Moving in girlfriend...

DivingDuck

....... wrote: »

No it absolutely is not. Renting is a business agreement covered by tenancy law, generally between strangers.

I apparently didn't make my point clearly enough— I wasn't saying it's reasonable to treat your partner like a tenant; to me it isn't. I would never bring someone in and expect them to pay half the costs but then bugger off if things went South. (I certainly wouldn't do the reverse, either.)

I only meant that renting is generally considered acceptable on the basis that they pay your mortgage but have no rights. Does it change when there's a relationship involved? Obviously. As you say, it's weird to want to profit from your partner living with you if they don't get something in return, because the difference between a tenant and a partner is that a tenant could have chosen to live anywhere, but your partner is stuck living with you in your house.

If you've got a tenant, he could live up the road or with Mammy or anywhere else to save money, but your partner doesn't get to choose where they live if they're living with you, and if they're taking on half the costs, they don't get to choose those, either.

It's a mad arrangement, IMO, but plenty of people do it. I'd rather sell up and buy somewhere together— or if the other party wasn't capable of financing that, I'd be asking myself if I was prepared to fund them for the foreseeable future. If the answer wasn't yes, and they weren't okay with living separately, I'd be looking for an end to the relationship rather than moving them in.

CIARAN_BOYLE

I know of one relationship where the man broke off the relationship just shy of 5 years with the reasoning that he would be legally responsible for supporting her as if they were married if the relationship ended. He wasn't ready to propose so it was game over.

Nermal

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

Problem is you can't legislate for the different types of cohabiting couples

Why do we need to?

There was nothing wrong with the previous regime: those who wanted to make a commitment to mutual support could get married, those who didn't could avoid it by not getting married. What was wrong with that?

Lumen

beertons wrote: »

I knew of a guy who met a girl, she moved in quickly, got pregnant, moved out a year and a day later. He had to sell the house, give her half. She did this to 2 other guys, once before him, once more after. Exactly a year and a day for all. This all happened from 2003/2004, but it always stuck with me.

I like the way you say she "got pregnant" in the same way that she might have "got an iPhone" or "got a haircut".

It's been a while since biology classes but I vaguely remember there being two people quite actively involved in the process.

Ursus Horribilis

Nermal wrote: »

Why do we need to?

There was nothing wrong with the previous regime: those who wanted to make a commitment to mutual support could get married, those who didn't could avoid it by not getting married. What was wrong with that?

Presumably it was because there were people being left high and dry when their long term relationships ended.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Nermal

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

Presumably it was because there were people being left high and dry when their long term relationships ended.

So what? If they didn't want to be left high and dry, they had the option of being married. The new legislation has removed the choice that couples previously had.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Nermal

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The choice of living together without agreeing to any sharing of assets or making any commitment to mutual support.

Ursus Horribilis

The thing is, cohabiting couples don't automatically have all the rights of a married one. It has led to unmarried fathers not being able to see their children, people's next of kin not being their partner, inheritance troubles if a partner dies. It's giving legal protection to people who are in committed, cohabiting relationships.

Ursus Horribilis

Nermal wrote: »

So what? If they didn't want to be left high and dry, they had the option of being married. The new legislation has removed the choice that couples previously had.

Nobody is forcing a splitting couple to make a claim on anyone's property.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Nermal

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Perfectly. The partners don't have nothing - they got accommodation, in the same way a tenant would have.

pwurple

Nermal wrote: »

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

Presumably it was because there were people being left high and dry when their long term relationships ended.

So what? If they didn't want to be left high and dry, they had the option of being married. The new legislation has removed the choice that couples previously had.

It really isn't "new" legislation either. It's from 2010.... hardly breaking news.

The problem is, people want all the legal benefits, protection of the family home etc, but none of the responsibilities that come with that.
Life happens. Whether you like it or not, by moving in together as a couple, you are making a set of agreements to look out for each other.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They can still do this once the co-habitation lasts less than 5 years.

If people want rights to a property of their partner they should get married, I don't see why paying towards a mortgage you are not named on for a property you don't own should be considered any different to paying rent. If not married it would be a right bunny boiler that would come looking for money after a break up just because they lived in their partners house and paid to do so, same as they would have to pay rent if living somewhere else.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Exactly the same as renting a room in your house to a licensee. Yet no one would dream of giving them any rights to the property.

Nermal

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There is no inequality. Do you consider a property owner - licensee arrangement an inequality also? How many times do I have to share the bed of my landlord before the rent-a-room scheme gives me a share of their property?

.......

This post has been deleted.

rustynutz

To take it to an extreme, someone could move a partner in, get them to cover the mortgage while they pay the bills, and do that over and over with several partners until they have no loan, a property in their name and several people left behind who have nothing. Do you think that is a fair and equitable situation?[/QUOTE]

I don't get this mindset, if a person is renting a house, and moves their partner in, and it doesn't work out, what is the person left with? Nothing, they paid rent for the length of time they lived together and then they move on.

So working from that, why should someone who has worked hard to become a homeowner be punished? Why should someone have a claim to a homeowners house just because they shared that house for over 5 years? The homeowner has most likely ploughed their life savings into the deposit, and /or site (if they built the house, also add countless weekends and evenings during design and construction), for someone to come along and stake their claim just because they lived together and rightly contributed to the household they were benefiting from?

It's like the "Fair Deal" scheme they are now trying to introduce, where if you worked hard all your life and have savings, the government want to clean you out before you die, and force you to pay for home help etc.

Slowly but surely, with every new bill, and legislation that is introduced, the message that is coming across from our government is:



Do not own a home - if you do, we will tax you massively on the purchase price, tax you yearly, leave you wide open to someone claiming half of it, and finally take it off you when you reach the end of your life to pay for your care.

Do not work hard - if you do we will tax you to the hilt, and you will pay for everything, healthcare, pension, accommodation, education etc.

Do **** all, sit on your hole day in day out and - We will give you free or almost free accommodation, in the location of your choice, with the option to buy at the end. We will also pay for your healthcare, education, kids education, pension, nursing home, etc etc.

pilly

beertons wrote: »

I knew of a guy who met a girl, she moved in quickly, got pregnant, moved out a year and a day later. He had to sell the house, give her half. She did this to 2 other guys, once before him, once more after. Exactly a year and a day for all. This all happened from 2003/2004, but it always stuck with me.

She moved in with 3 guys, had 3 kids and got the share in 3 houses? Yeah, sorry, not true.

Beanybabog

You can have a cohabitants agreement. Unlike marriage, the cohabitants legislation allows for an opt out. It should be signed etc before you cohabit and each party should have independent legal advice.

zedhead

rustynutz wrote: »

To take it to an extreme, someone could move a partner in, get them to cover the mortgage while they pay the bills, and do that over and over with several partners until they have no loan, a property in their name and several people left behind who have nothing. Do you think that is a fair and equitable situation?

I don't get this mindset, if a person is renting a house, and moves their partner in, and it doesn't work out, what is the person left with? Nothing, they paid rent for the length of time they lived together and then they move on.

So working from that, why should someone who has worked hard to become a homeowner be punished? Why should someone have a claim to a homeowners house just because they shared that house for over 5 years? The homeowner has most likely ploughed their life savings into the deposit, and /or site (if they built the house, also add countless weekends and evenings during design and construction), for someone to come along and stake their claim just because they lived together and rightly contributed to the household they were benefiting from?

It's like the "Fair Deal" scheme they are now trying to introduce, where if you worked hard all your life and have savings, the government want to clean you out before you die, and force you to pay for home help etc.

Slowly but surely, with every new bill, and legislation that is introduced, the message that is coming across from our government is:



Do not own a home - if you do, we will tax you massively on the purchase price, tax you yearly, leave you wide open to someone claiming half of it, and finally take it off you when you reach the end of your life to pay for your care.

Do not work hard - if you do we will tax you to the hilt, and you will pay for everything, healthcare, pension, accommodation, education etc.

Do **** all, sit on your hole day in day out and - We will give you free or almost free accommodation, in the location of your choice, with the option to buy at the end. We will also pay for your healthcare, education, kids education, pension, nursing home, etc etc.

But surely if you are living with your partner for more than 5 years you are building a life with them, I mean 5 years is not a short amount of time. This distrust of people that they are going to move in, stick around 5 years and then leave laying claim to all your hard work. Over the 5 years they would have surely contributed a huge amount to the lives both people are building together. Paying for repairs, decor, maintanence etc.

Yes you need to look out for your own interests, but if you are planning a life with someone you need to factor them in at some point. Also just because people are entitled to something, doesn't mean everyone will look to 'cash in' on a situation. It is there for people who need it. Those who have sacrificed something else for the relationship and lost the ability to support themselves fully in a decision made by both parties - either given up work, dropped to part time, changed jobs to move and be closer to their partner. I know people who would have been entitled to 'part of the house' but never looked for anything.

So I am sure there are people who take advantage of this law, but I can't imagine its the majority.

I would hate to think after 5 years with my partner they were considering what I could take them for if we broke up - i would rather then ended it then as I wouldn't think we'd have much of a future together.

Mrs OBumble

gozunda wrote: »

Let out your gaff and rent someplace together and go halves on costs 50/50

There are potential risks in this, too.

If you are not working but are entitled to non-means tested benefit, then your are OK. But if you aren't and have to go for a means-tested benefit, then a house which you own but don't live in counts.


Also OP, not matter where you live, be aware of the welfare implications ov cohabitation: if either of you loses your job, then if you are entitled to job-seekers benefit well enough. But if you aren't, then the other partner's income counts as means.


Now hopefully this won't happen, but it's worth being aware of. Welfare liability for the other person kicks in on move-in day, not after 5 years.

beertons

pilly wrote: »

She moved in with 3 guys, had 3 kids and got the share in 3 houses? Yeah, sorry, not true.

He worked on the same team as my sister in a financial institution. But sure you know him better than I do.

Inmyownworld

Beanybabog wrote: »

You can have a cohabitants agreement. Unlike marriage, the cohabitants legislation allows for an opt out. It should be signed etc before you cohabit and each party should have independent legal advice.

This - get a cohabitation agreement in place before moving her in.

Voluntary agreements
Agreements on financial matters between cohabitant partners may be regarded as valid only if:

Each of you has had independent legal advice or you have received legal advice together and have waived the right to independent legal advice
The agreement constitutes a contract
The agreement has been signed by each of you
Such an agreement may include a provision that the redress scheme does not apply to them. This is different from similar agreements by married couples. Agreements between a married couple may not validly exclude either party’s right to apply to the courts for various orders (for example, a maintenance order). A court may set aside or vary a cohabitants’ agreement in exceptional circumstances if its enforcement would cause serious injustice. Agreements entered into by cohabitants before the Act commenced are enforceable.

- http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/problems_in_marriages_and_other_relationships/redress_scheme_for_cohabiting_couples.html

MissShihTzu

I've been stung badly by buying a property with a partner who promptly *******off and left me with the mortgage. And I still had to buy him out!

OP - I think you need to get legal advice and some kind of agreement drawn up. Not loving, not romantic, but it's a case of CYA (Cover Your Arse). You need to look out for your own interests here.

Peregrinus

beertons wrote: »

He worked on the same team as my sister in a financial institution. But sure you know him better than I do.

I think he might have been fibbing to your sister, or to you, beertons. You still haven't offered us any plausible reason as to why these men were obliged to sell their houses and give half to their girlfriend of a year-and-a-day. No court in Ireland would have made such an order.

Pics, or it didn't happen!

amtc

My friend has a situation which kind of mirrors this. She met and moved in with a guy who had bought a house with his ex girlfriend and had lived in it with her for six years, paying half each. The ex did not contribute anything to the mortgage from when she left and indeed afaik is now married and living elsewhere. However she is still on deeds and mortgage. My friend has her own house which she rented out (this paid her mortgage). She then paid half the new guy's mortgage and has been doing for two years. They have no intention of getting married (My friend having been engaged before and got badly burned). However they are now in the ridiculous situation where his ex has majority of claim to house.

Peregrinus

amtc wrote: »

My friend has a situation which kind of mirrors this. She met and moved in with a guy who had bought a house with his ex girlfriend and had lived in it with her for six years, paying half each. The ex did not contribute anything to the mortgage from when she left and indeed afaik is now married and living elsewhere. However she is still on deeds and mortgage. My friend has her own house which she rented out (this paid her mortgage). She then paid half the new guy's mortgage and has been doing for two years. They have no intention of getting married (My friend having been engaged before and got badly burned). However they are now in the ridiculous situation where his ex has majority of claim to house.

Well, his ex has a claim to 50% of the house. This may be ridiculous, but it's the result of his decision to put her on the title while making all the payments himself, which presumably didn't look like a ridiculous decision at the time he made it.

Your friend's partner should talk to a lawyer (if he hasn't already). On the breakdown of a relationship in his circumstances the courts do have jurisdiction to make a property adjustment order, and (depending on the parties' needs, circumstances, etc) as part of an overall financial settlement that could include an order transferring the ex's 50% share, or some of it, to him. I'm not saying this is a guaranteed outcome, but it's certainly a possiblity, and it's worth exploring. Alternatively, he could seek to buy out his ex's share; as she's neither living in it nor collecting rent from it it's not of huge immediate utility to her, and a reasonable offer might look attractive. Plus, even if she's not paying anything towards the mortgage she's still liable to the bank for it, so she's at some risk.

Meanwhile your friend and her partner should have a very clear understanding of what she is getting in return for her contributions to the mortgage at present. And they should be documenting it, and if appropriate ensuring it's reflected in the way the legal title to the house is held.

super_sweeney

think this is getting very off topic at places... I think answers have been given...