Property agreement with defacto who has contributed zero to purchase.

[sidinz]

go see a lawyer NOW
I wish I had - my partner and I have now split and he gets HALF my house. MY house. That he contributed NOTHING to. But the law is the law.
And it's so much harder to start again under the current rules.

yeah, it's all great when you are in love and life is happy and full of fluffy kittens and sweet roses. But once the shit hits the fan it's too late to protect your investment.

I'm really sorry to hear that, Joolee. I guess it answers my question about whether women get as screwed over by the Act as men do. Did you go to court over it?

[PTWhatAGreatForum]

my partner and I have now split and he gets HALF my house. MY house.

(emphasis added)

Why get in to a relationship if you don't want to share?

That he contributed NOTHING to.

In other words, you paid the house and he contributed elsewhere? Why did you plan for the relationship to fail (implied by your statement) and now publicly express shock that it happened?

[cube]

Although the RPA does reduce relationships to $ and cents in some ways, I think it is better to have clear guidelines (50.50 after 3 years) than rely on some case-by-case, subjective and often disputed (read expensive) judgement.

I don't think anyone plans to fail, but after a break-up, hindsight can teach some expensive lessons.

[sidinz]

(emphasis added)

Why get in to a relationship if you don't want to share?

Sharing while you are together is one thing (which she clearly did), having someone walk off with half of what you had before you even met them is quite another. You really think it's ok to work hard, make sacrifices and years later get yourself a house, only for someone to get given half of it by the NZ courts simply because you shacked up with them for three years?

Some people will save for years and years to get a deposit. Then when the former partner wants 'their' share, might not be able to buy them out and have to sell their hard-won asset and not be in a position to buy again.

That's not sharing. That's being taken for a ride.

Why did you plan for the relationship to fail (implied by your statement) and now publicly express shock that it happened?

How on earth did you come to that conclusion? If she'd planned for the relationship to fail, she'd have got an Agreement.

[PTWhatAGreatForum]

How on earth did you come to that conclusion? If she'd planned for the relationship to fail, she'd have got an Agreement.

She was so emphatic the house was hers, it's not a long shot to see a picture where she paid for the house while her ex-partner contributed elsewhere.

[sidinz]

She was so emphatic the house was hers, it's not a long shot to see a picture where she paid for the house while her ex-partner contributed elsewhere.

But how does that add up to planning for the relationship to fail? i thought it was relatively common in couples for one to pay this bill, (e.g. groceries) and the other to pay that bill (e.g. electricity).

[Wayne]

i thought it was relatively common in couples for one to pay this bill, (e.g. groceries) and the other to pay that bill (e.g. electricity).

WE pay ALL bills.
Money is just money in our house. No mine or hers.

[PTWhatAGreatForum]

But how does that add up to planning for the relationship to fail? i thought it was relatively common in couples for one to pay this bill, (e.g. groceries) and the other to pay that bill (e.g. electricity).

That may be the case but when one party turns around and says "my house" it comes across to me as probably premeditated.

I think there is a reasonable chance I will be getting married this year. If one wanted to be bureaucratic, it could be reasonably suggested I am the one who is contributing the lions share of physical stuff to the relationship, which tbh is not my concern. I am just damn lucky to have scored as well as I have. She is pretty and smart. I can have my cake and eat it too!

[Cpt707]

..the world is full of 'gold diggers' on both sides of the relationship equation.... Buyer Beware...

[Perry]

And unfortunately, for people who have assets, it means having some very hard and seemingly mistrustful conversations with new partners at a time when great damage can be done to a budding relationship. How can that be a healthy thing?

Bit sad how quickly human relationships are reduced down to dollars and cents.

The way things are, the relationship has ended when it comes time to counting the costs and values.

Nonetheless, it is sad. It seems akin to reducing marriage to a contractual arrangement, rather than a matrimonial one. As I see it, it's just another part of the no one's ever to blame syndrome that has wrought all sorts of widespread havoc on our society. No fault ACC, no fault RPA, no one fails, etc. Looked good on the surface / at the time, but the pigeons have been coming home to roost for quite a while, now.

[PTWhatAGreatForum]

No fault ACC

So should I have paid for my visit to A&E last night after a nasty topple from my push bike?

(Noting I paid 2016 business ACC levies last month)

[sidinz]

That may be the case but when one party turns around and says "my house" it comes across to me as probably premeditated.

Very strange take. I currently own my own home. It is my house. Were a partner to move in with me, with no legal change of ownership, it would be referred to as 'our house.' Yet upon any dissolution of the relationship, it would again be 'my house' as I bought it. That is entirely how I read the post. Any normal person would expect that what was theirs before the relationship to be theirs at the end of the relationship (barring special circumstances.)

[PTWhatAGreatForum]

Very strange take. I currently own my own home. It is my house. Were a partner to move in with me, with no legal change of ownership, it would be referred to as 'our house.' Yet upon any dissolution of the relationship, it would again be 'my house' as I bought it.

Which is not how things work. To flip it around for you a woman may choose to stay at home and look after children while the man works. By your reckoning her contribution has no economic value.

[Wayne]

Very strange take. I currently own my own home. It is my house. Were a partner to move in with me, with no legal change of ownership, it would be referred to as 'our house.' Yet upon any dissolution of the relationship, it would again be 'my house' as I bought it. That is entirely how I read the post. Any normal person would expect that what was theirs before the relationship to be theirs at the end of the relationship (barring special circumstances.)

All tricky stuff and time does play a part.
Say you start with a house.
You own 30% (the bank owns 70%).
Your partnet moves in. They last 10 years and in that time you now own 60% of the house.
During that time you pooled finances, ate out and paid the bill together, had holidays paid from your joint income.
After 10 years you split.
Is and should the house still be yours given it could be argued that the partner helped pay the house down?

I suppose that the alternative is that you continue to pay the mortgage from your wage.
You and your partner split all other bills and expenses according to each others share.
The partner makes sure they don't do any upkeep to 'your' house etc.
Would make for an interesting relationship, one I have seen but somehow they just don't seem right.

Then leads to the situation where the partner, usually female, leaves the workforce to raise a family and ends the relationship with nothing.

[PTWhatAGreatForum]

I suppose that the alternative is that you continue to pay the mortgage from your wage.
You and your partner split all other bills and expenses according to each others share.
The partner makes sure they don't do any upkeep to 'your' house etc.

Under these circumstances it could be argued the contribution of the partner - even if only 50% of the bills - is facilitating the "owner" to pay it off.

Very much thanks to 1st and 2nd wave feminism - suck it up ladies.