A MOTHER of two has won her right to stay in the house bought for her and her ex-husband while they were married.
The complaint was filed at the Nicosia District Court by the former father-in-law of the woman, who wanted back the house, which he had bought for the married couple as a wedding present.
The father-in-law claimed he had purchased the house for them as a present and had simply turned the house into his son’s name.
But the court heard that the couple’s marriage soon began to deteriorate and that they soon filed for divorce.
It was just before the divorce was filed that the son then turned the house back onto his father’s name after he had moved out.
He has since remarried.
The father-in-law had told the court that the house was his and that it was “ridiculous” that somebody else should be living in it.
He added that this did not mean that he disregarded the welfare of the mother and his two grandchildren, but simply wanted back the house that he had purchased with his own money.
The mother’s defence lawyer, Eleni Vrahimi, had argued that it was the right of the mother to have a roof over her head “especially as she declined the divorce request from her husband”.
She added: “There is also evidential documentation stating that the house belongs to both her and her husband. Assurances were also made in which it was noted that the wife would not lose her house if she continued to live with her children and her husband.”
The woman added that she had even put money into the house and that it was not entirely her husband and father-in-law’s.
The house reportedly cost around £90,000.
Judge Stavros Nathanaiel yesterday stated that the house didn’t belong to the father simply because he had paid for it himself.
“It is essential that a purchase be made” read the judge. “Thus, if the payment is made at the request of and by way of loan to a person in whose name the property is vested, there will be no resulting trust, because in such circumstances the lender did not advance the purchase money as purchaser but merely as lender.”
Ruling on the decision, Judge Nathanaiel added: “The suit cannot stand and is thus dismissed with the expenses in favour of the mother and against the appellant.”
