Should this woman have been granted half the proceeds from his home?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/42293/Unma rried-couples-must-share-assets

In a judgment paving the way for thousands of similar claims, a man was ordered to sell his home and divide the proceeds with the partner who dumped him after a 23-year relationship.

The judge said: "She spent much of her income and the child benefits principally on herself and her children.

But he paid the deposit and mortgage, as well as the council tax and utility bills, from his pension.

I personally think she should not have, since she was not married to the man and she walked out on him.

[daffy654]

Yes she should be entitled to half,she lived there for 23 years and contributed to the family if not to the mortgage payments.The fact they weren't married is not relevant in my opinion.also ,who left who is not a factor in divorce settlements so why should it be in this case?

[Oneeyedvic]

If she was married then she would have been legally entitled to half.

23 years is certainly longer than a lot of marriages last.

I think that their should be a law entitling possession after (lets say) 5 years.

That said, I also think pre-nups should be made legally binding as well.

[Lonnie]

Yes.

[VorVZakone]

It depends. How many legs did she have?

[persianlady]

But it was his children as well as herself that she spent her income on wasn,t it?

anotheoldgit...she may have had good reason to walk out on him.

[bundleone]

What would happen if a woman owns her own home and then has a live in partner, suppose they split up after a few years, what then!

[daffy654]

We're not talking a few years here bundleone,we are talking about almost a quarter of a century.If in your scenario the couple had been together a considerable length of time also and the man had contributed to the family finances as this woman did,then the man would be entitled to a share in the house.

[Ice.Maiden]

Each situation merits a different outcome.

[Ethel]

Bundleone,

Assuming the circumstances were identical, the outcome would be the same - he would be entitled to half.