How can we protect our share of a property if we split up?

What legal measures do I have to take into account in the event of a division if I buy a home with my partner? We are not married.

Myra Butterworth, MailOnline Property expert replies: If you want to buy a home with a partner, it is wise to do some research beforehand to make sure that you are financially protected in the event of a split later on.

There are steps you can take to ensure you don’t become homeless if a split occurs, and perhaps the most important of these is to make sure you are registered with the Land Registry.

We talk to a legal expert about your options and how you can settle things legally before we buy a home with someone.

Stephen Gold, ex-judge and author, explains: Much more important than winning the discussion about whether the bedroom walls should be painted pink or black with white stripes, is to register yourself as a co-owner with the Land Registry: effectively having your name on the deeds.

The reason for this is that if your relationship breaks down, the law will treat you differently from someone coming from a failed marriage or civil partnership.

For them, the law says that anything owned – whether in the name of one of the parties or in the name of both – must be distributed fairly.

For cohabitants who separate, the law is nonsense. But with you as a co-owner, the profit — and hopefully not the loss — on a future sale is paid out based on how much of the property you own.

Ever since I wore diapers, they’ve talked about treating divorcing couples the same as divorcing spouses — and, more recently, civil partners — but it never happened. I’m willing to bet my law books that the law will change. Unfortunately not yet.

What if you invest unequal amounts?

When ownership is transferred to both of you, the documentation will indicate which shares you own.

If, as usual, you are the owner as a ‘co-tenant’, this will almost certainly result in an equal distribution.

However, the documentation may specify different stocks – especially when a party has paid most, if not all, of the cash, or will pay the lion’s share of the expenses, including the mortgage installments.

Then the documentation will say you own as “common tenants” and specify the shares.

Married couples often decide that when the property is sold, they should each get back the cash they put in, and that, after deducting the mortgage and the sales costs, the balance should be divided equally.

On the other hand, there is no legal objection to one party having a half interest in the entire sale profit, despite not having made a cash contribution or contributed to the mortgage. A test of how true is the love of the party with the dosh.

The law does recognize that a couple’s intentions regarding the shares in the home they own can change over time.

In a 1985 Supreme Court case, cohabitants bought property in Essex for £30,000 on a 50/50 owner basis.

Thirteen years later it was worth £245,000. By this time, the couple had broken up with the woman who lived in the house and took care of the parties’ two children and paid for all expenses.

It was held that the parties’ intentions regarding shares were believed to have changed, with the woman’s stake increasing to 90 percent.

Beware of lies that one party can vent

“You’re going through a divorce right now. I won’t put your name on the deeds, because it could mess up the financial matter between you and your husband.’

Or ‘since you are not yet 21, you should stay away from the deeds for the time being’. And even ‘the building company says the flat has to be in my name because you don’t work’.

These are the kinds of lies that one party can peddle to another as an excuse to keep their name off the deeds.

Courts have been known to treat them as the truth and thus use them as evidence that the liar actually wanted the other party to have an interest in the property.

So you see, just because your name isn’t on the deeds doesn’t mean you can’t successfully claim an interest in the property.

You would have to prove that you both intended to have an interest – there was an agreement or understanding between you to that effect that could have come about even some time after the purchase – and that you acted against you in the reasonable belief that you acquired this interest. It is known as a constructive trust claim.

A financial contribution to the purchase price or repayment of mortgage installments, or the implementation or carrying of substantial improvements would be good proof of the intention that you would have an interest in it and that you are acting against you.

write it down

There is nothing to legally prevent your partner from adding you as a co-owner, even if you were originally locked out.

“You’ve been abusing me for years. I’m free, unless you make me part owner of the house now.’ I’ve heard of that more than once. A share of the property can be transferred, although this will probably require the approval of the mortgage lender.

Alternatively, your partner can sign a document – a “statement of confidence” as all the best lawyers call it – in which they make it clear that they now consider you a co-owner and the amount of your share.

It’s best to have an attorney handle it and the step to take with the Land Registry to make sure they can’t sell the property covertly or mortgage it while you’re shopping.

If the property goes in joint names, the couple may want to have a trust deed drafted outlining various things, such as how they will contribute to the mortgage and what the impact on their share would be in the event of financing. major improvements.

Patented exclusion

Yes, it sounds painful, but it can be enjoyable. This is the title of another legal argument that can be put forward once you get rid of the deeds.

You can score here if you can prove that your partner made you a promise about the property – usually it is that you could live there as long as you wanted – that you relied on to your detriment and that your partner acted in a morally unacceptable manner.

Take, for example, Mr. T, who was careful and guarded. He told Mrs B that he was against the marriage but that she and her two young daughters would always have a home and be safe in the Droitwich house he bought in his only name.

On that basis, she gave up on her Manchester lease, deposited about £4,000 towards the new house, and she and the girls moved in.

About nine years later, the relationship was over and she and the girls were homeless. Mr. T had broken his promise, which was unscrupulous. She was awarded £28,500 reflecting what the money she had put into Droitwich and Manchester was worth when her case was heard.

If there are children

If you have children under the age of 18 from your partner and you are their carer, you want a roof over your head. But suppose you are ignorant and none of the delightful arguments I have mentioned are available to you, then what?

An application to the court can be filed under Annex 1 to the Children’s Act 1989. In any case, your partner can be ordered to make the home available to you and the children, with your partner out, while the children complete their education – until in the first degree – or any other real estate they may own, for the same purpose.

To learn more about protecting yourself financially before and during cohabitation from both sides’ point of view, plus claiming a deceased partner’s estate without caring for the next of kin, see my book The Return of Breaking Law.

Stephen Gold is an ex-judge and author of ‘The Return of Breaking Law’, published by Bath Publishing. For more information about service charges, please visit: breakinglaw.co.uk