Potential divorce - house question
Discussion
mjb1 said:
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.
elise2000 said:
mjb1 said:
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.
timeism0ney said:
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.
This is true, if both parties can agree a financial settlement it is better than letting the courts do it.However, even if both parties are in agreement on the financial settlement, the courts can still intervene to amend it (or ask it to be amended) if they consider the settlement to be unfair to one of the parties.
Whilst its reasonable to get a pre-emptive take on the legals it's still really irrelevant until the expectations of both parties are clearer
There's a presumption here that the husband who didn't buy the house will be out to maximise any claim he has on it
It'll be dismissed as wishful thinking but I know plenty of people who in the real world have just walked away from their 'entitlements' based on their own sense of reason, fairness or outright generosity.
Not every divorce results in a huge fight over assets (or in my own case over hypothetical assets which didn't even exist)
There's a presumption here that the husband who didn't buy the house will be out to maximise any claim he has on it
It'll be dismissed as wishful thinking but I know plenty of people who in the real world have just walked away from their 'entitlements' based on their own sense of reason, fairness or outright generosity.
Not every divorce results in a huge fight over assets (or in my own case over hypothetical assets which didn't even exist)
TwigtheWonderkid said:
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.
But either way, what is sad about it is that, if you meet someone and there is a substantial financial imbalance (not unusual later in life), then if you've any sense, it's a massive barrier to getting married even if you'd like to.
mjb1 said:
Scotland is quite different to England and Wales, not sure if relevent to the OP's friend though?
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.
Scotland, in this case, absolutely has it right. 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.
Ari said:
Scotland, in this case, absolutely has it right.
can someone now living in scotland issue divorce proceedings against someone living in england and make use of this anomaly?can someone in england issue divorce proceedings in scotland if there husband / wife now live in scotland.
or does this solely depend on where they were married?
Ari said:
But either way, what is sad about it is that, if you meet someone and there is a substantial financial imbalance (not unusual later in life), then if you've any sense, it's a massive barrier to getting married even if you'd like to.
What's sad about that? There are lots of reasons you might choose not to marry someone who is otherwise seemingly ideal. Them being worse off with you is just one of hundreds of potential reasons. You might as well have written "what is sad about it is that, if you meet someone and they don't have a sex drive (not unusual later in life), then if you've any sense, it's a massive barrier to getting married even if you'd like to.
Greenmantle said:
can someone now living in scotland issue divorce proceedings against someone living in england and make use of this anomaly?
can someone in england issue divorce proceedings in scotland if there husband / wife now live in scotland.
or does this solely depend on where they were married?
It's not like you can divorce wherever you fancy, but couples can usually divorce in their home country or married couple's resident country. You need to check the specifics for England/Scotland scenarios you outlined, I'm not sure.can someone in england issue divorce proceedings in scotland if there husband / wife now live in scotland.
or does this solely depend on where they were married?
timeism0ney said:
Greenmantle said:
can someone now living in scotland issue divorce proceedings against someone living in england and make use of this anomaly?
can someone in england issue divorce proceedings in scotland if there husband / wife now live in scotland.
or does this solely depend on where they were married?
It's not like you can divorce wherever you fancy, but couples can usually divorce in their home country or married couple's resident country. You need to check the specifics for England/Scotland scenarios you outlined, I'm not sure.can someone in england issue divorce proceedings in scotland if there husband / wife now live in scotland.
or does this solely depend on where they were married?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Ari said:
But either way, what is sad about it is that, if you meet someone and there is a substantial financial imbalance (not unusual later in life), then if you've any sense, it's a massive barrier to getting married even if you'd like to.
What's sad about that? There are lots of reasons you might choose not to marry someone who is otherwise seemingly ideal. Them being worse off with you is just one of hundreds of potential reasons. You might as well have written "what is sad about it is that, if you meet someone and they don't have a sex drive (not unusual later in life), then if you've any sense, it's a massive barrier to getting married even if you'd like to.
Sex drive, people can't help that. Divorce, on the other hand, can (and has in many cases, see Scotland for example) be made so that people don't have to gamble life changing amounts of money on the hope that the person they love doesn't change their mind about the whole thing in a few years and disappear over the horizon with a considerable amount of money that they have had no input into earning and have no moral (just legal) claim on.
Surprised this needs explaining really. Presumably you 'married well' and are therefore very happy with the current arrangement. Well done you, I guess...
Ari said:
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.
Yes it's bizarre, but that's what English law has been working towards for the last 40 years. That's pretty much how it works now. Which in practical terms, for most couples, means this:-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.
"Marriage is a legal contract which the woman can legally break, but which the man can't, even if the woman has."
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff