what is my ex intitled to!!

I have currently split with my partner after living together for the past 4 years, the mortgage is in my name only, she has paid money into the mortgage, what would she be entitled to receive from myself.

Are you married? Do you have children.

Post more details and someone might be able to help.

If your not married with no kids she's entitled to nothing.
That's the law.

We have been together for 4 yrs now and the mortgage is in my name, she has been paying into a joint account for bills and money towards the mortgage, i spoke to a solicitor and she told me she is entitled to half of the equity of the house, even when i have paid nearly £75k deposit we paid £166k for the house and mortgage of £85k left, if we sold the house the deposit doesn't come into it so would have to give her about £20k if it went to court.

surely this is not correct?????

There are arguments for and against. The advice you have sought is ­base­d upon a property held in joint names which yours is not (unless the property is in joint names but the mortgage is in your sole name). If this is the case hawaythelads is correct that your ex has no immediate legal entitlement.

However, it is possible for your ex to make a claim against the property under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, Section 14 for a declaration as to her interest in the property.

Such a claim rests on the evidence from both parties – your word against hers. Your ex would have to explain why, when you purchased the property, the property was placed in your sole name. You may have insisted upon this or it may be that there was never any intention that your ex was to have a beneficial entitlement to the property.

There is one issue, at the time of purchase, could you have afforded the outgoings without financial assistance from your ex? If not, there is an argument that the affordability of the property was ­base­d upon joint incomes in which case there may be a claim. It is possible to argue that had your ex not been living with you, you would have taken in a lodger but this seems a little implausible.

As with all of these types of matters, the cost of litigating this type of matter is heavy. The loser in the proceedings will usually bear the costs of the winner as well as their own. In your case, your ex is unlikely to be able to satisfy such an order therefore you would retain your property but you would have to pay your legal fees as you would be unlikely to recover these from your ex.

If you did engage solicitors and settled the matter, your ex would be looking for a payment for herself and to cover her legal fees. As such, it might be advisable to offer a without prejudice payment for your ex to 'go away'- a nuisance payment if you like. You can phrase this as "..£x available for acceptance within 14 days otherwise this money will be used to fund further legal fees. If the offer is accepted at a later stage, the payment will be net of fees incurred following the final day for acceptance until such a point that no payment will be available."

Currently, your legal position is strong but it is easy to create grey areas by constructing an argument that the property is jointly owned in every way apart from in title. Your ex's impecunious position may be to your benefit as she may not be able to fund a claim against you.

Charles