A mother of two who remains in her ex-partner’s house since their relationship ended several years ago has lost her legal bid to further defer sale of the house, get a higher share of the sale proceeds and more child maintenance.
An agreement previously reached between the man and woman provides for sale of the property by 2029, with the woman to get 35 per cent of the proceeds, plus €499 in monthly maintenance, health insurance and other expenses for the children.
The agreement stated the woman is not a “qualified cohabitant” under the relevant Act.
This was then made a ruling by the Circuit Court in cohabitation and family law proceedings which, the High Court’s Ms Justice Nuala Jackson observed, demonstrated the “legal complexity” of litigation here concerning non-marital families.
Germany shifts to the right as conservatives win election and far-right AfD surges, exit polls show
Welsh media reaction: New laws questioned after ‘rampaging force of nature’ Bundee Aki turns game
Last of the Irish Lords: ‘There’s a love-hate relationship between Irish people and Anglo titles’
Mortgage-free in a cosy cottage before age 40: ‘I don’t have any savings, but I don’t have any debt either’
For reasons including the agreement was reached when both parties were legally represented at the Circuit Court; limitations on appeals over a settlement agreement reached prior to a hearing; and the woman having agreed she was not a qualified cohabitant, the judge dismissed the woman’s appeal over it.
The woman appealed over agreement provisions concerning the date for sale of the family home, distribution of the sale proceeds and the maintenance sum.
Neither she nor the man were legally represented for the appeal.
In her recently published judgment, the judge noted the woman moved several years ago into the man’s home, bought prior to their relationship, in his sole name and subject to a tracker mortgage.
She remains there with the children, who will still be dependent in 2029, and the man lives with his new partner in another property.
The breakdown of the relationship more than five years ago, apparently in a disputed context of the man commencing a new relationship, took the woman by surprise and her assertion she remained emotionally traumatised was evident during the hearing, the judge said.
After their relationship began, she gave up her job in the context of family arrangements, including one child having health issues. She now has modest earnings, supplemented by social welfare, and a modest pension from when she was working. The man remains in gainful employment outside the home and continues to accumulate a pension.
There were allegations and counter-allegations but the evidence established both parties contributed financially and otherwise during their period of cohabitation, the judge said.
The man, who continued to pay the mortgage albeit with some defaults, served a notice to quit on the woman a year after their separation. That was “unfortunate and insensitive” and “entirely inappropriate” legally as the woman was never a tenant in the property, the judge said.
It appeared there were times post separation when he provided inadequate support for the family, the judge said. He appeared to have disposed of an investment property before the Circuit Court ruling.
The woman sought periodic maintenance into the future and responsibility by him for household outgoings. She said she could not afford to pay half the mortgage, she and the children are suffering financial hardship and that contrasted with the man’s lifestyle.
The judge noted “threatening and abusive” correspondence from the woman to the man. Her “most unsavoury” threats of interference with the children’s relationship with their father was particularly unfortunate given her later evidence the children adored their father.
The man said he had substantial financial constraints as the mortgage is a tracker one, he pays rent to his new partner and had made additional payments for the benefit of his ex-partner and their children. He claimed she had not disclosed certain additional income and he had a €30,000 legal fees bill which he did not know how he would discharge.
