Parting after cohabiting

[G7ivp]

A & B live together for 15 years, they do not marry, have no children together and have now parted company.
There are no written agreements as to who owns what.
The house is and always has been in A's sole name and B came to live there.
There is a mortgage which has been on an interest only basis the whole time that they were together and no insurance policy to pay it off when the mortgage term runs out.
Everything was in A's name and paid from A's bank account (i.e. mortgage, council tax, utilities)
During their time together B contributed to household food but made no capital repayment on the mortgage nor paid for any maintenance of, or improvement to, the property.
B is now claiming a beneficial interest in the property. Does B have a valid claim?
TIA.

[james_law]

Hi,

As much as I would like to say B would not have claim they potentially could. B would need to prove there was a common intention to share ownership. You say there is no written agreement, is there a verbal agreement??

If there is no verbal agreement, it still can be inferred by conduct that both A and B had a common intention to share. Again A solely made payments towards the mortgage, so there was no common interest here. What exactly did B pay for? B could claim based on the fact his contributions were a indirect payment to the mortgage. Also similar to previous B could claim he suffered detriment upon relying on this common intention.

Based the facts I would say B would have a very very weak claim.

[MIKE770]

Very Very weak case, Move on & get on with their lives = seen this type sitation so many times only outcome had been bad feelings and out of pocket except of course a certain so called profession to milk populous with bad or incorrect advice. they are out there!

[G7ivp]

Hi,

As much as I would like to say B would not have claim they potentially could. B would need to prove there was a common intention to share ownership. You say there is no written agreement, is there a verbal agreement??

A did not intend to pass over any "share" in the property and there was never any suggestion that they might do so in the future.

If there is no verbal agreement, it still can be inferred by conduct that both A and B had a common intention to share. Again A solely made payments towards the mortgage, so there was no common interest here. What exactly did B pay for?

B paid for the internet connection (for his computer gaming although A benefited from this also) and B contributed towards food.

B could claim based on the fact his contributions were a indirect payment to the mortgage. Also similar to previous B could claim he suffered detriment upon relying on this common intention.

Based the facts I would say B would have a very very weak claim.

B had it good while living with A in that the amount of contribution was relatively small compared with living on their own.

[Jinxer]

I was in this situation as A 15 or so years ago. Be careful if B places a restriction on the property under TOLATA, if B does try this I think A has a month to dispute it and after the month it would be very hard to have removed. I made the mistake of not disputing within the month and still have the restriction on my property.