Potential divorce - house question
Discussion
I've recently made some enquiries on the divorce topic and, in general, there's a starting assumption of a 50/50 split.
However, that's not the end game...there's lots of factors at play until a final decision is made, ie who brought what to the marriage initially, how long the marriage has existed, who's contributed and how/much during the marriage, is any party financially dependant on the other, how have the assets performed during marriage (house increased in value), are either/both parties of working age and can they actually work, what are pension and other assets to consider, etc, etc.
Without all this detail it's very difficult to offer any real advice. However, what my lawyer did say is the longer the marriage (beyond 3-5 years) the greater the chance of a split nearing 50/50. The other thing is that folks considering divorce should have a session with a mediator re finances rather than arguing the toss over every pot & pan etc. These act like a bit of reality check.
However, that's not the end game...there's lots of factors at play until a final decision is made, ie who brought what to the marriage initially, how long the marriage has existed, who's contributed and how/much during the marriage, is any party financially dependant on the other, how have the assets performed during marriage (house increased in value), are either/both parties of working age and can they actually work, what are pension and other assets to consider, etc, etc.
Without all this detail it's very difficult to offer any real advice. However, what my lawyer did say is the longer the marriage (beyond 3-5 years) the greater the chance of a split nearing 50/50. The other thing is that folks considering divorce should have a session with a mediator re finances rather than arguing the toss over every pot & pan etc. These act like a bit of reality check.
It depends on the circumstances and the outcome both parties are actually looking for.
Some people in the husbands situation might well walk away from any entitlement to half the house because they don't want it or perhaps always sought to reassure the spouse that in that situation they wouldn't try to take it.
On the other hand if its bitter and acrimonious or the disabled non-working spouse has nowhere to go and no means to support himself, there's going to be some concession on the wife's part.
Hopefully whatever the outcome they can reach it by mutual agreement, instead of relying on a court to make a decision.
Some people in the husbands situation might well walk away from any entitlement to half the house because they don't want it or perhaps always sought to reassure the spouse that in that situation they wouldn't try to take it.
On the other hand if its bitter and acrimonious or the disabled non-working spouse has nowhere to go and no means to support himself, there's going to be some concession on the wife's part.
Hopefully whatever the outcome they can reach it by mutual agreement, instead of relying on a court to make a decision.
Edited by theboss on Thursday 16th March 14:04
Ezra said:
I've recently made some enquiries on the divorce topic and, in general, there's a starting assumption of a 50/50 split.
However, that's not the end game...there's lots of factors at play until a final decision is made, ie who brought what to the marriage initially, how long the marriage has existed, who's contributed and how/much during the marriage, is any party financially dependant on the other, how have the assets performed during marriage (house increased in value), are either/both parties of working age and can they actually work, what are pension and other assets to consider, etc, etc.
Without all this detail it's very difficult to offer any real advice. However, what my lawyer did say is the longer the marriage (beyond 3-5 years) the greater the chance of a split nearing 50/50. The other thing is that folks considering divorce should have a session with a mediator re finances rather than arguing the toss over every pot & pan etc. These act like a bit of reality check.
Sadly what each person brought into the marriage is barely considered. Contributions that are not financial during the marriage (i.e. if one person barely worked they can claim they “ran the home” and you can’t prove otherwise). However, that's not the end game...there's lots of factors at play until a final decision is made, ie who brought what to the marriage initially, how long the marriage has existed, who's contributed and how/much during the marriage, is any party financially dependant on the other, how have the assets performed during marriage (house increased in value), are either/both parties of working age and can they actually work, what are pension and other assets to consider, etc, etc.
Without all this detail it's very difficult to offer any real advice. However, what my lawyer did say is the longer the marriage (beyond 3-5 years) the greater the chance of a split nearing 50/50. The other thing is that folks considering divorce should have a session with a mediator re finances rather than arguing the toss over every pot & pan etc. These act like a bit of reality check.
Also, if you cohabited before marriage, this time is added onto the length of the marriage for the negotiations. So, together for 7 years, married for 8 months, was a piss poor situation for me.
Mediation is worth it. Saves a lot of cash on solicitors. Mediators can usually see through BS as well.
elise2000 said:
Sadly what each person brought into the marriage is barely considered. Contributions that are not financial during the marriage (i.e. if one person barely worked they can claim they “ran the home” and you can’t prove otherwise).
Also, if you cohabited before marriage, this time is added onto the length of the marriage for the negotiations. So, together for 7 years, married for 8 months, was a piss poor situation for me.
Mediation is worth it. Saves a lot of cash on solicitors. Mediators can usually see through BS as well.
That's if the ex is prepared to go to mediation - it's easy to skip, they just claim urgency.Also, if you cohabited before marriage, this time is added onto the length of the marriage for the negotiations. So, together for 7 years, married for 8 months, was a piss poor situation for me.
Mediation is worth it. Saves a lot of cash on solicitors. Mediators can usually see through BS as well.
ali_kat said:
Abdul Abulbul Amir said:
Would depend on the needs of each party and the length of the marriage. I would imagine at 10 years the negotiation starts from 50/50.
Not sure why anyone would want to get married, especially with uneven assets.
Because you don’t go into a marriage expecting to get divorced!Not sure why anyone would want to get married, especially with uneven assets.
I have said this before, but never date anyone who doesn't have a similar wealth to you, that goes double if her family don't have any wealth or property either.
You can guarantee that when it comes to divorce, the person with no money or assets will want what they are "entitled to"
Joey Deacon said:
No, but it is pretty much a 50% chance of it happening. Would you jump out of a plane if there was only a 50% chance of the parachute opening?
I have said this before, but never date anyone who doesn't have a similar wealth to you, that goes double if her family don't have any wealth or property either.
You can guarantee that when it comes to divorce, the person with no money or assets will want what they are "entitled to"
This.I have said this before, but never date anyone who doesn't have a similar wealth to you, that goes double if her family don't have any wealth or property either.
You can guarantee that when it comes to divorce, the person with no money or assets will want what they are "entitled to"
If you aren't prepared to lose 50% of whatever you have either get a pre-nup or don't get married.
In my case, my house was owned by me and bought by borrowing money from my family. I owned it for fifteen years before I met my wife. Halfway through our marriage I sold another property soley owned by me and added an extension. I also funded my wife's life. My company provided her with a car etc etc. Unfortunetely it all gets added into the pot and gets shared 50/50. Luckily I am still in my house (for now), I have 50% custody of my daughter. My divorce has been going on for 2 years and they have been hell! Feel free if you want any advice on anything in particular.
Decades ago, this happened to a couple I knew.
She walked away with 50% of the difference between the value of the house when she moved in and the value when he kicked her out for sleeping with her boss. The guy had to remortgage to pay her off.
The law might have changed and especially if your friend is disabled, one would hope that they don't lose their home.
She walked away with 50% of the difference between the value of the house when she moved in and the value when he kicked her out for sleeping with her boss. The guy had to remortgage to pay her off.
The law might have changed and especially if your friend is disabled, one would hope that they don't lose their home.
rewild said:
ali_kat said:
We are hoping not! My friend doesn’t want to lose her house!!
Simple, buy out the ex's half then. It's not mortgaged, so shouldn't be hard to get one for 50%.People have some very strange (to me) ideas of what marriage means.
My 'strange idea' is that getting married shouldn't be akin to a jackpot win if one party gets bored or a better offer and f
ks off. Don't get me wrong, two young people who get together, work (in whatever capacity, might be that one person's input is to stay home running the house and looking after the kids), build equity together and ultimately split up should share the joint fruits of their joint labour.
But this idea that marrying someone with assets later in life should automatically entitle you to grasp half of it for yourself should things not work out is bizarre.
Ari said:
ali_kat said:
BoRED S2upid said:
50/50 split I hope. As would be the case in a man woman marriage.
We are hoping not! My friend doesn’t want to lose her house!!Sorry Ali kat but your friend needs to get a decent lawyer and expect 50/50 split IMO.
Ari said:
...
But this idea that marrying someone with assets later in life should automatically entitle you to grasp half of it for yourself should things not work out is bizarre.
That's literally, exactly what marriage is. At least to me. If things don't work out, well, it's too late, you said "I do!" and meant it. If you want to attach Ts and Cs to a marriage, fine, but you do it on the way in, not the way out.But this idea that marrying someone with assets later in life should automatically entitle you to grasp half of it for yourself should things not work out is bizarre.
rewild said:
Ari said:
...
But this idea that marrying someone with assets later in life should automatically entitle you to grasp half of it for yourself should things not work out is bizarre.
That's literally, exactly what marriage is. At least to me. If things don't work out, well, it's too late, you said "I do!" and meant it. If you want to attach Ts and Cs to a marriage, fine, but you do it on the way in, not the way out.But this idea that marrying someone with assets later in life should automatically entitle you to grasp half of it for yourself should things not work out is bizarre.
This question can't be answered without broader context, i think i read your post as your friend brought the property outright from inheritance prior to the relationship. That your friend was not then working due to disability.
The next question is who has paid what towards the costs of upkeep and maintenance over the last 10 years.
There relative ages also relevant.
Then you'd get in to any other savings and pensions, does the friend on 40k have a decent pension pot to be shared etc?
My MIL got remarried to a wrong-un who tried to take half the house they bought with her money, but the family had ensured it was put solely in her name, she ended up having to pay him about £12k for money he'd contributed towards home improvements as part of the divorce.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Exactly right. There are many financial advantages to marriage, which people are happy to take advantage of. But you have to accept the financial disadvantages as well, especially if you enter into a marriage with someone less well off than you.
No, only ONE of you has to accept the financial disadvantages in that situation. The other... KaCHING!
Ari said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Exactly right. There are many financial advantages to marriage, which people are happy to take advantage of. But you have to accept the financial disadvantages as well, especially if you enter into a marriage with someone less well off than you.
No, only ONE of you has to accept the financial disadvantages in that situation. The other... KaCHING!
She's getting half the house, but while she was married, she had use of the whole house.
I’m assuming they are British. Laws about pre-marital assets are different in different countries (Germany vastly different as an example) so if your friend has dual citizenship she might want to consider starting the divorce in her home country.
Otherwise, in the UK the starting position is 50/50 but the end goal is to make sure that both partners are in an equally good position after divorce, based on their needs (disability and earning power will be taken into account). Ideally they agree how to split stuff between them and document it legally as financial settlement, instead of leaving it to the court to decide, which tends to prolong and intensify the emotional pain.
Otherwise, in the UK the starting position is 50/50 but the end goal is to make sure that both partners are in an equally good position after divorce, based on their needs (disability and earning power will be taken into account). Ideally they agree how to split stuff between them and document it legally as financial settlement, instead of leaving it to the court to decide, which tends to prolong and intensify the emotional pain.
timeism0ney said:
I’m assuming they are British. Laws about pre-marital assets are different in different countries (Germany vastly different as an example) so if your friend has dual citizenship she might want to consider starting the divorce in her home country.
Otherwise, in the UK the starting position is 50/50 but the end goal is to make sure that both partners are in an equally good position after divorce, based on their needs (disability and earning power will be taken into account). Ideally they agree how to split stuff between them and document it legally as financial settlement, instead of leaving it to the court to decide, which tends to prolong and intensify the emotional pain.
Scotland is quite different to England and Wales, not sure if relevent to the OP's friend though?Otherwise, in the UK the starting position is 50/50 but the end goal is to make sure that both partners are in an equally good position after divorce, based on their needs (disability and earning power will be taken into account). Ideally they agree how to split stuff between them and document it legally as financial settlement, instead of leaving it to the court to decide, which tends to prolong and intensify the emotional pain.
In Scotland the concept of matrimonial property is crucial. The assets which are to be divided on divorce are only those which are “matrimonial”. This means assets acquired by either spouse during the marriage, and before the date of separation, other than by way of inheritance or gift. So, anything which was owned pre-marriage, inherited during the marriage or acquired after separation is simply excluded from the pot of assets to be divided. This is different from the position in England where the couple’s assets are all considered to be relevant to the overall settlement.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff