Evicting an ex-girlfriend
Discussion
A mate of mine (really!) has been having problems with his girlfriend for a while and wants to evict her from the house. I saw the guy last night and a couple of words he mentioned were "noose" and "suicide". The guy is a sensitive type and she a hardened dominant character and he thinks she's trying to tip him over the edge and I would tend to agree. Anyway enough of the sob story.
He bought the house with a former partner perhaps 7 or 8 years ago. Then after splitting up with her he bought her share of the house maybe 5 years ago. For about 2 years the latest girlfriend has been living in the house and paying the utility bills whilst he pays the mortgage. After she had moved in he increased the size of the mortgage to make some improvements to the property at her insistence.
I understand that as she's been contributing indirectly to the house by paying the utility bills that she could have a claim on the equity in the value of the house.
The guy needs to evict her but isn't sure if it's ok to give her a week or twos notice and then go through the normal procedure (batter her over the head with an axe, cut her body up into pieces with a chainsaw, stuff it into an old suitcase weighed down with bricks and chuck it into the thames) no no I mean change the locks and carefully make her belongings available in the front garden.
This guy doesn't have much money and is reluctant to get proper legal advice because of the cost. I could suggest he goes to a C.A.B. but surely this is something that crops up time and time again and is well understood.
As I see it she either does or doesn't have a claim on a proportion of the equity in the property. If she does then this is either related to the amount she has contributed by way of paying the utility bills, or much worse it could be linked to any increase in value of the property since she was there.
He either can or cannot evict her and I'd assume that he must be able to otherwise you could move in with someone, pay a few bills and have a home for life which is clearly not the case.
If anyone has any relevant experience they'd like to share it'd be much appreciated.
Cheers!
He bought the house with a former partner perhaps 7 or 8 years ago. Then after splitting up with her he bought her share of the house maybe 5 years ago. For about 2 years the latest girlfriend has been living in the house and paying the utility bills whilst he pays the mortgage. After she had moved in he increased the size of the mortgage to make some improvements to the property at her insistence.
I understand that as she's been contributing indirectly to the house by paying the utility bills that she could have a claim on the equity in the value of the house.
The guy needs to evict her but isn't sure if it's ok to give her a week or twos notice and then go through the normal procedure (batter her over the head with an axe, cut her body up into pieces with a chainsaw, stuff it into an old suitcase weighed down with bricks and chuck it into the thames) no no I mean change the locks and carefully make her belongings available in the front garden.
This guy doesn't have much money and is reluctant to get proper legal advice because of the cost. I could suggest he goes to a C.A.B. but surely this is something that crops up time and time again and is well understood.
As I see it she either does or doesn't have a claim on a proportion of the equity in the property. If she does then this is either related to the amount she has contributed by way of paying the utility bills, or much worse it could be linked to any increase in value of the property since she was there.
He either can or cannot evict her and I'd assume that he must be able to otherwise you could move in with someone, pay a few bills and have a home for life which is clearly not the case.
If anyone has any relevant experience they'd like to share it'd be much appreciated.
Cheers!
Money wise:- He has to get proper legal advice, sorry. If he doesn't it might cost him bigtime over the next few months.
As for getting his house back:- Asuming there are no sprogs and she's not on the title deeds the only way I can see this working out for this guy is the hard way.
He needs to book a day off work, book a locksmith and get a mate or two to give him a hand for the day and to stay round for a week or so incase she try's to do anything silly.
****PLEASE NOTE I WOULD BE SAYING SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT IF IT WAS THE GIRLFRIEND HERE BEFORE ANYONE GETS ON THEIR HIGH HORSE*****
As for getting his house back:- Asuming there are no sprogs and she's not on the title deeds the only way I can see this working out for this guy is the hard way.
He needs to book a day off work, book a locksmith and get a mate or two to give him a hand for the day and to stay round for a week or so incase she try's to do anything silly.
****PLEASE NOTE I WOULD BE SAYING SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT IF IT WAS THE GIRLFRIEND HERE BEFORE ANYONE GETS ON THEIR HIGH HORSE*****
A GOOD solicitor 
When the ex Ms BliarOut decided to up sticks she got diddly squat, despite living with me for about eight years and us having two kids together. Legally, it turned out she was no more than a lodger as she hadn't paid to imporve the fabric of the house and everything was still in my name.
It's not as cut and dried as it first seems these days. A good defence is WELL worth the money.
I'm not a B'stard BTW, I still gave her quite a large lump sum, and still give her money regularly. But, legally I was under no obligation to do so.
When the ex Ms BliarOut decided to up sticks she got diddly squat, despite living with me for about eight years and us having two kids together. Legally, it turned out she was no more than a lodger as she hadn't paid to imporve the fabric of the house and everything was still in my name.
It's not as cut and dried as it first seems these days. A good defence is WELL worth the money.
I'm not a B'stard BTW, I still gave her quite a large lump sum, and still give her money regularly. But, legally I was under no obligation to do so.
Shoe was on the other foot for me... in effect I was the shaftee, and my ex the shafter. Anyway, if she's not on the deeds, or the mortgage, and they're not married then she's entitled to the square root of bugger all. She'll argue she paid the bills, he'll argue he paid the mortgage, the end result is they cancel each other out. True, people do fight over it anyway, but that's more of your 'been together for decades but not married' rather than the 2 year boyfriend/girlfriend scenario.
Get the locks changed, invite her round to collect her stuff (pre-determined time/date), have someone round as a witness so that there's no funny business. Buy mate a pint or two. And if you're anything like my mates, remind him he's an ugly bugger and he's never going to have sex again. Cheered me up no end
Get the locks changed, invite her round to collect her stuff (pre-determined time/date), have someone round as a witness so that there's no funny business. Buy mate a pint or two. And if you're anything like my mates, remind him he's an ugly bugger and he's never going to have sex again. Cheered me up no end
I'll kick start with a bit of an unqualified meandering attempt to remember some land law. On what you've said, I'd think that a claim in equity would be pretty hard to establish, assuming that they aren't married.
IIRC, for her to establish some form of equitable interest, she'd have to show that she and your mate essentially agreed by words or actions that he would hold the legal title on trust for them both in equity. This could be evidenced by, for example, her paying for upgrades on the house, or bills and so on - making a contribution of sorts as consideration for the grant of the interest. This used to be reserved for married couples to protect wifey who'd made real contributions to the matrimonial love shack from losing everything when the marriage went under, but pretty sure it's available to some extent for cohabitees.
However, in this case a few bills seems pretty unlikely to convince that there was an express or implied agreement that they should "own" the house together / that she should take an equitable interest. Sounds more like a license or tenancy of some sort?
ok I won't kick start as I spent too long writing the damned post. I think my guff essentially agrees with what's been said by those far more learned than myself, so I'll get back to the fruit machines in the corner with a warm glow
>> Edited by stumartin on Thursday 30th June 16:54
IIRC, for her to establish some form of equitable interest, she'd have to show that she and your mate essentially agreed by words or actions that he would hold the legal title on trust for them both in equity. This could be evidenced by, for example, her paying for upgrades on the house, or bills and so on - making a contribution of sorts as consideration for the grant of the interest. This used to be reserved for married couples to protect wifey who'd made real contributions to the matrimonial love shack from losing everything when the marriage went under, but pretty sure it's available to some extent for cohabitees.
However, in this case a few bills seems pretty unlikely to convince that there was an express or implied agreement that they should "own" the house together / that she should take an equitable interest. Sounds more like a license or tenancy of some sort?
ok I won't kick start as I spent too long writing the damned post. I think my guff essentially agrees with what's been said by those far more learned than myself, so I'll get back to the fruit machines in the corner with a warm glow
>> Edited by stumartin on Thursday 30th June 16:54
Ah, see you're going down the good old constructive trust route tonker. I would have said, from this chaps side of course, that there was no such thing here as the house was already in his ownedship and that the sums she was paying were purely lodgings.
As you say though if this chap is Ireland based he needs to see someone who whos about their laws and customs
As you say though if this chap is Ireland based he needs to see someone who whos about their laws and customs
When my uncle and his third wife (hey, the guy just has no luck) were getting divorced, she told him, I'll give you $small amount and everything else is mine. Umm...no. He contributed a great deal in terms of the mortgage, and as such, earnings in property value to which they both contributed as a married couple are evenly distributed.
But, that doesn't mean that your friend will lose half his home to her. If her name is not on any property and there is no marriage license, the laws and obligation he has to her may be quite different than they would be for a traditional marriage on paper. If she has only contributed to the utility bill, well that is akin to the way roommates split bills, but they don't typically have any further financial obligation to each other beyond that, do they? Her paying utility bills and his paying other recurring household expenses do not constitute investment in real property value. They are only maintenance. If she contributed money to lasting property improvements, (as opposed to paying half of the ordinary maintenance---this is like splitting rent or something) then she will have contributed something that appreciated the value and would be entitled to some share of that earning that was proportionate to her contribution. Like if they both split the cost of the construction of a new sun room, and it improved the property value by some amount, then conceivably she might be entitled to half of that amount since she contributed to it. But her "idea" of his adding improvements doesn't count unless she has some verifiable financial contribution, like receipts for construction and materials or something. Having paid utility bills does not contribute to the property value, and does not necessarily entitle her to half of everything. Utility bills are not the only recurring expenses of owning a place. If she paid utility, but he paid everything else (other household maintenance, supplies, etc) then they may be evenly split in terms of who contributed to maintaining the place. However, it sounds like he was the only one who contributed to increasing the real property value, so I don't think she really has a share to half his stuff. It doesn't sound like he actually sold half his property to her, or that she contributed significantly to its value. And even if consistently paid her so-called "rent", which only constituted utility bill payment, and didn't violate any of their spoken or written agreement, I believe that he would be entitled to evict her anyway as owner, due to all the emotional duress. I don't think you have to rent to anyone.
Just my 2 cents. Good luck to your friend. Sorry he meets women who are bad to him.
But, that doesn't mean that your friend will lose half his home to her. If her name is not on any property and there is no marriage license, the laws and obligation he has to her may be quite different than they would be for a traditional marriage on paper. If she has only contributed to the utility bill, well that is akin to the way roommates split bills, but they don't typically have any further financial obligation to each other beyond that, do they? Her paying utility bills and his paying other recurring household expenses do not constitute investment in real property value. They are only maintenance. If she contributed money to lasting property improvements, (as opposed to paying half of the ordinary maintenance---this is like splitting rent or something) then she will have contributed something that appreciated the value and would be entitled to some share of that earning that was proportionate to her contribution. Like if they both split the cost of the construction of a new sun room, and it improved the property value by some amount, then conceivably she might be entitled to half of that amount since she contributed to it. But her "idea" of his adding improvements doesn't count unless she has some verifiable financial contribution, like receipts for construction and materials or something. Having paid utility bills does not contribute to the property value, and does not necessarily entitle her to half of everything. Utility bills are not the only recurring expenses of owning a place. If she paid utility, but he paid everything else (other household maintenance, supplies, etc) then they may be evenly split in terms of who contributed to maintaining the place. However, it sounds like he was the only one who contributed to increasing the real property value, so I don't think she really has a share to half his stuff. It doesn't sound like he actually sold half his property to her, or that she contributed significantly to its value. And even if consistently paid her so-called "rent", which only constituted utility bill payment, and didn't violate any of their spoken or written agreement, I believe that he would be entitled to evict her anyway as owner, due to all the emotional duress. I don't think you have to rent to anyone.
Just my 2 cents. Good luck to your friend. Sorry he meets women who are bad to him.
That's how rumours get started 
Tonker said: Family law experts were more cautious. Nigel Shepherd, a spokesman for the Family Solicitors Law Association, said: "The case does not alter the fact that you do not get an entitlement to a property owned by your partner simply by virtue of living with them. There is still no such thing as a common-law marriage."
Well, I hope that this is still true, but that case you cited is pretty scary and outrageous. I wonder if she thinks, "well, I'll sue and take him to the cleaners because I'm female and women need to be protected". Protected from what? Making claims where there was no contribution? I am just gobsmacked at that decision.
In all fairness, it sounds like his friend should be able to keep his property. I just hope there will be some fairness.
Well, I hope that this is still true, but that case you cited is pretty scary and outrageous. I wonder if she thinks, "well, I'll sue and take him to the cleaners because I'm female and women need to be protected". Protected from what? Making claims where there was no contribution? I am just gobsmacked at that decision.
In all fairness, it sounds like his friend should be able to keep his property. I just hope there will be some fairness.
OK, bit of a thread hijack, but since he legal eagles are hereabouts....
Entirely hypotheical scenario:
I own my house. Currently I owe £34K on the mortgage. Julie lives with me, but I pay all the bills.
She owns her own flat, on which she pays all the bills.
If she were to sell her flat for, say £60K profit, and pay £30K off my mortgage while I pay off the other £4K, she'd still have £30K pocket money.
If, at some future point, she were to leave, I'm guessing that she could argue for a fat share of the value of my house. Would it be feasible, say, at the time of settling my mortgage, to have it put in writing that she is in effect lending me £30K at whatever rate of interest would be reasonable, rather than her claim that the house is now worth £120K (or whatever) and she wants half? Otherwise, potentially I'd have to remortgage my house for more than I already paid for it...
As I say purely an exercise; none of this has happened yet, plans may change...
Entirely hypotheical scenario:
I own my house. Currently I owe £34K on the mortgage. Julie lives with me, but I pay all the bills.
She owns her own flat, on which she pays all the bills.
If she were to sell her flat for, say £60K profit, and pay £30K off my mortgage while I pay off the other £4K, she'd still have £30K pocket money.
If, at some future point, she were to leave, I'm guessing that she could argue for a fat share of the value of my house. Would it be feasible, say, at the time of settling my mortgage, to have it put in writing that she is in effect lending me £30K at whatever rate of interest would be reasonable, rather than her claim that the house is now worth £120K (or whatever) and she wants half? Otherwise, potentially I'd have to remortgage my house for more than I already paid for it...
As I say purely an exercise; none of this has happened yet, plans may change...
Wedg1e:
Here's my ignorant 2cents worth: She knows how much she's contributed to the over all price. Usually, stuff is divided up 50/50 in a divorce because people are acquiring their new stuff equally, together, at the same time. Though the law may say she gets half, she isn't raising your kids, so a half and half distribution to protect the more traditional, non-financial (mother/homemaker) contributions of the wife to the breadwinner may not necessarily apply? I mean isn't that really the intent of the 50/50 split?
Anyway, here finally is my answer, and I may be talking out of my arse: You can consider her contribution in paying off your mortgage as a percentage share in the property investment, which will then accrue interest or appreciate in value, however you want to look at it, until the time of sale.
Keep in mind, you have been paying interest in addition to the original price of the house for years. So, for your contribution to the total property: it is the sum of all the money paid on the mortgage, including down payment, regular payments, interest, property improvement expenses, each adjusted for inflation, added up to the time when she makes her present day contribution and the mortgage disappears. There are charts for variable annuities and rates of inflation to help you add this stuff up. Or you can get an accountant. Then you have an idea of the proportion of your contribution and her contribution to the total price (yours added up over the years plus her one time lump sum). Take that fraction (like maybe hers is 20% of the total price) and the next market value, she share might fairly be 20% of the market price. And her property taxes may be a similar percentage of the total as well.
Keep in mind that the market value is different from the assessed valuation for tax purposes, so you will have to figure out appropriate shares for property tax, which is not related to your mortgage payment.
P.S. I'm not an accountant, either.
>> Edited by seafarer on Thursday 30th June 17:56
I think comparing the ratios of the over all monetary contributions is more fair than comparing her lump sum in proportion to the present day sale price. However, this may not be correct in the law. Although, the property appreciation is comprised of inflation and investment in improvements, and over all market scarcity, and hopefully your mortgage payment interest was not greater than the rate at which the property increased in value. However, this would be related to scarcity as well as monetary inflation alone, so if the property value only increased due to inflation, you wouldn't net any earnings. But this is likely not the case, meaning that your total accrued investment (payment) over the years will not likely surpass the sale price.
Now that it's all clear as mud...
>> Edited by seafarer on Thursday 30th June 18:05
Here's my ignorant 2cents worth: She knows how much she's contributed to the over all price. Usually, stuff is divided up 50/50 in a divorce because people are acquiring their new stuff equally, together, at the same time. Though the law may say she gets half, she isn't raising your kids, so a half and half distribution to protect the more traditional, non-financial (mother/homemaker) contributions of the wife to the breadwinner may not necessarily apply? I mean isn't that really the intent of the 50/50 split?
Anyway, here finally is my answer, and I may be talking out of my arse: You can consider her contribution in paying off your mortgage as a percentage share in the property investment, which will then accrue interest or appreciate in value, however you want to look at it, until the time of sale.
Keep in mind, you have been paying interest in addition to the original price of the house for years. So, for your contribution to the total property: it is the sum of all the money paid on the mortgage, including down payment, regular payments, interest, property improvement expenses, each adjusted for inflation, added up to the time when she makes her present day contribution and the mortgage disappears. There are charts for variable annuities and rates of inflation to help you add this stuff up. Or you can get an accountant. Then you have an idea of the proportion of your contribution and her contribution to the total price (yours added up over the years plus her one time lump sum). Take that fraction (like maybe hers is 20% of the total price) and the next market value, she share might fairly be 20% of the market price. And her property taxes may be a similar percentage of the total as well.
Keep in mind that the market value is different from the assessed valuation for tax purposes, so you will have to figure out appropriate shares for property tax, which is not related to your mortgage payment.
P.S. I'm not an accountant, either.
>> Edited by seafarer on Thursday 30th June 17:56
I think comparing the ratios of the over all monetary contributions is more fair than comparing her lump sum in proportion to the present day sale price. However, this may not be correct in the law. Although, the property appreciation is comprised of inflation and investment in improvements, and over all market scarcity, and hopefully your mortgage payment interest was not greater than the rate at which the property increased in value. However, this would be related to scarcity as well as monetary inflation alone, so if the property value only increased due to inflation, you wouldn't net any earnings. But this is likely not the case, meaning that your total accrued investment (payment) over the years will not likely surpass the sale price.
Now that it's all clear as mud...
>> Edited by seafarer on Thursday 30th June 18:05
seafarer said:
Wedg1e:
Here's my ignorant 2cents worth: She knows how much she's contributed to the over all price. Usually, stuff is divided up 50/50 in a divorce because people are acquiring their new stuff equally, together, at the same time. Though the law may say she gets half, she isn't raising your kids, so a half and half distribution to protect the more traditional, non-financial (mother/homemaker) contributions of the wife to the breadwinner may not necessarily apply? I mean isn't that really the intent of the 50/50 split?
Anyway, here finally is my answer, and I may be talking out of my arse: You can consider her contribution in paying off your mortgage as a percentage share in the property investment, which will then accrue interest or appreciate in value, however you want to look at it, until the time of sale.
Keep in mind, you have been paying interest in addition to the original price of the house for years. So, for your contribution to the total property: it is the sum of all the money paid on the mortgage, including down payment, regular payments, interest, property improvement expenses, each adjusted for inflation, added up to the time when she makes her present day contribution and the mortgage disappears. There are charts for variable annuities and rates of inflation to help you add this stuff up. Or you can get an accountant. Then you have an idea of the proportion of your contribution and her contribution to the total price (yours added up over the years plus her one time lump sum). Take that fraction (like maybe hers is 20% of the total price) and the next market value, she share might fairly be 20% of the market price. And her property taxes may be a similar percentage of the total as well.
Keep in mind that the market value is different from the assessed valuation for tax purposes, so you will have to figure out appropriate shares for property tax, which is not related to your mortgage payment.
P.S. I'm not an accountant, either.
>> Edited by seafarer on Thursday 30th June 17:56
Er... actually, if it went according to plan, she'd have paid off MOST of the mortgage...
My totally unqualified contribution. Your mate should:
- Do his homework. Calculate exactly what contribution she might be able to claim (bills, food). Compare it to fair rent payable and what your mate has contributed to her - go through all bank statements and credit card bills. Build a cash fund of the difference to pay her off (if necessary).
- Secure all the assets: Not just front door, but back door, garage door, car keys, joint bank accounts & cards, any bills in her name (mobile phone, credit cards, etc.)
- Do his homework. Calculate exactly what contribution she might be able to claim (bills, food). Compare it to fair rent payable and what your mate has contributed to her - go through all bank statements and credit card bills. Build a cash fund of the difference to pay her off (if necessary).
- Secure all the assets: Not just front door, but back door, garage door, car keys, joint bank accounts & cards, any bills in her name (mobile phone, credit cards, etc.)
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff