# Girlfriend moving in...



## drutopia (28 Nov 2008)

Hi, 

Wondering if anyone could throw some advice my way...

My girlfriend moved in with me, into my house a few months back. The house is only in my name, I pay the mortgage. 
She doesn't pay any rent, that was my choice. She only contributes towards the utility and food bills. She hasn't had to buy furniture or anything like that either. So anyway here's the question.

Things are going really well, there are no problems at all... but if in the future things were to turn a bit sour, where would we stand on this? Is there such thing as common law marraige in Ireland? Would she be entitled to anything regarding my home if we split up?

Fingers crossed I'm not jinxing the relationship by even asking this question.


Thanks!


----------



## Vanilla (28 Nov 2008)

There is no such thing as commonlaw marriage, yet.

Theoretically she could, at some point in the future, demand a share in the house since we only have your word for it that her contribution is used for bills. She might have a different slant on it and say that she contributed to a pool of money, some of which was used for mortgage payments etc.

To avoid this you should get her to sign a legal agreement...

...although that wouldn't be very romantic.


----------



## Dreamerb (28 Nov 2008)

drutopia said:


> [...]... but if in the future things were to turn a bit sour, where would we stand on this? Is there such thing as common law marraige in Ireland? Would she be entitled to anything regarding my home if we split up?


"Common law marriage" doesn't exist. There are in existing law some very, very limited rights for people who have been cohabiting "as man and wife" for a number of years (under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, certain social welfare provisions - which usually but not always leave cohabitants worse off!, the Domestic Violence Acts, and a couple of other things which currently escape me). 

However, there are currently proposals to make legislation for civil partnership for same-sex couples, and in that legislation there are also proposals to give protection to long-term cohabitees under a "redress scheme". That means that if the relationship breaks up, then an economically dependent cohabitant might be able to apply for maintenance or for a share of the property or pension of the former partner. If the relationship ends on death, the partner can apply for a share of the estate. People who make "cohabitant agreements" may opt out of the redress scheme applying to them; it might be a good idea for you both to set out who owns what / is financially responsible for what, and give you better protection.

Not very romantic, as Vanilla points out, but pragmatic. I had such an (unwritten, but clearly understood) agreement with my now spouse when we boiught our first house - which is of course a slightly different situation, since we had a common financial commitment - and I really think it's a good idea to be clear on what belongs to whom and who's responsible for what.


----------



## murphaph (28 Nov 2008)

So when (as a young single man) I bought my house (quite) a few years back the solicitor advising me was wrong when he said "A court could view you and your future live in girlfriend as man and wife and you could lose half your house" was wrong or only partially right? 

In fact, he went on to say that if you get engaged publically (ie, make a public declaration of intent to marry) then she could claim that was a verbal contract and you could be even more up sh!t creek. That guy left me scared to even bring a 'bird' home of an evening!


----------



## picene (28 Nov 2008)

afaik 





> engaged publically


 once engaged its an enforceable contract in that you can sue and my win if the engagement is broken off


----------



## Pique318 (29 Nov 2008)

...and who said romance was dead, huh ?


----------



## eggerb (29 Nov 2008)

Vanilla said:


> ... Theoretically she could, at some point in the future, demand a share in the house since we only have your word for it that her contribution is used for bills. She might have a different slant on it and say that she contributed to a pool of money, some of which was used for mortgage payments etc....


 
How about opening a joint account which you both contribute to and *solely* using that account for utilities and groceries? (Continue to pay the mortgage from your own current account). Would this, in effect, strengthen one's case that the money contributed was used *only* for utilities and groceries?


----------



## bond-007 (29 Nov 2008)

How would one go about terminating such an agreement? Would destroying all copies be enough?


----------



## DavyJones (29 Nov 2008)

Pique318 said:


> ...and who said romance was dead, huh ?



I'd call it planning ahead. Fair play to OP, love is only blind if you let it be.

There was a case in the UK last year where a girlfriend got half the house in  court. The house and mortgage was in boyfriends name but she claimed to have paid 50% of bills etc. If I remember correctly there were no children involved.


----------



## becky (29 Nov 2008)

I'd also sign a legal agreement and am always surprised that a lot of couples don't do it even when its a joint purchase.

You own a substantial asset and its perfectly logical to take steps to protect.


----------



## MaryBe (29 Nov 2008)

becky said:


> I'd also sign a legal agreement and am always surprised that a lot of couples don't do it even when its a joint purchase.
> 
> You own a substantial asset and its perfectly logical to take steps to protect.


 

When we were getting married, we both agreed that 
'what was his was mine and what was mine was my own'. It's worked 25 years now.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (29 Nov 2008)

MaryBM said:


> When we were getting married, we both agreed that
> 'what was his was mine and what was mine was my own'. It's worked 25 years now.




Exactly! .... that's why an agreement might be needed. At least with marriage the divorce process will sort things. Living with someone is always forever if/until something happens to sully the relationship. If that happens both parties will be glad if an agreement exists. It will at least make the parting a lot easier and financially less expensive on both sides.


----------



## MaryBe (29 Nov 2008)

PaddyBloggit said:


> Exactly! .... that's why an agreement might be needed. At least with marriage the divorce process will sort things. Living with someone is always forever if/until something happens to sully the relationship. If that happens both parties will be glad if an agreement exists. It will at least make the parting a lot easier and financially less expensive on both sides.


 

Emm Paddy, I'm not sure if your read our agreement correctly.  Ultimately I get everything!! (as it should be!!)


----------



## PaddyBloggit (29 Nov 2008)

MaryBM said:


> Emm Paddy, I'm not sure if your read our agreement correctly.  Ultimately I get everything!! (as it should be!!)




I did .... I did (as Paddy runs screaming for the door)


----------



## Black Sheep (29 Nov 2008)

I think it is vital that you have some form of written agreement between you to clarify the current arrangement. Perhaps her understanding of the situation re home ownership, mortgage and sharing of bills is different than yours. Some discussion around this is required. 
Perhaps you may decide to up-grade in some years time snd she is of the belief that she has built up some equity.
Not very romantic I know but practical


----------



## drutopia (1 Dec 2008)

Thank you all very much for your thoughts on this... maybe I should get something in writing, just to put any fears at rest. I just have to figure out how to romanticise it!


 Thanks again!


----------



## PaddyBloggit (1 Dec 2008)

Put a border of hearts around the agreement ;-)


----------



## csirl (1 Dec 2008)

DavyJones said:


> I'd call it planning ahead. Fair play to OP, love is only blind if you let it be.
> 
> There was a case in the UK last year where a girlfriend got half the house in court. The house and mortgage was in boyfriends name but she claimed to have paid 50% of bills etc. If I remember correctly there were no children involved.


 
UK family law is very different to Irish family law.

The short answer to the OPs question is that there is no such thing as common law marriage in Ireland.

However, where two people, not necessarily in a relationship, contribute financially to a household, there may be tenancy and property issues. The nature of thse issues will depend on the exact circumstances in each case. 

Also, the burden of proof would be on the person who's name is not listed on the legal documentation (deeds, mortgage etc.) and I'd imagine that in the majority of cases it would be difficult for them to prove that they were anything other than tennants.


----------



## Dreamerb (1 Dec 2008)

picene said:


> afaik  once engaged its an enforceable contract in that you can sue and my win if the engagement is broken off


Not any more you can't. It used to be possible to take an action for breach of promise (a marvellous notion, which landed  Mr. Pickwick in debtor's prison), but that was abolished a few years ago. Though remarkably few, really - about 20 or so, I think.

@ murphaph: certainly no more than partially right - but because break-ups where people invoke the notion of presumed trust are so messy and unpleasant, s/he may have been engaging in a bit of hyperbole to ensure you protected your property even in the throes of romance.


----------



## shortcake (8 Dec 2008)

The position in the law at the moment is that she has no rights until you're engaged. However, in legal terms, living together is increasingly being viewed as a step towards marraige and not what it is in a lot of cases - 'playing house'. If you just want to play house then you'll only be able to do it for a year before it may become more in the eyes of the law! But really, if you are close enough to live with her you should be close enough to discuss your long term future together. Its the adult thing to do and if you're not ready for that then you're just playing house which is risky. Good luck..


----------



## jimmyd (19 Jan 2009)

@ drutopia

Just wondering what did you do in the end? 
I am in the same situation.


----------



## bizincork (23 Jan 2009)

i am in the worst case scenario above, going to court soon as the Ex thinks she has some right to a property i own as she lived there and paid for food ????...apparantley she has ?? go figure...so for trying to be nice you end up getting screwed...
I would get something sorted right away.


----------



## sparkeee (23 Jan 2009)

Its already her house,get out while you still own the dog and your clothes.


----------



## annR (23 Jan 2009)

I'm shocked bizincork!  OP and JimmyD, I think there's a distinction to be made between wanting to have a clear understanding and wanting to be legally watertight.  If you just want for everyone to know where they stand I would discuss that financially the other person is like a tenant.  They should pay rent (can be as low as you want) and half the bills.  Most people understand that being a tenant doesn't confer ownership rights.
However I don't know what the situation is legally.  Maybe then you could claim rent allowance and if it did ever go to court you could always point to that and say the agreement was always that of tenancy.


----------



## Orga (24 Jan 2009)

annR said:


> I'm shocked bizincork!  OP and JimmyD, I think there's a distinction to be made between wanting to have a clear understanding and wanting to be legally watertight.  If you just want for everyone to know where they stand I would discuss that financially the other person is like a tenant.  They should pay rent (can be as low as you want) and half the bills.  Most people understand that being a tenant doesn't confer ownership rights.
> However I don't know what the situation is legally.  Maybe then you could claim rent allowance and if it did ever go to court you could always point to that and say the agreement was always that of tenancy.



Pretending she's you tenant won't wash in a court - been tried and doesn't fly even if she has paid rent - make it simple - talk to her, then listen to her, be open, clear and honest - ye are going to have to face bigger challenges together if ye remain together and use the small ones as opportunities to build trust by being open - don't dress it up or try to make it romantic - she's not a fool and if you try to make it something it's not you will only do damage - be manly about this - concise and to the point and be sensitive to what she has to say to you also.


----------



## ninsaga (24 Jan 2009)

I was going to have my girlfriend move in but decided not to as there would have been way to much grief - especially from the wife


----------



## nesbitt (24 Jan 2009)

annR said:


> I'm shocked bizincork! OP and JimmyD, I think there's a distinction to be made between wanting to have a clear understanding and wanting to be legally watertight. If you just want for everyone to know where they stand I would discuss that financially the other person is like a tenant. They should pay rent (can be as low as you want) and half the bills. Most people understand that being a tenant doesn't confer ownership rights.
> However I don't know what the situation is legally. Maybe then you could claim rent allowance and if it did ever go to court you could always point to that and say the agreement was always that of tenancy.


 
The couple are co-habitating and therefore do not qualify to claim rent allowance.


----------



## sparkeee (27 Jan 2009)

The situation changes from her putting your key in your lock to you putting your "key" in her lock,if you get my inuendo.Legalities are different.


----------



## dub_nerd (27 Jan 2009)

Forget romance and get an agreement sorted out. Anything else is plain stupid. (Having said that, I ignored my own advice years ago and was lucky enough to split up amicably, with both of us making a small profit from a shared house purchase).

If you want to be _really _romantic, forget the try-before-you-buy lark. Make up your mind before cohabiting, and then don't cohabit -- get married. Statistically your chances of a lasting relationship are better.


----------



## sparkeee (27 Jan 2009)

yeah cos a marriage license means that u will b a better person.


----------



## dub_nerd (27 Jan 2009)

Yes. Statistically speaking, that is correct.


----------



## circle (27 Jan 2009)

nesbitt said:


> The couple are co-habitating and therefore do not qualify to claim rent allowance.


 
I think the poster meant rent-a-room relief on the part of the houseowner and rent relief on the part of the renter. Though the loophole here was closed off for parents renting to children I don't think there's any problem for co-habitees to claim both. Remember, revenue treats co-habitees as unrelated whereas social welfare treats them as married when working out limits etc.


----------



## sparkeee (27 Jan 2009)

dub_nerd said:


> Yes. Statistically speaking, that is correct.


 I stand corrected.Where are these statistics,i would like to study them


----------



## dub_nerd (28 Jan 2009)

You can do your own donkey work. Start by looking up Cohabitation on Wikipedia. Then Google something like, oh, *+marriage +success +cohabitation*.


----------



## brenda24 (28 Jan 2009)

drutopia said:


> Hi,
> 
> Wondering if anyone could throw some advice my way...
> 
> ...


She could in the future seek to claim a beneficial interest in the property. She would have tenuous grounds for doing so given that she contributes nothing to the mortgage. You could have her sign an agreement that she will not claim any beneficial interest in the property in the event of the breakdown of your relationship and that all monetary contributions made by her relate solely to grocery and utility bills. 

Alternatively, you could re-mortgage the property putting the mortgage into joint names and discharge same equally. You could leave the title deeds in your name only but sign an agreement whereby if you break up, the net proceeds of the sale will be divided equally between you. This may or may not be a desirable option for you depending on the value of the property, the amount outstanding on the mortgage, her financial circumstances etc...

I'm presuming you don't want to transfer the property into joint names. In any event she would lose her first time buyer's stamp duty exemption (if she is a FTB) and there could be a CAT liability.

I would presume if you've decided to live together that it is with a view to more long term commitments. I cannot imagine her being satisifed being a tenant in your home indefinitely so you should bite the bullet and discuss these issues with her now.


----------



## bizincork (29 Jan 2009)

in my case that is exactly what she is doing try to claim benficial interest....
my circumstances are exactly the same as you...she contributed only to bills and food.

It seems that a claim is substantial enough to go to court and for a judge to apparently approve it..

be very careful....


----------

