Partners ex refuses to leave his house

Dundalkshelly

Hiya, hope somebody can give me some advice,

I am with my partner since 3 years and his former girlfriend, he was with her since 20 years, refuses to leave his house, they have a 10 years old child as well, I have to mention.

Its his house she never ever paid any mortgage or what ever and told him to move out if he's not happy!!! She is a lazy piece and living on the dole at the moment. I don't mind her living there at the moment cause of the child but I don't want to see her spending the rest of her life in his house cause we do have some plans for the future. He thinks it's a tricky situation cause of "irish law" and mothers rights and bla bla bla ... but would like to live with me at some stage when the child is a bit older.
Can he at some stage just "throw" her out or can that back fire cause I don't want to see him losing his own house.
Any advice welcome, cheers

Caranica

Regardless of whether she's paid anything or not if they were together 20 years she will have some entitlements to a share in the property. Your partner needs to speak to a solicitor, legal advice isn't allowed on here.

victor8600

Dundalkshelly wrote: »

...Any advice welcome, cheers

Go to a solicitor for an advice. Regardless whether she paid the mortgage, she may be entitled to a part of the house, in which case the house may need to be sold. On the other hand, the ex may apply for council housing and/or accept some financial help in moving out to some other place. Lots of possibilities.

punisher5112

She will most likely get the house till the child finishes school/college so he will be paying the mortgage and basically getting nothing for it and then half it to get her out. As in pay half of what's it's worth or sell.

Dundalkshelly

Ok thanks just asking cause found this on Citizens Information online:

If a cohabiting couple splits up, the family home (and other family assets) will belong to the person who holds the legal title to the home/assets. This means that in the case of the family home, the person who originally bought the house and whose name is on the title deeds will usually own the house.

This also applies to a married couple who split up. Marriage does not automatically give you ownership of your spouse’s assets. Where the family home was bought and registered in both spouses’ names, they are the joint owners. However, where the house is registered in the name of one spouse only, it may be solely that spouse’s property.

ELM327

Dundalkshelly wrote: »

Ok thanks just asking cause found this on Citizens Information online:

If a cohabiting couple splits up, the family home (and other family assets) will belong to the person who holds the legal title to the home/assets. This means that in the case of the family home, the person who originally bought the house and whose name is on the title deeds will usually own the house.

This also applies to a married couple who split up. Marriage does not automatically give you ownership of your spouse’s assets. Where the family home was bought and registered in both spouses’ names, they are the joint owners. However, where the house is registered in the name of one spouse only, it may be solely that spouse’s property.

The above post is a good example of why not to believe everything you read. The marriage and family home cannot be owned by only one party, regardless of title name.

Dundalkshelly

Not married they just live together, no relationship any more and he bought the house before she moved in, hence I don't see why she might have entitlement to ownership

NSAman

Dundalkshelly wrote: »

Not married they just live together, no relationship any more and he bought the house before she moved in, hence I don't see why she might have entitlement to ownership

Go to a solicitor, he will probably say the same thing as others have said.

It isn’t just his house anymore, its a family home.

rainbowtrout

It's not just a 'tricky situation' because of Irish law. His ex has rights under Irish law. It's not something he can just wriggle out of, and rightly so. I'd assume that he already knows this.

He will need to go to a solicitor if he wants proper legal advice on the situation, but no he can't just throw her out.

Dundalkshelly

Dundalkshelly wrote: »

Not married they just live together, no relationship any more and he bought the house before she moved in, hence I don't see why she might have entitlement to ownership

The law isn't that simple. His ex could well have legal grounds to remain in the house.

The only way to find out is for your partner to contact a solicitor and get proper legal advice. I suspect his ex has already done so.

marieholmfan

It's much more her house than his and that's just how it is.

pwurple

He needs to tread very carefully here. Is he the guardian of the child?
He needs to seek legal advice.

Your position is awkward... you're effectively the side-girlfriend of a man cohabiting with the mother of his child, and their child, ie, a family unit. None of the parties involved need to pay any heed to what you request or advise.

punisher5112

A friend is in this exact problem.

House beside our work, she finished it, he left for a few days, came back she got solicitor and he was advised to leave.
By his own too.

Child around 12 so she will be in the house by the looks of it till school end and she isn't paying a cent.

marieholmfan

punisher5112 wrote: »

A friend is in this exact problem.

House beside our work, she finished it, he left for a few days, came back she got solicitor and he was advised to leave.
By his own too.

Child around 12 so she will be in the house by the looks of it till school end and she isn't paying a cent.

The mortgage payments will be taken into account by a judge when setting maintenance.

Dick Turnip

marieholmfan wrote: »

It's much more her house than his and that's just how it is.

Out of curiosity what do you mean by this? Just that the courts will more than likely rule in favour of her staying there?

marieholmfan

Dick Turnip wrote: »

Out of curiosity what do you mean by this? Just that the courts will more than likely rule in favour of her staying there?

Yep. That's how it is.

Dundalkshelly

Well are you saying somebody working paying his mortgage and buying a house has less rights than somebody living in it not even paid for a brick of the whole thing???

Salary Negotiator

Dundalkshelly wrote: »

Well are you saying somebody working paying his mortgage and buying a house has less rights than somebody living in it not even paid for a brick of the whole thing???

The courts will decide, but as they were in a relationship for years and have a kid it's not as simple as who paid for the house. Their lives are intertwined and the courts will look at total contributions not just monetary.

Dundalkshelly

pwurple wrote: »

He needs to tread very carefully here. Is he the guardian of the child?
He needs to seek legal advice.

Your position is awkward... you're effectively the side-girlfriend of a man cohabiting with the mother of his child, and their child, ie, a family unit. None of the parties involved need to pay any heed to what you request or advise.

Both are guardians of the child and I am the main-girlfriend, o dear this is complicated and unfair if you guys are right

marieholmfan

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

The courts will decide, but as they were in a relationship for years and have a kid it's not as simple as who paid for the house. Their lives are intertwined and the courts will look at total contributions not just monetary.

It certainly sounds like he hasn't moved out of his house.

rainbowtrout

Dundalkshelly wrote: »

Well are you saying somebody working paying his mortgage and buying a house has less rights than somebody living in it not even paid for a brick of the whole thing???

The reality is that whoever has custody of the child will be the one living in the house as the child has to be provided for. That in most cases is the mother. So while it's not legal advice, it's quite likely that she would be allowed to remain in the house until the child is 18 at the very least.

The notion of her paying a mortgage or not is not as cut and dried as you might think. You said they were together for 20 years and have a 10 year old. You don't say how long they have lived together, but I would presume that it's likely to be at least 10 years based on the child's age. If they made a decision that she wouldn't work in that time and she would mind the child rather than putting the child in childcare, then she was working in the home, and did not have the opportunity to earn a wage. If she had a low paid job before the child was born, it may not have paid for her to continue working and also pay for childcare. Now this may not have been the case at all, but it's one possibility. She may have been contributing in a different way.

But what you do need to do is let them sort it out themselves through their solicitors if they are going to go down that road. You will only get one side of the story from your partner.

Based on the fact that he told you that she would be staying in the house until the child is older, he might have already had that advice from his solicitor but hasn't told you that. It's only coming to a head now because you are in a position where you want to advance your relationship.

Financially up until now, the cheapest way to live for him is to remain sharing the house with his ex. If they were able to live under the same roof for three years then they may have come to some agreement.

bladespin

Dundalkshelly wrote: »

Well are you saying somebody working paying his mortgage and buying a house has less rights than somebody living in it not even paid for a brick of the whole thing???

From what I've seen, then yes, he may have worked and paid for the house but she lived with him there and bore him a child, would he have been able to pay without her assistance, support etc etc. Family law here is generally biased toward the mother (just an opinion).

joeguevara

So you want to live in a house rent free and have never paid anything towards, but are giving out about someone living in a house rent free but never paid anything towards. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttttttttttttttt!

Dundalkshelly

joeguevara wrote: »

So you want to live in a house rent free and have never paid anything towards, but are giving out about someone living in a house rent free but never paid anything towards. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttttttttttttttt!

You are some simple minded fool, I have never lived any where rent free, have worked all my life and will never ever live some where for free! Just want to spend the rest of my life with my soul mate and partner, not now but someday when the child is old enough

marieholmfan

Dundalkshelly wrote: »

You are some simple minded fool, I have never lived any where rent free, have worked all my life and will never ever live some where for free! Just want to spend the rest of my life with my soul mate and partner, not now but someday when the child is old enough

Don't rise to him; you'll never meet him or talk to him and if he met you he'd never say such tings to you.

As you say he's just a fool.

rainbowtrout

Dundalkshelly wrote: »

You are some idiot, I have never lived in a house rent free, have worked all my life and not saying I would live in a house rent free, never ever, paid rent all my life and will always do so ... just want to live with my partner, the one I want to spend my life with

But in none of your posts have you considered his child which has to be provided for in one way or another. You say it's unfair that he has paid for his house and she has paid nothing etc etc. His child needs a place to live and ultimately in any legal decision that is the deciding factor about who lives where.

If the child is to live with his mother, it is likely they will remain in the house. You don't mention any provision for the child, only that you want to live with your partner? Do you want his child out on the street??

Dundalkshelly

rainbowtrout wrote: »

But in none of your posts have you considered his child which has to be provided for in one way or another. You say it's unfair that he has paid for his house and she has paid nothing etc etc. His child needs a place to live and ultimately in any legal decision that is the deciding factor about who lives where.

If the child is to live with his mother, it is likely they will remain in the house. You don't mention any provision for the child, only that you want to live with your partner? Do you want his child out on the street??

As I said as soon as the child is old enough, just thinking ahead, I have raised a child on my own with no support so I know what its like and I made it, paid rent, went to work etc. and am proud of it

joeguevara

Dundalkshelly wrote: »

You are some simple minded fool, I have never lived any where rent free, have worked all my life and will never ever live some where for free! Just want to spend the rest of my life with my soul mate and partner, not now but someday when the child is old enough

She gave him 20 years of her life and the way you talk about her is disgraceful. You call her lazy and make specific reference to the dole. Yet she is the mother of his child.

You talk about your plans for the future and your want to live in a house that was bought 17 years before you even laid eyes on him. Yet when called out on it you resort to calling me a simple minded fool. Must have hit a nerve I suppose.

But anyway, here is a good article on this and your partner should look at it. https://www.aclsolicitors.ie/blog/the-rights-of-common-law-spouses-in-ireland

Also, have a look at adverse possesion. If no rent is requested for over 12 years, they may seek possession so this is also something to look at.

Mrs OBumble

Dundalkshelly wrote: »

Well are you saying somebody working paying his mortgage and buying a house has less rights than somebody living in it not even paid for a brick of the whole thing???

Would you cop on.

She carried his child and is raising it for him.

Think forward a bit to what will happen when you've had a child by him, put your own career on hold to raised it and looked after his domestic needs for a few years - and he decides to trade you in for a younger model. Do you think you should have any rights?

rainbowtrout

Dundalkshelly wrote: »

As I said as soon as the child is old enough, just thinking ahead, I have raised a child on my own with no support so I know what its like and I made it, paid rent, went to work etc. and am proud of it

That has nothing to do with this situation. This child has two parents who I presume are both raising him as they both live under the same roof. Are you suggesting that this guy moves in with you and good luck to the child, his mother can raise him himself just because you raised a child alone? This guy has a legal obligation to his child regardless of the situation with the mother.

The child is 10. And will be provided with a home under law until they reach 18.

bladespin

rainbowtrout wrote: »

The child is 10. And will be provided with a home under law until they reach 18.

Possibly older if they remain in full time education.

NSAman

Not looking like the perfect soul mate now?

Dundalkshelly

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Would you cop on.

She carried his child and us raising it for him.

Think forward a bit to what will happen when you've had a child by him, put your own career on hold to raised it and looked after his domestic needs for a few years - and he decides to trade you in for a younger model. Do you think you should have any rights?

She tricked him into a child cause she wanted one, not him. I myself raised a child and didn't put my career on hold or live on the tax payers expenses, don't worry the child is well looked after by both of them

rainbowtrout

Dundalkshelly wrote: »

She tricked him into a child cause she wanted one, not him. I myself raised a child and didn't put my career on hold or live on the tax payers expenses, don't worry the child is well looked after by both of them

If he didn't want a child, he is well able to use contraception I'm sure. Not everyone has a job that they have child friendly hours or get paid enough to finance childcare. Some people can rely on grandparents to help out with childcare duties, some do not have that luxury. You can't just slag off this woman just because you raised a child on your own. Some people choose to give up their jobs because they feel that raising the child themselves in their home is better for them than having them in a creche, and make a conscious decision to put their career on hold.

NSAman

Oh no... she punctured the johnnies!!!

Dundalkshelly

NSAman wrote: »

Oh no... she punctured the johnnies!!!

Something similar lol ah what ever cant send back return to sender

bladespin

Dundalkshelly wrote: »

She tricked him into a child cause she wanted one, not him.

He either played a part or didn't, you can't 'trick' someone into impregnating you:

Oops, I slipped and happened to knock you up lol.

Dundalkshelly

bladespin wrote: »

He either played a part or didn't, you can't 'trick' someone into impregnating you:

Oops, I slipped and happened to knock you up lol.

You can, pill didn't work ... well what can you say ...

joeguevara

Dundalkshelly wrote: »

You can, pill didn't work ... well what can you say ...

Well if it didn't work it didn't work. Where does the tricking come into it? Did he also tell you, he never loved her, she was cold and the only reason he stayed with her for another 10 years was because of the child, but you are my soul mate and I will love you forever.,

Dundalkshelly

joeguevara wrote: »

Well if it didn't work it didn't work. Where does the tricking come into it? Did he also tell you, he never loved her, she was cold and the only reason he stayed with her for another 10 years was because of the child, but you are my soul mate and I will love you forever.,

Believe it or not, you are right with almost everything, and pills don't work if you don't take them, easy as that

bladespin

Dundalkshelly wrote: »

You can, pill didn't work ... well what can you say ...

Yeah, he willingly took part in something that led to a child, no tricks there.

Marcusm

Legal Discussion and third page and no one has mentioned Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. I don’t know where you got your Citizens Information blurb but you are not reading the right parts. Based on the length of their cohabitation, the existence of a child and he financial dependence on him she can apply for a property adjustment order as well as financial support.

If you plan on having a long term relationship with him, you might be better advised to allow him to separate amicably first.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/problems_in_marriages_and_other_relationships/redress_scheme_for_cohabiting_couples.html

rainbowtrout

Dundalkshelly wrote: »

You can, pill didn't work ... well what can you say ...

Ya sometimes it doesn't, but if you are a man and you are determined not to become a father, then you take responsibility for yourself and you use a condom. If it is something you never want and you are fairly certain of that, then vasectomy is an option.

The notion that contraception should always be a woman's responsibility is laughable and the notion that if the pill fails she tricked him is also ridiculous. Contraception is the responsibility of both people in the relationship. Contraception failing is not tricking someone into parenthood. If your partner didn't feel that the pill was adequate contraception he could have used a condom.

Women can't win. They're either tricking men into having babies, or they are single mothers sponging off the state, or they're horrible unfeeling baby murderers who just want abortions. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Claw Hammer

ELM327 wrote: »

The marriage and family home cannot be owned by only one party, regardless of title name.

Of course it can. Why else does the family home protection Act say "3.—(1) Where a spouse, without the prior consent in writing of the other spouse, purports to convey any interest in the family home to any person except the other spouse, then, subject to subsections (2) and (3) and section 4, the purported conveyance shall be void."

All that happens is that the owning spouse needs the written consent of the non owning spouse to sell the property. Marriage does not give a spouse an interest in a property.

ittakestwo

OP your partners ex will have rights to the house. Over the period they were together and the mortgage was being paid they will be seen as also contributing to the household by the fact they were at home looking after their kid.

Do you think it would be fair for them to be left with nothing from the household after raising a child to 10 years in the household?

Sometimes it can be very tough for the stay at home parents when these relationships end. While the partner was out working and getting experience and probably promotions in thier job, the stay at home parent are left in a situation of not having great career prospects when they try and find work. Only fair the law should take everything of the household into account.

Dundalkshelly

ittakestwo wrote: »

OP your partners ex will have rights to the house. Over the period they were together and the mortgage was being paid they will be seen as also contributing to the household by the fact they were at home looking after their kid.

Do you think it would be fair for them to be left with nothing from the household after raising a child to 10 years in the household?

Sometimes it can be very tough for the stay at home parents when these relationships end. While the partner was out working and getting experience and probably promotions in thier job, the stay at home parent are left in a situation of not having great career prospects when they try and find work. Only fair the law should take everything of the household into account.

I don't agree, she has a roof over her head and food on the table for free and raising a child doesn't give you the rights on taking over the house, a house is a big thing, relationships ends that's life, its better to move on and get a job and stay independent, sure the other half has to pay for the child I agree with that, but children get older and go to school and getting a job and working for a few hours wont kill any mother, times are different women don't have to raise 10 children anymore

Salary Negotiator

Dundalkshelly wrote: »

I don't agree, she has a roof over her head and food on the table for free and raising a child doesn't give you the rights on taking over the house, a house is a big thing, relationships ends that's life, its better to move on and get a job and stay independent, sure the other half has to pay for the child I agree with that, but children get older and go to school and getting a job and working for a few hours wont kill any mother, times are different women don't have to raise 10 children anymore

It's not for free though.

JustMe,K

Dundalkshelly wrote: »

I don't agree, she has a roof over her head and food on the table for free and raising a child doesn't give you the rights on taking over the house, a house is a big thing, relationships ends that's life, its better to move on and get a job and stay independent, sure the other half has to pay for the child I agree with that, but children get older and go to school and getting a job and working for a few hours wont kill any mother, times are different women don't have to raise 10 children anymore

The ex has rights to the house, as has already been said. You sound quite bitter about the house and/or the ex, but disagreeing with the law does not change it. There may be plenty of reasons why she isn't working and to be honest if she hasn't worked for years she will find it difficult to get work that will pay her enough to get by, particularly with the cost of housing and childcare to account for, and at that stage your partner could end up paying a lot more in maintenance than he is now. Your partner really needs to get legal advice, and it needs to be his decision to do so, and his decision on how to progress.

Donald Trump

Paternity test

ittakestwo

ittakestwo wrote: »

OP your partners ex will have rights to the house. Over the period they were together and the mortgage was being paid they will be seen as also contributing to the household by the fact they were at home looking after their kid.

Do you think it would be fair for them to be left with nothing from the household after raising a child to 10 years in the household?

Sometimes it can be very tough for the stay at home parents when these relationships end. While the partner was out working and getting experience and probably promotions in thier job, the stay at home parent are left in a situation of not having great career prospects when they try and find work. Only fair the law should take everything of the household into account.

What if not "their" child? What if he gets dna test?

Dundalkshelly

JustMe,K wrote: »

The ex has rights to the house, as has already been said. You sound quite bitter about the house and/or the ex, but disagreeing with the law does not change it. There may be plenty of reasons why she isn't working and to be honest if she hasn't worked for years she will find it difficult to get work that will pay her enough to get by, particularly with the cost of housing and childcare to account for, and at that stage your partner could end up paying a lot more in maintenance than he is now. Your partner really needs to get legal advice, and it needs to be his decision to do so, and his decision on how to progress.

I know, sadly you are right, its easier to live on the tax payers or somebody else's costs than get out there and find a job, just my honest opinion, I know not everybody will agree.
I know he has to get legal advice and its his decision.