There is no matrimonial home in a common law relationship so that part just doesn't matter. They could be business partners or relatives who lived in different towns and decided to buy a cottage together.
The issue is, They agreed to buy a house jointly, 11 months later the partnership breaks down, but one party has not invested a cent in the property.
The spoken intention was that the joint ownership was to protect her tenancy. This will be tough because by you couldn't have thrown her out arbitrarily anyway, she has some protections as a resident of the building. You obviously didn't realize this, so you went ahead and signed over half ownership without checking your rights with a lawyer.
I am saying she is unjustly enriched because she has achieved half ownership of a property with no investment of her own. Her ownership has resulted purely from your input. Flip this over in your mind for a second, lets say she went to court and got exclusive possession based on some fake charge of domestic assault and got your thrown out. So now due to your work and money, she has a house. You didn't see the connection to other cases of unjust enrichment but the facts of it are really the same. If she claims half the value with 0 input, this is the same issue as someone else claiming 100% of the value with only 90% input, it is still unjust enrichment.
|