When a relationship breaks down, property rights are often one of the highest value and most complex factors to consider. If the couple is unmarried, and one of them owned the property outright before the start of the relationship, there may be confusion as to whether the non-owner has any rights to what had become their home.

In this second article in the series, Divorce and Family partner Toby Atkinson and senior associate Sarah Havers review the rights of unmarried partners and whether they can make any claim to property if the couple split up.

If an unmarried person moves in with their property-owner partner but they break up after several years of living together, does the person who moved into the property have any rights to it?

Cohabiting couples do not enjoy the same legal rights as those who are married or in a civil partnership, even if they have lived together for a long period of time and have children. On that basis, as the partner has made no financial contribution to the property they will have no right to a share unless able to demonstrate that they have acquired a beneficial interest in the property.

For example, if the property owner gave concrete assurances to their partner that they subsequently relied on to their financial detriment, this could be problematic for the owner. Sweeping statements (especially in writing) such as “please treat this property as much as yours as it is mine” or “what is mine is yours” are particularly dangerous!

Does it make a difference if they have been paying half the mortgage?

In all likelihood, yes. In those circumstances, the non-owner may well be able to argue they have an interest in the property, but would have to prove that it was their common intention that they would share to some extent in the ownership. If they can, paying half or more of the mortgage instalments would be compelling evidence that they relied on the agreement to their financial detriment, which is the second part of the legal test.

Would it make a difference if they paid in the form of rent?

Yes. The rental agreement would be strong evidence that shared ownership was never intended.

What if they had been doing home improvements (painting, decorating etc.)?

The non-owner would have to be able to prove a common intention to share in the ownership of the property and that they have acted to their financial detriment in reliance on that agreement. So the more significant and expensive the home improvements, such as an attic conversion, the stronger their case.

The property owner might argue, however, that any contributions were evidence of making their lives together, rather than the partner gaining an interest in the property. These cases are always very fact specific.

These responses were first provided for an article in Good Housekeeping.

 

You can find further information regarding our expertise, experience and team on our Divorce and Family pages.

If you require assistance from our team, please contact us.

 


 

Subscribe – In order to receive our news straight to your inbox, subscribe here. Our newsletters are sent no more than once a month.

Key Contacts

See all people