Question Regarding Common Law Relationships

[hammerman]

Ok, here's the gig....

Man and woman, not married, been together for 15 years, have an 11 year old child. They live in their own house but the mortgage is in his name only. She works and contributes to the bills, cost of bringing up child etc.

They split up.

1) would she be entitled to stay in the house with the child until the child has left full time education...even if he wants to sell it ?..could he sell it if he wanted ?

2) would she be entitled to something from the sale of the house ?

Many thanks

[ummmm]

There is no such thing as common law.

She'll need to see a solicitor as they both have a duty to house the child and a judge will decide.

Contributing to bills and the raising of their child would be the same in rented accommodation.

I don't think she will get something for the sale of the house just because she's paid her way. If she's gone beyond paying her way she can register an interest in the house.

[cassa333]

1) Not gaurenteed
2) Depends if she can prove she has contributed.

A friend iof mine wasn't married and had three children by her partner. The only diffierence was she was on the morgage but she still had to sell. She is now in rented and he pays only for the children and nothing that would be thought of as for her.

Not getting married is all well and good for your moral wellbing or anti establishement leanings but when it comes to money and being looked after properly when a relationship breaks down you are up broccoli creek without a paddle if your not married.

[hc4361]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12354670

[FredPuli43]

See the above link for (1).

The "uphill struggle" referred to in the link, about a share in the property, means an action in equity, that part of the law that exists to rectify wrongs created by a literal interpretation of documents and statutes. She would need to show that it was manifestly unjust for her not to be given a share in the house. To do that, she would need to show that she had made substantial contribution , not necessarily expressed in terms that it was to pay for the house or the mortgage. It could be that without it, he would not have been able to pay for the house or mortgage, however it was expressed, if expressed at all. Alternatively (and highly unlikely in this case; it's meant for other cases) the claimant would have to show that she was promised such a share and, in reliance on that promise, had lived in the house, to her own detriment when the promissor reneged on the agreement.

All this fuss, and all the expense and doubt as to the outcome, would be avoided if women were not so naive as to believe the old lie "a marriage certificate is only a bit of paper" usually followed by " we don't need one to prove our love"

[tonywiltshire]

There is such a thing as common law, which is a system of law derived from court decisions, but there is no such thing as a common law relationship or marriage within England two people living together as husband and wife are cohabitants.
If the female has assisted in looking after the children and home and paying bills without making direct payments to the mortgage she may well have a claim on the property as it may be argued that without her contribution he may not have been able to make the mortgage payments.