Property agreement with defacto who has contributed zero to purchase.

[Oopsiedaisies]

I had bought a house a year ago. Paid full deposit and legal costs. The deposit provided 61% equity in the home. Nearly everything in the house is owned by me. My partner of 6 months moved in with me and has paid half mortgage repayments and house costs. He agreed to an agreement but I have not progressed it. I advised that it would probably cost him over $1000 to have one checked by his lawyer. I don't think he will have the $. I am starting to feel vulnerable now as having been through a separation I don't want to lose half of the half I got. I don't know where to start with this agreement. What suggestions do you property talkers have? Thanks in advance.

[andyp2010]

Get one. Fast. Whilst you're on good terms and at less than 2 years together. Not having one cost me $30k last time and I think got off lightly, it should have been $200k if we were going by what 'the law' says despite her not contributing a penny or putting in more than a couple of hours time into it. The law is a bit off on this one so you must have everything in writing.

[Anthonyacat]

Get an agreement. Needs to be all legal. Needs to be done before you've been together 2 years, as above.

If he genuinely can't pay for his lawyer, lend him the money to. Worst case, he never pays you back and you're out a thousand dollars. That's a lot better than putting it off, and you eventually losing up to half of everything.

[Camu]

I was always led to believe that the person who the agreement protects is expected to pay for the other persons legal costs?? I may be wrong however..

I am expecting to pay all of my partners legal costs when the time comes for me to grow up.. So I am going to follow this topic with interest!

[Anthonyacat]

In many cases, the relationship property agreement protects both sides. It can often set out a fair and equitable solution to both parties. The answer isn't always to protect in the absolute sense of the word, but to come to an agreement that both sides consider fair. If part of that fairness discussion is to set down who pays for the legals, so be it. I'm sure that's often the case, but not always.

After all, if one person is always expected to pay for the legal costs, why wouldn't both bills just go to the wealthier party by default?

[Keys]

Don't even quible over the cost. Pay for his lawyer. Get it sorted.

Here are some things to think about individually:

Kiwi Saver or it's equivilant. The value at the time you sign plus additional input for each of you to be separate.
Debt. Each of you has debt. Keep it separate.
Dependants, provide for those.
Property Sharing agreement. If you don't have one, get one (PM me for a copy of mine if you wish).

Children born to the relationship qualifies as well. Think on that.

PAY for his solicitor. DON'T quibble. Get it done.

Edited as I re red the origional post.

[investorak]

I think you should get one.

What is it that you want?

If say you split after 5 years do you want the house to be yours and all capital gain for 5 years to be yours even though hes paying half?

[BigDreamer]

If say you split after 5 years do you want the house to be yours and all capital gain for 5 years to be yours even though hes paying half?

One could argue that paying half of the mortgage is equivalent (if not less) to him renting somewhere else, therefore, yes, if I was in her position and split after 5 years I would like to know the house and any capital gain (if available) is mine.

Of course, that can only happen if you have a legal document agreed and signed before the 2 years mark.

I seriously believe that is called being life smart.

[sidinz]

One could argue that paying half of the mortgage is equivalent (if not less) to him renting somewhere else, therefore, yes, if I was in her position and split after 5 years I would like to know the house and any capital gain (if available) is mine.

Totally agree. Also, given that he's moved in with her and probably can't afford a solicitor's bill, it suggests that he doesn't have much in the way of assets. Therefore he will probably benefit from an increased standard of living while he's with her. If he has nothing and is not in the position to buy his own property, why should he benefit from the capital gains that have come about due to her financial prudence? If unable to pay him out, it could even lead to her having to sell her home.

It totally sucks that our system forces people in new relationships to think like this and take action to protect themselves, but it's totally necessary. However, all of the case histories I've read about are men being screwed over. Does anyone have actual knowledge of court cases where the woman had the assets? Was the outcome the same, or still pro-female?

[Oopsiedaisies]

Thanks for replies. I definitely know that an agreement is needed but I want to know how an agreement should be set up to make it fair. The house appears to have already gained approx. $100,000 since it was bought, going on sales in the immediate area (yeah I know that can drop again). I was told that the other person gets instant 50% of the capital gain, but wait a moment, but there was no equity from them in the first place except from a small amount (in the whole scheme of things) that has been paid towards the mortgage? That doesn't sound right. The other person has no tangible assets, and some debt. What they have been paying has equated to slightly more than rent. I was just wanting to know what is reasonable before I spend the big bucks with the lawyer. I'm no sugar mumma, the solicitors bill is gonna sting for me as well. Just seeing if anyone has had this situation and what was deemed a fair formula. I have thought about Kiwisaver and debt and there are no children on either side. Thanks Keys, will PM you.

[Oopsiedaisies]

Sorry Keys, a I am a newbie, I can't PM you.

[Wayne]

You're a hard lot.
Fairness goes both ways really.
If he pays half the mortgage he isn't renting even though he may pay the same or less.

I'd agree that there should be an agreement and that is a fair way to start a relationship but some of the rest of the thinking could leave you single forever.

[Beano]

Get one. Fast. Whilst you're on good terms and at less than 2 years together. Not having one cost me $30k last time and I think got off lightly, it should have been $200k if we were going by what 'the law' says despite her not contributing a penny or putting in more than a couple of hours time into it. The law is a bit off on this one so you must have everything in writing.

100pc agreed ...get solicitor asap
I purchased a house for my daughter (completely mortgage free) i had to enforce the two to sign an fair agreement ...the partner had zero cash vs my daughter $600k

[jappronz]

I suggest instead of them paying half the mortgage, they pay board as a flatmate.

[bmt]

Well this has set alarm bells ringing for myself, I didn't understand the rules around de facto relationships as much as I thought.

I'm kind of in a similar position, been in a relationship for just over 2 years and living together for about 9 months. My partner was in uni at beginning of relationship and has since graduated but still has next to no assets. I definitely contribute more in terms of finances to the relationship

A few months ago I paid the deposit for an apartment and will be settling it in 2018 with my brother. I have net assets of about $150k vs my partner who is in overdraft and has a $50k student loan. So I guess I stand to lose a lot should we split.

It seems you need to be de facto for 3 years for property split to apply but I have to admit I'm still not sure about the whole thing. Probably best to talk to my lawyer I guess.

Writing this all down is quite sobering too. No plans to break up at all but I've always been a very very pragmatic person so a bit of a slip up on my part.