nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

At what stage does a girlfriend have a right to a part of your house?

zzboardzz

Ive never had to consider this before but Im concerned about it now.

If girlfriend moves into my mortgaged house - when is she entitled to a part of it?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

zzboardzz

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Was talking about this whole topic with my dad the other day oddly enough. Don't ask us why
But he is in his 60s so he's been around the block and seen alot. Some of the examples of guys he knew were sad.

Then she would bring men back after nights out. While he was in the other room. He eventually got out and started to rent his own little flat. My dad says you could clearly see that he was broken up. Couple of years after he gets hit by a van while on his motorcycle and sadly that was the end.

So sad.

zzboardzz

iguana wrote: »

So she is doing the majority of the work to raise their children and he calls her a cnut because he has to pay for those children of his to have a home and care for the duration of their childhood? Charming.

She was having an affair, he got turfed out of his house (she wasnt working) she got free legal aid and got a huge legal bill.

She is now with this new fella in his gaff that he pays for and her lover lives there FOC.

Charming indeed. She fcuked him over for a house.

UCDVet

When she pays for the right to own part of your house. That's really the only reasonable answer - imho.

FullblownRose

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Was talking about this whole topic with my dad the other day oddly enough. Don't ask us why
But he is in his 60s so he's been around the block and seen alot. Some of the examples of guys he knew were sad.

One lad he worked with had his marriage fall apart. He was paying the mortage and she wasnt. But they were married. She was entitled to half... but that's not the sad bit because when the relationship ended they switched to sleeping in different rooms. He wanted to sell the house and go the seperate ways. But she didn't want to let go of the house.
Then she would bring men back after nights out. While he was in the other room. He eventually got out and started to rent his own little flat. My dad says you could clearly see that he was broken up. Couple of years after he gets hit by a van while on his motorcycle and sadly that was the end.

Another guy, an american guy living over here, let his wife to be sign the papers when buying (we're going back 20 / 30 years on this one) Citing that he was "in love" - dad says everyone he knew was saying why are you bloody doing that?! you mad?! Including my dad But as you guessed it .... Marriage only lasts a few years and there was no decency from her.

The phrase ''two sides to every story'' comes to mind. Your dad's friend hardly told your dad the whole story, did he?

The Corinthian

Neyite wrote: »

And I have a fair few anecdotes from women who gave up promising careers to care for their children, and the men were serially cheating and abusive and left them with barely enough to pay for food and heat. And then they had to flee the family home before he did serious harm.

There are assholes on both sides. There are ex-spouses who feel that any money they give the other is somehow spent on the adults and not the child. Or use maintenance /visitation as a way of controlling, manipulating and hurting the other.

I agree with your post, but I can't help feeling that the usual suspects would be screaming whataboutary at your post, had the genders in it and this thread been reversed.

[Deleted User]

Right to refusal of sale isn't entitlement to half afaik

B.A._Baracus

Dial Hard wrote: »

This has to be the most bandied-about, blatant untruths about marital breakdown on Boards. So allow me to debunk it once and for all:

THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR AN AUTOMATIC 50-50 SPLIT OF ASSETS IN IRISH DIVORCE LAW.

None whatsoever. Neither party in a dissolving marriage is automatically entitled to half of anything.

Maybe I worded it wrong... I aint no legal eagle

But in what i said above.. he wanted to sell. she didnt want to sell. Both names were down.

But it's funny. I just told you a sad story about a man having to hear his wife ride other men in the other room. Being broken up about it. Then getting knocked over and killed. A sad ending to a sad couple of years. But your compassion is none. You simply got enraged over the law and its misuse accordingly.

Neyite

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Was talking about this whole topic with my dad the other day oddly enough. Don't ask us why
But he is in his 60s so he's been around the block and seen alot. Some of the examples of guys he knew were sad.

One lad he worked with had his marriage fall apart. He was paying the mortage and she wasnt. But they were married. She was entitled to half... but that's not the sad bit because when the relationship ended they switched to sleeping in different rooms. He wanted to sell the house and go the seperate ways. But she didn't want to let go of the house.
Then she would bring men back after nights out. While he was in the other room. He eventually got out and started to rent his own little flat. My dad says you could clearly see that he was broken up. Couple of years after he gets hit by a van while on his motorcycle and sadly that was the end.

Another guy, an american guy living over here, let his wife to be sign the papers when buying (we're going back 20 / 30 years on this one) Citing that he was "in love" - dad says everyone he knew was saying why are you bloody doing that?! you mad?! Including my dad But as you guessed it .... Marriage only lasts a few years and there was no decency from her.

And I have a fair few anecdotes from women who gave up promising careers to care for their children, and the men were serially cheating and abusive and left them with barely enough to pay for food and heat. And then they had to flee the family home before he did serious harm.

There are assholes on both sides. There are ex-spouses who feel that any money they give the other is somehow spent on the adults and not the child. Or use maintenance /visitation as a way of controlling, manipulating and hurting the other.

The Corinthian

iguana wrote: »

Did anyone say it is a burden? I sure didn't. But it is work and he does have a financial responsibility toward his children.

Towards his children - that's called child maintenance and we've not been discussing that. And if it is such hard work, then one solution is that the father instead does it, instead of the mother.

The comment you were ultimately responding to was nasty, but it described a woman who cheated on him, took his home, his children and then had the man she cheated on him with move into his former home. I don't know about you but 'cünt' is not a bad description of such a person, regardless of gender.

You then took her side on how hard it must be for her taking care of the children. Are you telling us that her role as a mother puts her above such petty moral considerations?

strobe

Uggh, this is why I'm an anarchist. Bleugh. I feel greasy whenever I read anything about that cohabitation bill. Like it's slimey grossness is rubing off on me somehow. Eww.

Dial Hard

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

One lad he worked with had his marriage fall apart. He was paying the mortage and she wasnt. But they were married. She was entitled to half.

This has to be the most bandied-about, blatant untruths about marital breakdown on Boards. So allow me to debunk it once and for all:

THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR AN AUTOMATIC 50-50 SPLIT OF ASSETS IN IRISH DIVORCE LAW.

None whatsoever. Neither party in a dissolving marriage is automatically entitled to half of anything.

IrishCule

iguana wrote: »

So she is doing the majority of the work to raise their children and he calls her a cnut because he has to pay for those children of his to have a home and care for the duration of their childhood? Charming.

Seriously? She cheated on him and is now living with the man she cheated on him with (presumably) in the house that he is paying for, with his kids and this is what you have taken from that story? Lol, **** me.

B.A._Baracus

Was talking about this whole topic with my dad the other day oddly enough. Don't ask us why

But he is in his 60s so he's been around the block and seen alot. Some of the examples of guys he knew were sad.

One lad he worked with had his marriage fall apart. He was paying the mortage and she wasnt. But they were married. She was entitled to half... but that's not the sad bit because when the relationship ended they switched to sleeping in different rooms. He wanted to sell the house and go the seperate ways. But she didn't want to let go of the house.
Then she would bring men back after nights out. While he was in the other room. He eventually got out and started to rent his own little flat. My dad says you could clearly see that he was broken up. Couple of years after he gets hit by a van while on his motorcycle and sadly that was the end.

Another guy, an american guy living over here, let his wife to be sign the papers when buying (we're going back 20 / 30 years on this one) Citing that he was "in love" - dad says everyone he knew was saying why are you bloody doing that?! you mad?! Including my dad

But as you guessed it .... Marriage only lasts a few years and there was no decency from her.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

iguana wrote: »

Did anyone say it is a burden? I sure didn't. But it is work and he does have a financial responsibility toward his children.

So does she so why wouldn't she be contributing towards the mortgage

iguana

The Corinthian wrote: »

She can always give him custody of the kids if it's such a burden.

Did anyone say it is a burden? I sure didn't. But it is work and he does have a financial responsibility toward his children.

[Deleted User]

I think he was being ironic

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Philo Beddoe

iguana wrote: »

So she is doing the majority of the work to raise their children and he calls her a cnut because he has to pay for those children of his to have a home and care for the duration of their childhood? Charming.

Well obviously it's the new lover living there that's the issue. Some other man has taken ownership of his possession. And by possession I mean his wife.

Shrap

bluewolf wrote: »

Do you think he called it babysitting when he had to stay in and mind them himself once in a while

I know my ex did. Not even joking

I managed to buy him out of the house rather than let him dine out on the "all women are money grabbing cnuts, and they'll take your house if they can" bullsh1t. I was bloody lucky to be in a position to do that though, and did it even though I had the right to stay there without him getting his half until the youngest is 18.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

iguana wrote: »

So she is doing the majority of the work to raise their children and he calls her a cnut because he has to pay for those children of his to have a home and care for the duration of their childhood? Charming.

She wrecked the marriage, she had the affair and its the man that got shafted. I can see why that might leave a sour taste in the exs mouth to be honest.

The Corinthian

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Truth is we don't know and solicitors have been using the spousal maintnance as a basis when advising clients.. The legislation is still too new to say how the courts will interpret it and the problem is that it is very open to interpretation, something that the Irish judiciary is notoriously fickle about. As such you cannot dismiss the new car or holiday expense because it could well be the case.

According to an article published by a barrister in the Irish Times when the legislation was passed (now behind a paywall), income is considered first, then property, and then a pension.

Do you have a link?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I never said it can be disregarded, only that it's not binding. And it's not.

As to 'exceptional circumstances' that depends on which side of the bed the judge got up on that day.

iguana wrote: »

So she is doing the majority of the work to raise their children and he calls her a cnut because he has to pay for those children of his to have a home and care for the duration of their childhood? Charming.

She can always give him custody of the kids if it's such a burden.

[Deleted User]

iguana wrote: »

So she is doing the majority of the work to raise their children and he calls her a cnut because he has to pay for those children of his to have a home and care for the duration of their childhood? Charming.

Do you think he called it babysitting when he had to stay in and mind them himself once in a while

iguana

zzboardzz wrote: »

One pays for "his" house and doesnt/ cant live in it. His x was having an affair and now her lover lives there. Not working as far as I know. So he pays for what was his house and she lives there with his 2 kids.

He said women have a cnut Gene, and by the time you see it, it can be too late.

So she is doing the majority of the work to raise their children and he calls her a cnut because he has to pay for those children of his to have a home and care for the duration of their childhood? Charming.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

JapaneseLove

zzboardzz wrote: »

To confirm ....

We live together for 4years and 11 months and we break up.

She has contributed to the Mortgage during this time.

She is intitled to 0 of the house.

or

We live together for 5 year and one month and she is entitled to a share of the house.

Is that correct?

Wel actually neither of you own the house. It belongs to the bank until the morgage is paid!!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not binding, I'm afraid.

The Corinthian

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Unfortunately, it's important to point out what financial dependence means in these situations though, as the term conjurers up images of it being enough not to end up on the street.

In reality family law defines it as being able to maintain a lifestyle that they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford. We're not simply talking roof over heads here, but luxury items, holidays and so on. Maintenance does not simply 'maintain'.

Only if a maintenance order by itself cannot provide sufficient redress will assets such as property or a pension be considered.

I don't believe that is correct.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

[Deleted User]

Yeah having a conversation about it or considering the implications or whatever seems fine. It's the "women are bitches so I don't trust anyone even the gf I'm moving in to the house" attitude I didn't get