ChatterBank1 min ago
Court Cases
Does anybody know of a recent court case where a cohabitee has taken her ex partner to court for a share of his house on the grounds of intent but did not get awarded anything
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by balearic. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's not right to assume that just because 2 people live together that all property is equally shared. The input to the house and who paid for what will be what the court will see and make the decision on. Court cost ( legal ) can be very expensive and you may not get the result you want.
ex partner can mean husband, wife , boy /girl friend each case is different so previous outcomes of other cases can be misleading.
Go to a solicitor they will advise you further of your options, take all documents you have with you. They may charge you a fee to give you advice or the CAB may help you for free.
BEST OF LUCK
ex partner can mean husband, wife , boy /girl friend each case is different so previous outcomes of other cases can be misleading.
Go to a solicitor they will advise you further of your options, take all documents you have with you. They may charge you a fee to give you advice or the CAB may help you for free.
BEST OF LUCK
Thanks lawman, we`re nearly at the court stage, spent thousands already with a solicitor, just wondered what the chances are of her getting anything and any other cases to read up on. What has happened to justice in this country, you work hard all your life for your own property then a jealous ex can try to claim half of it, incurr all these costs to you and then possibly get a share of your home when she has made no financial contribution to the purchase or mortgage etc.
The co-habitee got nothing.
Intent is only part of the argument. The Court also has to be satisfied that the co habitee acted in such away to their detriment that the owner is not entitled to go back on the presumed intention.
Our case was particularly interesting in that the owner of the house had died, and was not there to fgive evidence to rebut what the co habitee claimed.
The law remains as set out in Lloyds Bank v Roset.
Intent is only part of the argument. The Court also has to be satisfied that the co habitee acted in such away to their detriment that the owner is not entitled to go back on the presumed intention.
Our case was particularly interesting in that the owner of the house had died, and was not there to fgive evidence to rebut what the co habitee claimed.
The law remains as set out in Lloyds Bank v Roset.
There may be. It all depends on how the facts come out in Court, and in what impression the witnesses make upon the Judge (who does he believe). The law is also a tricky area. and one where it is easyu to slip up. A good lawyer will be able to help you greatly, but I recall from your earlier questions that you might not be instructing a lawyer any longer.
The case referred to is LB v Rosett and is well known but contains only the blindingly obvious. Didwot misunderstands the use of the word "detriment". Herewith the case summary:-
(a) The finding of an agreement or arrangement to share the property can only be based on evidence of express discussions between the parties, however imperfectly remembered and however imprecise their terms. Once a finding to this effect is made it is then only necessary for the claimant to show that in reliance on this agreement she acted to her own detriment or significantly altered her position.
(b) Where there is no such evidence, then the court must rely entirely on the conduct of the parties as the basis from which to infer an intention to share the property. Direct contributions to the purchase price by the claimant, whether initially or by payment of mortgage instalments, will justify the necessary inference. It is extremely doubtful whether anything less will do.
In practical effect, if your matter gets to Court each of you will spend three to five days giving evidence and being cross-examined, and each of you stands the self same equal chance of winning at the beginning. But it is a gamble, and nobody can predict the outcome with certainty. One very important thing to remember is that the Judge will read all of the paperwork and will have formed an initial opinion before he appears, so go over the paperwork with a fine toothcomb with your legals to ensure that your defence is fully documented and easily understood.
(a) The finding of an agreement or arrangement to share the property can only be based on evidence of express discussions between the parties, however imperfectly remembered and however imprecise their terms. Once a finding to this effect is made it is then only necessary for the claimant to show that in reliance on this agreement she acted to her own detriment or significantly altered her position.
(b) Where there is no such evidence, then the court must rely entirely on the conduct of the parties as the basis from which to infer an intention to share the property. Direct contributions to the purchase price by the claimant, whether initially or by payment of mortgage instalments, will justify the necessary inference. It is extremely doubtful whether anything less will do.
In practical effect, if your matter gets to Court each of you will spend three to five days giving evidence and being cross-examined, and each of you stands the self same equal chance of winning at the beginning. But it is a gamble, and nobody can predict the outcome with certainty. One very important thing to remember is that the Judge will read all of the paperwork and will have formed an initial opinion before he appears, so go over the paperwork with a fine toothcomb with your legals to ensure that your defence is fully documented and easily understood.
The idea that cross examination will take between three and five days per party is rather extreme. The witness statements will have been lodged at Court, read by each side, and by the judge, and will be taken as the evidence in chief without being read aloud. A competent barister should get through his cross examinationn in half a day or so. Unless there really are matters which require a fine tooth comb approach a judge will start to get impatient if things drag on.
You have already told us that your partner claims to have made payment to you in repect of a share of the mortgage, but that you claim they were repayment of a loan you had made to her. This sounds like the central issue. I trust that you have evidence to substantiate the loan. How long can it take to go over that issue?
-- answer removed --
1 to 12 of 12
