Unmarried Couples--Entitlement to Property?

prelawtom

New Member
Jurisdiction
Illinois
Good evening!

I am interested in gathering some concrete legal information about some issues that relate to a friend's situation. If you are able to point me in the direction of anything specific that expands upon any related laws or rules, it would be much appreciated. No one is hoping to go to court and seeking this information is just for information and our own understanding.

My main two questions are:

-Do unmarried couples have any entitlement to half of each others property?

-With a joint lease signed by two people, would a small claims court rule that a defendant who moved out during the lease pay 50% of the rent until the end of the lease?


My friend had been living with her partner for over a year and re-signed their lease this past July. After a financial emergency, she realized she needed to move home in order to pay for school, as she could not afford both. Her partner told her he thought she "should leave". The relationship ended at this point.

For the most part, she has been able to pick up her property from the rental space without incident. However, the partner is raising issue over a few items in specific, which were given as gifts by my friend's parents, who have proof of purchase. His claim is that he is entitled to half of their things, which he considered to be joint property between the two of them while they were in their relationship. He is threatening to bring my friend to small claims court if she were to pick up these two items in particular. As far as I know, since they are not married, their property would go as if they were only roommates; each individual would take their own things with no expectation of entitlement. They did not enter in any major property endeavors as partners, and the items are small- a small kitchen appliance and a table. Does he have any legal justification to claim that he is entitled to half of this property? Are there any explicit laws or anything written that you might be able to point me towards so I am able to research myself?

The main concern beyond property is how, hypothetically, a small claims court would rule on the issue of rent. The rental agreement lists both their names. However, it does not explicate any division of the rent, such as she pays 50% and he pays 50%. There is no specific contractual language that dictates how they were to pay the rent. Informally, they had made various agreements on different percentages as to how to split. My friend, however, always paid less. Speaking with an accountant, they said that a lease generally doesn't define that either one is responsible for any certain part of the rent, only that together, the rent needs to be paid, whether by one person or split between two. Meaning that if the rent stopped being paid, the landlord would take them both to court, but that in the meantime, how they choose to split the cost of rent or not split it is up to them. Is this the same in law or court? Would she potentially be ordered to pay for half of the rent she no longer is paying up until the end of the lease, or would they simply say that together they are responsible and they do not rule on who pays what? Also, would it be relevant that the partner told her that she should leave, since it could be said he was foregoing her fraction of the rent in suggesting she move out?

Any information you have is hugely appreciated as well as suggestions on how to research the relevant laws on my own.
 
ASKED BY: prelawtom, post: 228334

My main two questions are:

-Do unmarried couples have any entitlement to half of each others property? NO.

-With a joint lease signed by two people, would a small claims court rule that a defendant who moved out during the lease pay 50% of the rent until the end of the lease?

POSSIBLY, MAYBE, HARD TO SAY FOR SURE.

When the landlord takes the matter to court and you'll see.

The obligation today rent is to the LL, not to each other, or on behalf of the relationship.

If Albert were to duck out on Alberta, the LL is still owed the remaining monthly lease payments.

If Albert wanted to stay in the apartment, Albert pays ALL of the rent owed.

Albert could then sue Alberta monthly, or at the end of the lease term for the delta.

If Albert left a few days after Alberta left, the LL could sue Alberta, Alberta, or both parties.

Should the LL sue Alberta, she could then sue Albert for half of her award.

Be advised, the LL would likely prevail.

Alberta's results would be maybe, kind of, somewhat, or no way.

Either way, Alberta would then endeavor to collect her judgment against Albert, which is no easy task.


Collecting a judgment hard, sweaty, nasty, naughty work, and success is achieved in fewer than 5% of small claims cases.

 
I really appreciate the timely response, Army Judge! And the Albert/Alberta nouns make explaining this much easier. :)
In this case, Albert is planning on staying in the apartment for the entirety of the lease, so likely the LL will not have to play a role in my friend's scenario. Albert's point is that since Alberta and him are on the lease together, since she moved out (with his agreement, if it's relevant), she owes him rent for all the months until the end of the lease. Albert would be the one taking the issue to court, and the LL is still removed and likely unaware that Alberta even moved out. Albert is hoping that small claims court will say "Yes, you owe him half of the rent for every month until the lease ends. I rule that you owe the plaintiff $XXXX amount of money and that he is entitled to half of all the property that was in the apartment."

He is threatening to take her to court IF she takes these specific two items, because he believes that since they were a couple, he is entitled to half of her property and the property she was given (as in for a gift) while they lived together. He is initiating the hypothetical lawsuit based on this entitlement principle, which is false.

However, my friend is not going to take her property which is valued less than the total amount of rent that she could possibly owe, if the court were to rule that she owed it. She doesn't want to risk him taking her to court which he threatens to do if she takes her stuff.
 
Remember, Albert owes nothing to Alberta, and Alberta owes nothing to Albert.

The LL is owed XXXX dollars per month from Alberta and Albert.

The fact that Albert agreed to let Alberta off the hook for rent at trial wouldn't bode well for Albert. Albert's generous gesture isn't that generous, because Albert could have negotiated his early exit from the lease he agreed to assume.

Bottom line, if Alberta owes anyone, she owes the LL.

Alberta never agreed to pay Albert a nickel, and vice versa.

The lease is from the LL, to Alberta and Albert.

I suggest you tell Albert that he let Alberta off the hook, the minute he allowed her to vacate the unit with his agreement to continue paying the LL.

This is nothing more than the garden variety roommate abandonment dispute,romantic relationship aside.
 
Back
Top