Selling house after divorce

[anonymous-user]

DoubleSix said:

amusingduck said:

DoubleSix said:

This.

Many would expect that any equity is split pro rata to the original deposit.

If i stump up 80% of deposit then I expect 80% of the equity derived from that risk.

So if you got married, put down 100% of the deposit for the house, then got divorced and sold, you'd expect everything?

Good luck with that one.

It's not an example of how me and my wife treat our assets personally.

But to answer your question, yes some would.

Just to clarify... if the deposit was 10% of the purchase price, then your 80% is actually 8% of the total. You still think you should get 80% of the total equity?

You buy a house for £500,000. Deposit is £50,000.
Your deposit is £40k and your other half is £10k

You sell the house many years later for £1m which means equity of, for arguments sake,let's say £600,000.

You expect £480k and your other half should take £120K?

Is that what you are saying?

[DoubleSix]

garyhun said:

DoubleSix said:

amusingduck said:

DoubleSix said:

This.

Many would expect that any equity is split pro rata to the original deposit.

If i stump up 80% of deposit then I expect 80% of the equity derived from that risk.

So if you got married, put down 100% of the deposit for the house, then got divorced and sold, you'd expect everything?

Good luck with that one.

It's not an example of how me and my wife treat our assets personally.

But to answer your question, yes some would.

Just to clarify... if the deposit was 10% of the purchase price, then your 80% is actually 8% of the total. You still think you should get 80% of the total equity?

You buy a house for £500,000. Deposit is £50,000.
Your deposit is £40k and your other half is £10k

You sell the house many years later for £1m which means equity of, for arguments sake,let's say £600,000.

You expect £480k and your other half should take £120K?

Is that what you are saying?

Why do you keep saying "you"?...

I thought I just said It's not a reflection of my personal arrangements but is another example of how to split assets.

[anonymous-user]

DoubleSix said:

garyhun said:

DoubleSix said:

amusingduck said:

DoubleSix said:

This.

Many would expect that any equity is split pro rata to the original deposit.

If i stump up 80% of deposit then I expect 80% of the equity derived from that risk.

So if you got married, put down 100% of the deposit for the house, then got divorced and sold, you'd expect everything?

Good luck with that one.

It's not an example of how me and my wife treat our assets personally.

But to answer your question, yes some would.

Just to clarify... if the deposit was 10% of the purchase price, then your 80% is actually 8% of the total. You still think you should get 80% of the total equity?

You buy a house for £500,000. Deposit is £50,000.
Your deposit is £40k and your other half is £10k

You sell the house many years later for £1m which means equity of, for arguments sake,let's say £600,000.

You expect £480k and your other half should take £120K?

Is that what you are saying?

Why do you keep saying "you"?...

I thought I just said It's not a reflection of my personal arrangements but is another example of how to split assets.

Because you said:

DoubleSix said:

If i stump up 80% of deposit then I expect 80% of the equity derived from that risk.

[DoubleSix]

Ok, I see.

Well to clarify yes, your example is exactly what I was describing.

It's entirely reasonable and logical but perhaps unrealistic unless written into legal standing.

In my personal position a large proportion of my assets (btls etc) are in my wife's name for tax reasons so that's a reflection of my trust in her or gullibility depending on where you stand on the cynical scale

[JonRB]

DoubleSix said:

In my personal position a large proportion of my assets (btls etc) are in my wife's name for tax reasons so that's a reflection of my trust in her or gullibility depending on where you stand on the cynical scale

They'd still be classed as Joint Assets in the event of a divorce anyway, unless you had a legally-binding agreement to the contrary.

[PurpleMoonlight]

JonRB said:

They'd still be classed as Joint Assets in the event of a divorce anyway, unless you had a legally-binding agreement to the contrary.

Does such a thing exist?