House ownership & separation.

[Bugz]

If two people separate, whilst having the contract in the house for both their names and one moves out through an agreement between the two people, do both people still have full control over everything that happens in the house?

I.e can the person living elsewhere object to a person moving in? Or tell someone to gtfo even though theoretically he doesn't live there but pays part mortgage?

 

[Ctuchik]

probably not. or atleast not without a very very good reason. so trying to make life a bitch for the ex by trying to throw out the new bf/gf probably isnt one of them.

but either way i doubt it.

 

[Bugz]

But unless such an agreement is reached in a contract/signed agreement of some kind, since that person not in the house is paying part of the mortgage theoretically it is his property and he has as an equal right to say what goes on in it as the person who lives there...?

 

[Gumbo]

I have no idea of the legalities but I would think that the reasonable thing would be that so long as nothing illegal is being done, or nothing which will damage the fixtures or fittings, then there's probably not a lot that could, or needs to be done.

Sounds a messy situation all around though.

 

[Ctuchik]

But unless such an agreement is reached in a contract/signed agreement of some kind, since that person not in the house is paying part of the mortgage theoretically it is his property and he has as an equal right to say what goes on in it as the person who lives there...?

well, having fuck all clue about how it works in UK here. but i'd guess that when you move out you really dont have all that much to say about who lives there if the ex still does.

basically whoever moved out gave up any of that stuff other then the mortage.

i'd talk to someone that works with those kind of questions before trying anything as it might come back and shoot you in the arse.


/edit: as in if the moved out tries that, then the ex that still lives there might try to get ownership of the whole house through the court, and if he/she wins whoever lost still gets to pay the mortage but lost his/hers part of the house. and is that really worth it just to be an arse?

 

[MYstIC G]

Owning something and living somewhere are different things i think you'll find.

 

[Ch3tan]

/edit: as in if the moved out tries that, then the ex that still lives there might try to get ownership of the whole house through the court, and if he/she wins whoever lost still gets to pay the mortage but lost his/hers part of the house. and is that really worth it just to be an arse?

You what now?

 

[Zenith.UK]

I asked about some of this stuff with my broker when I was arranging my mortgage. It depends if it's joint names on the mortgage or joint names on the deeds (or even both).

Joint names on the mortgage means that you're both equally responsible for maintaining payments. If a payment is missed, the mortgage company will chase BOTH of you for the money. This example has no say on what happens with the house. It is purely to do with your financial obligations.

Joint names on the deeds of the house is the clincher. Joint names means that you BOTH have to agree to sell the house. One can't sell it without the other's permission. So for example, if one of the couple moves out and wants to make life difficult, they could refuse to permit selling the house. Most people when they separate want to sell the house to free up their equity and grab "their half" of the value.

A person who moves out cannot dictate to the other person about who can live in the house. They own an equity in the bricks and mortar of the house, not on who lives there. They are not a landlord (no rent charged, no tenancy agreement), and most mortgages don't permit subletting anyway. Just because you pay part of the mortgage does not give you arbitrary rights over who can live in the house. You can choose not to live in the house, but your ex-partner can also choose who *they* want to live in the house.

The simplest arrangement that many couples use in these cases is for one person to transfer their share in the equity to their ex-partner (also known as buying-out). It means the person who wants the house has to pay their ex-partner the value of their share, or "buy out" their equity. You're left owning 100% of the house, 100% of the mortgage responsibility and your ex-partner has their 50% of the value in their pocket.

 

[DaGaffer]

What he said. When I split with my ex I bought her out to get the whole house. Its not just a case of changing the deeds though, you have to completely remortgage, and believe it or not, you have to pay stamp duty on your extra equity.

As for this particular case, the only recourse for the person who has moved out is to demand the house is sold. If there aren't kids involved, any legal action would almost certainly be to sell and split the proceeds (unless the person who has moved out is uber-rich). If there are kids, then its a lot trickier.

 

[tris-]

Also FYI two private individuals cannot make what is recognised a contract with each other in contract law.
Unless you can show there was legal intentions to be bound by it.
By default though, there is no intention by private individuals.

 

[Scouse]

Move back in if you don't fancy her getting thrown the pork sword in your old bed

Failing that, and perhaps more sensibly, sell your share in the house? If she can't buy then you have to come to an agreement and stick to it. To be fair though, if it was my ex living in my house and she couldn't afford to buy my half out I think the response would be "not my problem any more"...

 

[Scouse]

Also FYI two private individuals cannot make what is recognised a contract with each other in contract law.
Unless you can show there was legal intentions to be bound by it.
By default though, there is no intention by private individuals.

??? I'm *really* doubtful about this. Surely if a contract is drawn up and signed in the presence of a witness.....?

 

[tris-]

??? I'm *really* doubtful about this. Surely if a contract is drawn up and signed in the presence of a witness.....?

Ill explain it better.

By default, it is implied that between an individual and a business that you both intended to create legal relations and intended that if the contract is shat upon, you would take legal proceedings.

Between two private people, by default it is implied that there is no legal intentions for the above. It would then need to be looked at as what a 'reasonable man' would think of the situation, and in civil court it is a matter of prooving that your story is more likely true than the other persons.

By the phrase 'by default' I just mean from the outset if you get me.

If you can handle some case law, look at balfour v balfour and meritt v meritt.

Edit: im not stating this as fact by the way, its just my interpretation of the law.

 

[Scouse]

Quite probably m8 - but if both parties have had a contract drawn up and both have signed in the presence of a witness it's quite clear what their intentions are and "default" no longer applies

 

[tris-]

Yes it would appear that way but its not that simple in court .