I am trying to help a girlfriend she was living with a man but there church wanted something for them to do that before they got married later on. So she not sure if it was a union of some sort or partnership but some type of paperwork was signed in Florida. Now the relationship has fallen apart and I don't see the marriage happening but they have a house she bought in her name prior to the marriage but he has paid half the mortgage for a year or so. The main issue is how can the partnership be dissolved and most important is the house she still loves it can afford it but what happen when they separate does she get it free and clear because its in her name or when they got that paperwork done does he have any kind of claim on the house? If she has to give him money for it will it be the full half of the mortgage or does he have to pay because he has lived there? PLEASE HELP US!

What kind of agreement did they enter into? You said marriage, partnership, it's Florida, etc. so the question is kind of all a blur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

What kind of agreement did they enter into? You said marriage, partnership, it's Florida, etc., so the question is kind of all a blur.

---

They got a hetrosexual civil union which had paperwork stating they are a couple living together in a union but she had bought the house in her name just prior to this so now she wants out but wants to keep the house even though she has been spliting the mortgage with him for a year who has right to the house and under what circumstances. Hope this clarifies a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maverick76

They got a hetrosexual civil union which had paperwork stating they are a couple living together in a union but she had bought the house in her name just prior to this so now she wants out but wants to keep the house even though she has been spliting the mortgage with him for a year who has right to the house and under what circumstances. Hope this clarifies a bit.

---

Not to sound coy, but I've never heard of a "heterosexual civil union", with the narrow exception of it being available to opposite gender persons over 62 (such as is the case with Registered Domestic Partnerships in California--they are only available to same sex couples or opposite gender ones over 62). Civil unions were created to give gay people a semblance of marriage without calling it such-- it's a modern-day form of "separate but equal" treatment of an historically oppressed minority which I, as a gay man, happen to be a part of. It's a "move to the back of the bus" status; so why heterosexual couples would want a "civil union" as opposed to marriage, unless one of the parties is over 62 (there are some federally -sponsored benefits to not remarrying over age 62), is beyond me.

Nonetheless, assuming civil unions between heterosexuals existed with the same property rights as would otherwise exist between married persons, there might be a joint (in some states community) interest in the house equal to the amount of the pay-down of the principal on the mortgage (not pay-down on interest) during the time the parties were together and before they separated. It might also be possible to apply a percentage interest (based upon the ratio that the paydown of principal with joint funds bore to the paydown with separate funds) to any appreciation during the "civil union" in coming up with a total interest. But, in a declining real estate market, there might be no appreciation and paydown of principal might be lost as well in the declining values.

I'd have this lady look at the fair market value of the house a year ago and if it lost value over the past year I would compare the lost value to the amount the mortgage was paid down when the parties were together. If the house has the same equity or less today than it had a year ago, I'd say she keeps the house and owes her "partner" nothing. He got to live in the house and his contribution toward the mortgage was a form of rent or use value. My hunch is she walks away with the house and boyfriend/partner gets zero. That at least should be her position and tell her to rely on the declining real estate market as a reason--after all, there may be less equity in the house today than when she first purchased the place.