This explains it a little better than the Daily Mail
http://www.wslaw.co.uk/news/n...
Is Woman’s Ex-Boyfriend Entitled to Half Her House?
SodaHead Living
2010/05/28 14:21:59
Think long and hard before you buy a home with your main squeeze.
A British homeowner was ordered to give her ex-lover half the value of her house … 17 years after they broke up.
Hairdresser Patricia Jones, 55, said her ex, ice cream salesman Leonard Kernott, never made a mortgage payment on their $356,675 home, the Daily Mail reported.
He also gave her ‘”little or no contribution” to help raise their daughter Lauren, now 25, and son Dean, 23, the court was told.
However, Kernott insisted he was the breadwinner when they lived together, until he was “kicked out” when he discovered that Jones had had an affair.
“She wasn’t working when I lived there and I put money into her account which she used to pay for the mortgage and everything,” he said.
The couple’s son Dean said both his parents were at fault, adding: “They’re wasting a lot of money fighting each other. They’re both stubborn.”
The Court of Appeal branded the case “a cautionary tale” for unmarried couples who buy property together without making formal legal agreements.
A British homeowner was ordered to give her ex-lover half the value of her house … 17 years after they broke up.
Hairdresser Patricia Jones, 55, said her ex, ice cream salesman Leonard Kernott, never made a mortgage payment on their $356,675 home, the Daily Mail reported.
He also gave her ‘”little or no contribution” to help raise their daughter Lauren, now 25, and son Dean, 23, the court was told.
However, Kernott insisted he was the breadwinner when they lived together, until he was “kicked out” when he discovered that Jones had had an affair.
“She wasn’t working when I lived there and I put money into her account which she used to pay for the mortgage and everything,” he said.
The couple’s son Dean said both his parents were at fault, adding: “They’re wasting a lot of money fighting each other. They’re both stubborn.”
The Court of Appeal branded the case “a cautionary tale” for unmarried couples who buy property together without making formal legal agreements.
Read More: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1281640/Ca...
Top Opinion
-
outtolunch 2010/06/02 19:22:09
http://www.wslaw.co.uk/news/n...
omg.
the guy was stupid enough to put it in her name and deposit money in her account to pay it
If he wasn't then an amount equal to his contribution minus necessary expenses for a fair value of rent and utilities. Nothing more. But jolly ole England must have reasons for this decision.
I think the son said it best.
Because then a default would only be reflected on her part if it were to happen.
Once it's a defacto relationship it's as good as being married, and I'm not sure if there is really any kind of defacto version of a prenup. Assets owned before the relationship would be joint assets unless there was a contract that said otherwise.
And I was under the impression assets owned prior to marriage were separate.
Never married or divorsed so.........
It might well be different for them, but I think the house at least would be considered both of theirs since they were both living in it.
I could be wrong though.
It just seems strange that a home could apply to unmarried people
Because of the fact that no responsibility for the mortgage is barred by the other person. What would happen if the partner that had the house dies, but the unmarried partner doesn't qualify for the take over. Does it go to probate? Or does the bank score and take back the house.
It's definitely something for lawyers to sort out though, unless they can sort it out between themselves.