Ex-girlfriend demanding money one year after breakup (property involved)

[Proserpina]

That's one way of looking at it. I think you're reading a lot into this. I see that in just a few months after they split, she was in financial straits, and he was in a position to give her $2,500. If he had been exploiting her, he wouldn't have cash after they broke up.

Bottom line is he needs to see an attorney.

I agree.

I'm clearly not seeing whatever ... whatever it is xylene is seeing.

(Maybe because it's not actually there, but whatevs)

 

[LdiJ]

Thank you, I will run the contract by a local attorney.

I figured the credit card issue may come up. It's literally three years of purchases for groceries, gasoline, restaurants, etc. There would be no way to differentiate many of the charges as to whether they were her, me, or us jointly, however I could possibly contact the credit card company for a statement of charges from her card only.

No, I did not claim her income or expenses, we always filed separately.

You misunderstood my question.

You own the house that the two of you lived in. She was not your wife. You are basically claiming that she paid you rent by paying 1/2 of the mortgage and any other expenses relating to the house except utilities. If that is the case, that was income to you and you should have been claiming that rental income and the associated rental expenses on YOUR tax return. Now, most people who have a significant other living with them do not do that. However, technically they should, and that certainly would help demonstrate that she would have no claim for unjust enrichment. Clearly though, you did not do that so its a moot point.

 

[LdiJ]

I agree.

I'm clearly not seeing whatever ... whatever it is xylene is seeing.

(Maybe because it's not actually there, but whatevs)

I am seeing it. Not as an absolute fact but as a possible issue to give him some trouble. I have actually been discussing that all along in this thread. He had complete control of her money and did not do things that would have made it clear that she was paying rent and her fair share of the bills, and nothing more. Nobody knows if he benefitted from that arrangement or she benefitted from that arrangement because nobody knows the details of their financial lives. Therefore the possibility exists that an unjust enrichment situation occurred, or its possible that it did not.

Now, its possible that the 2500.00 settlement he gave her along with her getting to keep the car covers that issue properly, but an attorney will need to review that to be certain. Plus, if he tries to take the car back that muddies up the waters more.

People who live together without the benefit of marriage should not totally pool their money the way that this couple did. Particularly when one of them owns a major asset (like a house) and they own other assets (like the car) jointly. He could have helped her manage her money without pooling it with his.

Here are some problematic issues from his first thread:

We verbally agreed that we would also set aside some money out of the account jointly every month for savings, and if the relationship were ever to end, the money in savings would be split between the two of us. This was the extent of our agreement regarding money prior to our breakup.

and

When I purchased my home in December 2012, I borrowed some money from my parents for the down payment (which was later paid back to them in full by me alone), and we spent a good portion of "our" savings on having a backyard put in, furniture, and various other things both having to do with the house and not having anything to do with the house

How can he prove that he alone paid back his parents when their money was completely pooled? "Their" savings put a backyard into "his" home. These are the kinds of things that are problematic.

I do not know who took financial advantage of whom in the relationship. It honestly could have been either one of them. However, in the end, their money was completely pooled, and he walked away from the relationship with a house, a backyard, furniture and whatever equity accrued during their relationship and obviously enough money that he could pay her 2500.00 in cash.

She walked away from the relationship with 2500.00, some furniture, and a car that apparently its questionable if she can afford. I do not know what the end result is going to be here, but future people reading this thread should take head of the mistakes made here, and not make the same ones.

 

[Bali Hai]

I am seeing it. Not as an absolute fact but as a possible issue to give him some trouble. I have actually been discussing that all along in this thread. He had complete control of her money and did not do things that would have made it clear that she was paying rent and her fair share of the bills, and nothing more. Nobody knows if he benefitted from that arrangement or she benefitted from that arrangement because nobody knows the details of their financial lives. Therefore the possibility exists that an unjust enrichment situation occurred, or its possible that it did not.

And nobody cares including a judge whether anyone benefited or not from this illicit relationship.

Now, its possible that the 2500.00 settlement he gave her along with her getting to keep the car covers that issue properly, but an attorney will need to review that to be certain. Plus, if he tries to take the car back that muddies up the waters more.

People who live together without the benefit of marriage should not totally pool their money the way that this couple did. Particularly when one of them owns a major asset (like a house) and they own other assets (like the car) jointly. He could have helped her manage her money without pooling it with his.

Here are some problematic issues from his first thread:



and



How can he prove that he alone paid back his parents when their money was completely pooled? "Their" savings put a backyard into "his" home. These are the kinds of things that are problematic.

I do not know who took financial advantage of whom in the relationship. It honestly could have been either one of them. However, in the end, their money was completely pooled, and he walked away from the relationship with a house, a backyard, furniture and whatever equity accrued during their relationship and obviously enough money that he could pay her 2500.00 in cash.

She walked away from the relationship with 2500.00, some furniture, and a car that apparently its questionable if she can afford. I do not know what the end result is going to be here, but future people reading this thread should take head of the mistakes made here, and not make the same ones.

It would take Judge Judy about 30 seconds to dismiss this case.

 

[LdiJ]

It would take Judge Judy about 30 seconds to dismiss this case.

Not necessarily Bali, if someone filed a case for unjust enrichment it would have to be heard. Its not something that could be just dismissed out of hand.