

... She has debt issues ...

She might qualify for legal aid, which means she has very little to lose by pursuing this claim.

Another point of view is that of the daughter. Doesn't your friend want to pay something towards her accommodation?

[TheDaddy]

If I had contributed to someone's mortgage for three years, then I would feel that I owned part of the property. Wouldn't you?



She might qualify for legal aid, which means she has very little to lose by pursuing this claim.

Another point of view is that of the daughter. Doesn't your friend want to pay something towards her accommodation?

Didn't think you could get legal aid to sue someone :shrug:

[danielf]

If I had contributed to someone's mortgage for three years, then I would feel that I owned part of the property. Wouldn't you?


Even if it was interest only? On a side note, if the housing market were to crash, and the house was worth less than before you started contributing, would you feel obliged to make up part of the difference? (Not having a go at you, just some thoughts)

[TheNorm]

Didn't think you could get legal aid to sue someone :shrug:

In England and Wales, legal aid is ... available for most criminal cases, and many types of civil cases with exceptions including libel, most personal injury cases (which are now dealt with under Conditional Fee Agreements, a species of contingency fee) and cases associated with the running of a business. Family cases are also often covered. Depending on the type of case, legal aid may or may not be means tested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aid

Even if it was interest only? ...

Yes.

...On a side note, if the housing market were to crash, and the house was worth less than before you started contributing, would you feel obliged to make up part of the difference?...

Well, let's put some numbers to the theory. If I paid half towards a 25 year mortgage for three years, my contribution would be roughly 6%. If the property is valued at £100,000 then my claim might be £6000.

The couple were living together, sharing expenses, and had a child. Why shouldn't the lady be entitled to a share of the equity?

[danielf]

Well, let's put some numbers to the theory. If I paid half towards a 25 year mortgage for three years, my contribution would be roughly 6%. If the property is valued at £100,000 then my claim might be £6000.

The couple were living together, sharing expenses, and had a child. Why shouldn't the lady be entitled to a share of the equity?

I'm not saying she shouldn't. But consider the following example. Interest only mortgage plus house crash. Property is valued at 100,000 and loses £20,000 in value over the 3 years you contribute. By the same reasoning you'd have to stump up 10k. I wonder if a judge would agree.

[Slyder]

Me and my partner recently split and aquired our mortgage last year in joint names (we split for exactly the same reason) :p:. I spoke to my solicitor today who asked if she was on it. I replied yes, and she responded by saying "pity really, you could of had it all"

I cant see this girl entitled to bugger all considering she wasnt on it. alas I am no solicitor either... :)

Surley she would have to prove the money that she gave was for the mortgage as a starting point for her argument?

[SMHarman]

Surley she would have to prove the money that she gave was for the mortgage as a starting point for her argument?and therin lies the crux of the arguement, with nothing written to say it was not for the mortgage payment it is one word against the other, and with a child of both parties needs to consider (and the child primarily/solely residing with the mother) the case is weakened considerably.