Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
juvenal

Ex-Partner Got Half The House After Seventeen Years Apart!

Recommended Posts

It was Jones who paid the £6,000 deposit on the £30,000 semi-detached bungalow she bought with her then-boyfriend, ice cream salesman Leonard Kernott, in 1985. She paid the mortgage for their eight years together whilst he paid £100-a-week "expenses".
So she paid 6k deposit, the mortgage was £24,000, over 25 years at 8% that is £187.35 a month. The boyfriend paid £100 quid expenses for 8 years (£9,600) so it essentially paid for 1/3rd of the property value over the years. I disagree with him getting half, BUT he was paying 1/3rd of the cost for 8 years and it was opportunity lost. Ruling seems a generous, 1/4, or 1/3 of the profit over the 8 years they were together would have been fairer... Edited by AteMoose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So she paid 6k deposit, the mortgage was £24,000, over 25 years at 8% that is £187.35 a month.  The boyfriend paid £100 quid expenses for 8 years (£9,600) so it essentially paid for 1/3rd of the property value over the years.  

If you look again, I think you'll find he paid £100 a week not a month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look again, I think you'll find he paid £100 a week not a month.

fk

he paid £100 a week! so she paid a mortgage of £185 quid a month and he gave her over £400 quid a month! Over the relationship he paid her 41,600 which is more than the entire value of the house, I agree with judgement he deserves at least half the house, he PAID for the entire house!

The article is very biased and paints the woman as the victim, it doesnt show quite how much he paid! Why the hell did he pay £100 a week?

Edited by AteMoose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the portion of his 'expenses' payemnt going towards food, water, light, heat, council tax etc?

going towards, this was the 80s! His portion of 400+ quid a month paid the entire mortgage, and in those days would have easily paid for all the bills ontop! He was paying for everything for 8 years by the sounds of things

Edited by AteMoose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

going towards, this was the 80s! His portion of 400+ quid a month paid the entire mortgage, and in those days would have easily paid for all the bills ontop! He was paying for everything for 8 years by the sounds of things

some blokes will often pay well over the top just to get their nuts in

Edited by Tamara De Lempicka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fk

he paid £100 a week! so she paid a mortgage of £185 quid a month and he gave her over £400 quid a month! Over the relationship he paid her 41,600 which is more than the entire value of the house, I agree with judgement he deserves at least half the house, he PAID for the entire house!

The article is very biased and paints the woman as the victim, it doesnt show quite how much he paid! Why the hell did he pay £100 a week?

She basically didn't pay anything, coz she got 'free money' with the rising price of the house!

The partner deserves a share - if the house is worth way beyond what 'they' paid towards it!

He would not have got anything in return if the price had dropped - that's the gamble!

Although, this is just another of the 'Elites' ruses to split the population up further (divide and conquer) and fatten the lawyers & 'privatised' law courts wallets!

Edited by erranta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the moral here is whether , married , living together, friends that have bought together, whatever the situation when you part both parties must sort themselves out financially and make sure that that each knows where they stand and tie up any loose ends. Have know two cases where x partners have come back and bit someone hard on the bum. Both cases could have been avoided if joint assets had been divided propley and legal steps had been taken at the time of seperation.

Also have a relative who has been divorced nearly twenty years she has paid the house off on her own over the years but it is still in joint names. Says that the x husband will not come looking for his share. How does she know that ? , if the x husband ever went bankrupt or was sued for money creditors could come after his share of the house. Have urged her to get the situation sorted and protect herself but she still has not done so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't seem to pay a penny towards the house, but because they were joint tenants, he gets half the house 17 years after they split up, it's crazy!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/jun/20/mortgage-warning-unmarried-couples

Unmarried couples who split up could be in for a nasty shock about who owns their home: appeal judges have ruled that a man who left his partner 17 years ago was entitled to a half share in the house even though he had never paid the mortgage.

Despite years of separation and the fact that her former boyfriend hadn't contributed to the mortgage even when they were together, Patricia Jones was told her ex was entitled to 50% of the three-bed home in Thundersley, Essex.

"This is a cautionary tale which all unmarried couples who are contemplating the purchase of a residential property as their home, and all solicitors who advise them, should study," urged Lord Justice Wall. Cohabiting couples were advised to "contemplate and address the unthinkable … namely that their relationship will break down and will fall out over what they do and do not own".

It was Jones who paid the £6,000 deposit on the £30,000 semi-detached bungalow she bought with her then-boyfriend, ice cream salesman Leonard Kernott, in 1985. She paid the mortgage for their eight years together whilst he paid £100-a-week "expenses".

Kernott moved out in 1993; made no offer of maintenance for the two children, now both in their 20s; nor did Jones make a claim through the Child Support Agency. Kernott brought his own property in 1996 paying the deposit by cashing in a life insurance policy that the couple both owned and split equally.

"It's one of those cases where 'the man on the Clapham omnibus' or London Underground would be horrified because it seems to fly in the face of what might be perceived as natural justice," says Kerry Fretwell, a family law partner at Blandy & Blandy. The Law Commission in 2007 produced a report acknowledging the need for reform and proposing an overhaul of legislation for cohabiting couples. However, the law still remains unchanged.

The case was "a stark example of something that happens every day", says Steve Kirwan, chair of the cohabitation committee family lawyers' group Resolution. He says one of the three appeal judges disagreed with the ruling, as had the County Court, which offered Jones 90% of the value of the property. "They felt there was sufficient evidence to show that their affairs had changed with the passage of time, which was, from the point of view of a strict interpretation of the law, an almost impossible argument to put forward, however much sympathy was felt for it. That would have been judges making the law rather than enforcing it."

Jones's problems have arisen because she bought as "joint tenants". There are two ways of owning a property. Most cohabiting couples who buy together do so as "joint tenants" where they own the house 50/50 and, for example, the share owned by one partner would pass automatically to the other on death. If you own your home as "tenants-in-common" you can leave a precise share to whoever you choose – you state the exact nature of your share in a declaration of trust.

"Most don't consider what that means because nobody ever thinks that they are going to split up," says Mary Webber of Advicenow which runs the Ministry of Justice's Living Together campaign. "Only at the end do they think about it and, in this case, 17 years later."

The best advice is "to think very carefully about how you buy the house and what would be a fair division on a split", says Webber. "Even whilst you are together things change dramatically, for example, the relationship ends, or one of you starts putting more money in. You can very easily change a 'joint tenancy' into 'tenants in common' at any point."

When a relationship ends "you really need to tidy up all the loose ends straight away because they have a habit of tripping you up," she says. If you are unable to resolve the issue with your ex, try family mediation. Applying to the court should be a last option because it is difficult to demonstrate evidence to suggest anything other than a joint tenancy and can be disproportionately expensive.

Conveyancing solicitors should be under a greater duty to explain the ways to own a property but often they don't, argues Kerry Fretwell. She recently advised a client whose father had put down £100,000 on a new property and the couple signed a form saying they were to hold it as "joint tenants".

"It was one in a pack of forms. Neither side understood what it meant. As a consequence, my client is entitled now to much less than £100,000 – much to her and her father's surprise."

The Living Together campaign has an online guide for unmarried couples, How Do You Own Your Home? at advicenow.org.uk/living-together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nothing to do with them being 'joint tenants'; if they were 'tenants in common' exactly the same law would pertain.

The important fact in this case is that the couple never married. If they had been married when they bought the house and then divorced all this would have been sorted out years ago in the divorce settlement. As they were unmarried however, each party was and still is entitled to half the value of house because both names are on the deeds.

English law does not recognise co-habiting couples as being any different from any other two people who buy a property together. Once your name is on the deeds than that is it - half the value of the equity in the house is yours. There is nothing new in this, and I am surprised this story has made the papers; countless similar cases occur every week.

What surprises me is why anyone thinks that it is particularly unfair. Blokey buys a house with his girlfriend and lives there with her for 7 years before the relationship breaks down and he moves out. He allows her to live on in their house while he makes other arrangements. Naturally, she pays the mortgage; but that is only fair because it is her who is getting the benefit of living in the house. Although he owns a half share in a house he has to use his money in either renting or buying another place to live.

It could be argued that if he were to contribute to the mortgage then she should pay him rent on his half of the house which she is living in! This would almost certainly amount to more than half the mortgage payments so she has actually done quite well for the last seventeen years.

Ultimately, he is perfectly entitled to his share of the appreciation in the value of the house which he has half-owned for over 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 140 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.