Marriage, How much is she worth?
Discussion
RizzoTheRat said:
Why do people make such aggressive comments on internet forums?. A mate split up with his girlfriend who he'd been living with for several years and ended up costing him about £40k. It was a somewhat unfriendly split and she was trying to get a lot more out of him. Legal advice reckoned she had contributed to the mortgage and upkeep on the house and if it went to court it would cost a lot more in legal fees. Came close to having to sell the house (which he owned before he met her) to settle it.
Yep, got that t-shirt.A lot of people think that cohabiting is safe if the property is in their name but that just isn't so.
There are many way to claim an interest in a property, and being married to the owner is just one.
RizzoTheRat said:
Why do people make such aggressive comments on internet forums?
I can tell that you're a sensitive chap so I'll try to answer you softly although I have absolutely no idea how you could read aggression into my post - but hey ho!There is no such thing as 'common law wife' so living with a non spouse does not mean they are owed a thing.
Unless of course, as you have now stated, the other half made mortgage contributions and therefore, quite rightly, would have a claim to the uplift of their 'portion' of the property.
SeeFive said:
Captain Muppet said:
I wish I'd known I was signing half my house away when I got married. It wouldn't have made any difference to the marriage, but it would have made the divorce much easier to cope with.
I'm still hugely resentful that the registrar can sign you up without even hinting at the small print. No one I knew had been divorced until I was, and it all came as something of a shock.
If differential financial status puts you off marrying someone then you shouldn't be getting married anyway. Its supposed to be romantic.
Only half. You lucky bugger I'm still hugely resentful that the registrar can sign you up without even hinting at the small print. No one I knew had been divorced until I was, and it all came as something of a shock.
If differential financial status puts you off marrying someone then you shouldn't be getting married anyway. Its supposed to be romantic.
I'm more of a "glass half empty" guy. Or since the divorce "glass half gone".
D1ckie said:
Wrong - there is a big difference between living together and marriage, been there done that, more than once. Each time I've owned the house. The fact you are sleeping together makes no difference. Comparison - if you were living with your best friend for 5 years and then your friendship ended your friend would NOT be able to claim part of your house, assets etc.
"Even though he paid for the mortgage on the £240,000 home, justices said she was ‘effectively a wife’ and sacrificed the value of her own property when she moved in with him."http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2796982/bu...
Captain Muppet said:
Realise it how? I had no previous divorce experience, and the legal representative of the government made no mention of it in either of our meetings or in any of the literature. In a world where there are warnings that coffee is hot I find it extremely weird that my house was put at risk without warning. It's the least transparent financial transaction of my life, and the third most expensive one too.
That's a fair point that I don't think it was ever something specifically discussed as part or meeting with the registrar or in the ceremony/vows, but the whole "What's mine is yours" aspect of marriage I thought would be common knowledge.garyhun said:
I can tell that you're a sensitive chap so I'll try to answer you softly although I have absolutely no idea how you could read aggression into my post - but hey ho!
Interesting that calling someone a liar isn't considered aggressive in your neck of the woods.LordHaveMurci said:
17yrs here, 2 kids too. She wants to, I definitely don't, all the financial assets are mine & were before we got together.
That sounds very different to my take on it though.We own our house together (joint mortgage) and until we had kids put more or less the same amount into the common money pot. She gave up work to look after the kids, and now works part time so I have been the major financial contributor.
I've assumed since we first got together that everything we have is ours - rather than mine or hers - and if we split up we would have to divide it fairly (that doesn't mean 50:50)
RizzoTheRat said:
Captain Muppet said:
Realise it how? I had no previous divorce experience, and the legal representative of the government made no mention of it in either of our meetings or in any of the literature. In a world where there are warnings that coffee is hot I find it extremely weird that my house was put at risk without warning. It's the least transparent financial transaction of my life, and the third most expensive one too.
That's a fair point that I don't think it was ever something specifically discussed as part or meeting with the registrar or in the ceremony/vows, but the whole "What's mine is yours" aspect of marriage I thought would be common knowledge.I postulate that the cost of the wedding itself is a giant diversionary tactic designed to take the focus off the real cost of the marriage (i.e. the cost of the divorce).
While everyone is looking at the cost of the dress and whether or not they can stretch to real Cava for the post ceremony drinkies, no-one is looking at the true cost if the worst was to happen.
How many people would get married if they really were thinking of signing away half their pension, half their house and half of everything they have worked for......
It's a scam I tell you...
Bob (already fallen for the scam and now happily married......)
Luke Warm said:
D1ckie said:
Wrong - there is a big difference between living together and marriage, been there done that, more than once. Each time I've owned the house. The fact you are sleeping together makes no difference. Comparison - if you were living with your best friend for 5 years and then your friendship ended your friend would NOT be able to claim part of your house, assets etc.
"Even though he paid for the mortgage on the £240,000 home, justices said she was ‘effectively a wife’ and sacrificed the value of her own property when she moved in with him."http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2796982/bu...
http://www.familylaw.co.uk/news_and_comment/propri...
So, yes, there is still a big difference between being married and co-habiting.
Luke Warm said:
"Even though he paid for the mortgage on the £240,000 home, justices said she was ‘effectively a wife’ and sacrificed the value of her own property when she moved in with him."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2796982/bu...
You appear to have quoted the Daily Mail there. Do you not know how the Daily Mail works?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2796982/bu...
Trust law is a thing of beauty and Judges often quite shrewd. In cases with unmarried couples and division of equity in real property you will often find that the end result is 'just' if you sit back as an unaffected third party. The route taken to reach a just decision is not always the same though.
RizzoTheRat said:
Why do people make such aggressive comments on internet forums?. A mate split up with his girlfriend who he'd been living with for several years and ended up costing him about £40k. It was a somewhat unfriendly split and she was trying to get a lot more out of him. Legal advice reckoned she had contributed to the mortgage and upkeep on the house and if it went to court it would cost a lot more in legal fees. Came close to having to sell the house (which he owned before he met her) to settle it.
That's why you should never take legal advice from the bloke down the pub who's brother in law once worked for a bloke who's sister was married to a lawyer. 
PurpleMoonlight said:
Yep, got that t-shirt.
A lot of people think that cohabiting is safe if the property is in their name but that just isn't so.
There are many way to claim an interest in a property, and being married to the owner is just one.
Odd then that lodgers aren't lining up for their share of the property once they move out...A lot of people think that cohabiting is safe if the property is in their name but that just isn't so.
There are many way to claim an interest in a property, and being married to the owner is just one.
ked over by women
Ari said:
Odd then that lodgers aren't lining up for their share of the property once they move out...
Clue is in my post above. Trust law. The intention of the parties on entry to the relationship is key. If there is a divergence of opinion on what that intention was on exit it is for the court to determine the real position by reference to, amongst other things, conduct during the relationship. One indicator might be that someone has or has not done something that it would have otherwise have been logical for them to have done (and suffered loss as a result) had they not been relying on a promise/statement of another.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff