Is he/she entitled to share of house.

muffler

If a couple seperate who is entitled to what in relation to the house they own?

In this situation there was a joint mortgage involved but one of them never contributed to the mortgage repayments, original deposit or paid anything towards furnishing, decorating, weekly shopping etc. All payments and expenditure/outlays were made by one person only.

I think the normal situation is that both parties concerned are entitled to equal share of the house they purchased together but it is a bit unfair if only one of them paid their way.

Any comments appreciated

besty

Obviously in such a hypothetical situation, as you said, the party who pays for everything will have possession. But, there is one major qualification of this. The other partner can be deemed to have an equitable interest in the home if they contributed in some other way (upkeep etc.) I'm no land law expert, but I think this is the situation anyway!

dermot_sheehan

If they were married and were in judicial separation proceedings, then the provisions of the family law act 1995 would kick in, the test being basically to esnure both parties are properly provided for.

If they weren't married, the law of equity would be used. It's been held in W. v. W. and N. v. N. http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/1991/2.html that contributions to the general family fund from the wife working, which allow a mortgage to be paid, create an equitable interest in the home in the favour of the wife.

L. v. L. held that a wife working in the home by rearing children creates an interest due to the operation of arti. 41 of the constituion, however this was rejected in N. v. N.

I don't have all the case law to hand, but from remembering my equity, if the wife makes a direct contribution to the house (e.g. money or moneys worth such as home improvements), or an indirect fianancial contribution by paying money towards the general family fund, this creates a constructive trust in her favour in the house and she has an equitable property interest.

muffler

As has been nicely put, in this hypothetical situation you have a male and female cohabitating. The male put up the deposit and then makes the monthy mortgage payments. He would pay for everything such as shopping, utility bills, house furnishings etc.

The female works part time but contributes nothing to the family fund. Just uses her income for running her car, clothes, nights out etc.

gabhain7's post referred mostly to a married couple but this one is a bit different.

maidhc

muffler wrote:

gabhain7's post referred mostly to a married couple but this one is a bit different.

The cases gabhain referred to did relate to married couples, but before the 1995 Act, so are equally applicable to cohabitees.

padser

muffler wrote:

The female works part time but contributes nothing to the family fund. Just uses her income for running her car, clothes, nights out etc.
.

Unfortunatly runner her car, buying clothes, nights out etc could all be said to be contributing to 'familty fund'. Also it will be next to near impossible to show that she never paid for drinks on a night out for her significant other, or bought grocercies etc etc.

Thirdfox

Slightly off topic but what was the "landmark" case (according to Sky News in relation to divorce payments that took place in England yesterday? Will it in any way affect Ireland (persuasive precedence etc.)?

maidhc

padser wrote:

Unfortunatly runner her car, buying clothes, nights out etc could all be said to be contributing to 'familty fund'. Also it will be next to near impossible to show that she never paid for drinks on a night out for her significant other, or bought grocercies etc etc.

It depends on her income I guess. Small part time job, regular visits to the hairdresser, fancy car will mean very little money can be held in a constructive trust, so they payoff would be small indeed.

besty

There was an interesting discussion of these matters on Prime Time tonight in case anyone saw it. I only caught a few minutes of it but it seemed like a good piece.

muffler

Missed the prime time show so not sure what it was about. The landmark case in England was (I think) about the ruling that a seperated wife was entitled to a certain amount of her ex's future income throughout his working life.

Doesnt help my query much though:(

DublinWriter

muffler wrote:

Any comments appreciated

If her name is on the mortgage, then it's a mortgage deed on the property and she would have a substantial claim to any profits coming out of the sale of the property.

You'll need to contact a solicitor about this! Could be very very messy.

muffler

DublinWriter wrote:

If her name is on the mortgage, then it's a mortgage deed on the property and she would have a substantial claim to any profits coming out of the sale of the property.

You'll need to contact a solicitor about this! Could be very very messy.

Yeah thats the case alright and thankfully it isn't myself but, (how should I put this) it is a relation. I sincerely hope that good judgement prevails.

This is the type of situation where i think the law is an ass. The name is on the mortgage but not as much as a cent was ever paid by her and it would seem that she would now possibly stand to gain financially if they decided to sell

Eru

Dont you become 'common law' spouses after living together as man and wife (soon to be changed Im sure) after 2 years?

Mammy always told me to kick her out at 1 year and 11 months!

muffler

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Mammy always told me to kick her out at 1 year and 11 months!

Nice one

dermot_sheehan

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Dont you become 'common law' spouses after living together as man and wife (soon to be changed Im sure) after 2 years?

Mammy always told me to kick her out at 1 year and 11 months!

Not in Ireland, in some U.S. states I believe.