Daughters rights with house

[hogwash]

My daughter is a long term partner with her other half, but not married. The house they live in was his, she doesnt contribute to a mortgage or ever has had to. She mentioned her name is not on the deeds of the house. She has a child with him.

I think she cant say she owns/has share in the house, yet she says she does. There doesnt appear to be an legal commitment, that I can see.

What am I missing?

[UncleEbenezer]

Is anything in dispute? If not, where's the problem? If yes, it would ultimately for a court to arbitrate - at least so long as there's money left to fund them. Since there's a sprog, a court might very well find she'd given up a lot of potential career to the relationship, and award her something substantial for that. Or not: you may know, but we don't.

FWIW, my dad's house used to be legally the sole property of my mother before she died. In practice it was their home as equal partners.

[genou]

I can't see why she is more than a mere licensee. The child will have habitation rights that she can likely piggy back on. Random google :

https://www.co-oplegalservices.co.uk/me ... to%20leave.

[johnhemming]

I can't see why she is more than a mere licensee. The child will have habitation rights that she can likely piggy back on. Random google :

https://www.co-oplegalservices.co.uk/me ... to%20leave.

I would tend to see things the same way as genou. It is difficult to establish any particular rights beyond money to support their child. If there is a lot of money around then a Children Act Schedule 1 is possible, but otherwise it is child support.

[dealtn]

The house they live in was his ...

Sorry but what does this mean?

It is now owned by someone else, but they all live there?

It is still his, but the "they" is someone else not including your daughter?

It should read they lived in, but now all live elsewhere and there is some dispute about the proceeds?

Your daughter is no longer with the partner, but wants a claim on his assets?

I can't understand what you are seeking help with.

[PinkDalek]

The house they live in was his ...

Sorry but what does this mean?

It is now owned by someone else, but they all live there? ...

If hogwash makes it back, I would imagine it would be confirmed that the house was the daughter's partner's before the daughter moved in with him.

[Clitheroekid]

My daughter is a long term partner with her other half, but not married. The house they live in was his, she doesnt contribute to a mortgage or ever has had to. She mentioned her name is not on the deeds of the house. She has a child with him.

I think she cant say she owns/has share in the house, yet she says she does. There doesnt appear to be an legal commitment, that I can see.

What am I missing?

The first thing to say is that such situations are rarely black and white. Although a cohabitee has none of the rights of someone who's married they can, nevertheless, sometimes acquire a beneficial interest in a property owned by their cohabitee.

The most obvious way is by financial contribution. Although you say she hasn't contributed to the mortgage it's sometimes the case that a contribution may have been made towards the original purchase of the house (though not, it would appear, in this case).

Another way that an interest can be acquired is if she had contributed to improvements to the house that increased its value, for example by paying towards an extension. Even a significant contribution of labour can qualify.

There have also been a number of cases where a partner has been awarded an interest by the court because of something called `promissory estoppel'. This is where the owner of the house has promised the non-owning partner that they will become a joint owner, or has otherwise given them assurances that they have a secure home.

Finally, as has been mentioned, she can apply for an award under the Children Act. Although this is for the benefit of the child, not her personally, she may well derive some collateral benefit as the child's mother.

As with any such situation, she should seek individual legal advice.

[hogwash]

Thank you all for the information and your time replying. There is a rumblings of a dispute, if I read between the lines. Ok for now.

[eisman]

To add to Clitheroekid's comments:

What is described as 'beneficial interest' can also be termed an 'equitable interest'.

I believe establishing such an interest without directly contributing to the purchase or improvement of the house could be if, say, the OP's daughter had given up her career (or perhaps moved from full-time to part-time work) to raise their child.

Her claim would be weaker if the house had been bought and paid for prior to the relationship commencing.

[Clitheroekid]

To add to Clitheroekid's comments:

What is described as 'beneficial interest' can also be termed an 'equitable interest'.

I believe establishing such an interest without directly contributing to the purchase or improvement of the house could be if, say, the OP's daughter had given up her career (or perhaps moved from full-time to part-time work) to raise their child.

No, such conduct would not, of itself, be sufficient to establish a beneficial / equitable interest. There has to be either a direct contribution in money or money value terms or reliance upon some form of promise by the owner of the property.

[eisman]

Although the absence of a direct financial contribution to the purchase of the house makes establishing beneficial ownership more difficult, it is not impossible.

There is a wealth of litigation over beneficial ownership, mostly involving (formerly) married couples, but also unmarried partners.

One of the more recent cases, that of Lloyds Bank v Rosset ([1991] 1 AC 107) sets out the principle of a constructive trust, where a beneficial interest in a property can be found on the basis of a ‘common intention’ - construed either by evidence of direct discussions or from the partners’ conduct, followed by the 'non-owning' partner’s detrimental reliance on this intention.

Direct financial contributions by both partners towards the purchase of a property suggest a common intention of joint beneficial ownership. Case law historically had found that indirect financial contributions were not evidence of common intention and nor were non-financial contributions.

However, the case of Grant v Edwards ([1986] EWCA Civ 4) provides authority that financial contributions to household expenses can sometimes be treated as indirect contributions to the purchase. It was inferred that there was an understanding between the two partners that Mrs Grant was to have some sort of proprietary interest in the house. She made contributions to the housekeeping which enabled Mr Edwards to meet the mortgage instalments. She had acted to her detriment by making substantial contributions to the household expenses which she would not have done unless she had believed that she would have an interest in the house.

Grant v Edwards also referred to the case of Eves v Eves ([1975] EWCA Civ 3), in which no expenditure was contributed by the non-owning partner, but she established a beneficial interest as she had undertaken substantial physical work on the house and garden which she would not have done unless she had believed that she would have an interest in the house.

The subsequent case of Oxley v Hiscock ([2004] EWCA Civ 546) includes lengthy references to previous case law, including the above cases. The principal judgement focuses on the issues where partners were already in a relationship when the property was purchased, as in the instant case. However, it also touches on issues where a relationship commences after the property is purchased.

From the comments in the principal judgement, it appears that the Court finds some previous decisions overly restrictive and contradictory, and that there are circumstances in which indirect contributions and non-financial contributions should be considered as evidence of common intention. One needs to consider “the whole course of dealing between them in relation to the property”.

However, each case turns on its own facts so, as other contributors have suggested, this is definitely a matter for a specialist lawyer.