Opinions please.

[ummmm]

I'll try and keep this short.

Just met up with the ex to try and sort out our house. I bought the house in 1999 on my own. All bills etc are in my name. He moved in in 2002 and didn't pay anything, not even towards food for 9 months. After I had a hissy fit we agreed that he would pay me �200 pw. This included everything, including food. After a while he started asking the 'can I pay you double next week' question. This went on for about a year. I then decided that mortgage would go out of his account (app �800 at the time). I continued to pay all utility and food bills. Total app �1,000 + pm.

Anyway.....He now thinks because the mortgage went out of his account that he should more of the equity than me.

Is he a complete tw@at...??? He thinks cos the mortgage went out of his account that he doesn't have to pay for gas, leccy etc.....

And I'd like to add that out food bill came to about �600 pm as he 'only likes quality'

[ummmm]

Thank you everyone....you have confirmed my thoughts.

I may get him beaten up :-)

[sn�gged]

That'll cost ya. Be sure to bill the tw@t.

[stokemaveric]

its a pity that you had his name on the mortgage,unfortunatley that does give him rights to the property,sorry to say this ummmm but you have been taken in by a complete rat......................

[ummmm]

I just don't think it is fair that he is entitled to half the equity from when I had the house on my own.


I must add though....in my first sentence at our little meeting I called him by my current BF's name.....lol

[Ethel]

vibrasphere - you have totally made that up. A couple can live together for years and the non-owner be entitled to nothing in some circumstances.

ummmm - you could go to court and argue about it, but unless there is anything in writing that states how the proceeds are to be divided you are equal owners in the eyes of the law.

[ummmm]

I'll stick with the beating up option then......!!!!!

Bloody carpenters......!!!!!

[bigmamma]

You could always argue with the law that it's not him named on the morgage agreeement and deeds because he's called Mr. A . Complete Tw@t .

[ummmm]

I think it use to Vis....but no longer.

As far as I know there is no common law. You get out what you put in as long as you can prove it......

But not in my case....

[singapore54]

i'm pretty sure the six months thing is an urban myth. The real money makers IE the solicitors go through everything you have to have reciepts to prove your input into the household, no reciepts no cash.

[singapore54]

my spelling seems to be a bit wayward.

[Barmaid]

Ummmm, my considered opinion is he is a complete ****.

[Barmaid]

The whole common law wife thing is an urban myth.

It has always been the case (although the law was clarified recently by the House of Lords in Stack v Dowden) that the beneficial ownership follows the legal title. Those who seek to obtain something other than the legal title must prove it. To claim something other than the legal title, you need to show that there was a common intention between the parties that the ownership should be something different (common intention constructive trust) or that the ownership should be on the basis of contributions (resulting trust).

There endeth the legal lecture.

[QueenOfAmber]

Oh my gosh! What a tw@t!!!!
Good job he's your ex then...

[m1a1l1]

I can see why he is your ex, perhaps you could hire a hit man it would appear to be cheap at the price.

[QueenOfAmber]

lol ^

[ummmm]

I must say he was a very good man for a long time and treated me well. Just turned crazy when things went tit's up.