Discussion
Alfa numeric said:
It is possible to have an amicable divorce. My ex and I sat down and worked through everything we had (it wasn't much, we were young and there wasn't any kids involved) and presented the agreement as a done deal to our respective solicitors. I don't know what hers said but mine were fine about it. Two bits of paper were signed and a year later the Decree Absolute came through.
Not long after that I went travelling and met an amazing woman. Eighteen years later we've been married 13 years and I'm still as in love with her as I was then.
If there isn't much to fight over, there won't be fights!Not long after that I went travelling and met an amazing woman. Eighteen years later we've been married 13 years and I'm still as in love with her as I was then.
ThingsBehindTheSun said:
csd19 said:
In my divorce we both had to provide a year's worth of bank statements to confirm income/expenditure and savings, so your friend's soon-to-be ex might be in for a surprise if she's trying to hide funds.
I thought the reality was that they tend to turn a blind eye if a woman submits false bank statements and accounts? wiggy001 said:
Animal said:
Form E requires full financial disclosure: salary/other income, assets >£500, bank & savings accounts plus credit cards etc. Supporting info would include statements for each, pension CETVs (transfer values), etc, etc.
Be prepared for the questioning of accounts to get very petty. I was asked to disclose a years worth of accounts for my “trading account that I regularly invest money into”. The lines on my current account statement to trigger this question were to “Demelza HSE Trd” for £8 per month. Demelza house is a charity for terminally ill children that I donate a meagre amount to every month.
Also don’t expect the judge to care about the hundreds of pounds the ex is giving to her new boyfriend in cash on a regular basis.
Amateurish said:
av185 said:
Abc321 said:
Is it not the case in the UK if you are living together, joint mortgage, etc. then you are essentially married?
Yep effectively.Cohabitees especially if over 2 years have essentially the same financial rights as married couples as many have found out to their financial cost ££.
Also see Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents Act) 1975.
Scary stuff for sure.
It is a long standing myth that cohabitees can have a "common law" marriage.
Anyone moving a girlfriend or partner into their property
thinking they will not potentially acquire extensive rights is in cloud cuckoo land especially if there is a disparity in wealth and this is before they even start contributing in any way to anything connected with the home.
Look up Beneficial Interst Implied Interest Constructive Trust Promissory Estoppel and Engagement rights to name but a few.
Plenty of long running threads on PH of posters who have been shafted financially similar to CLWs by
cohabitees thinking they had few rights simply because they weren't married.
av185 said:
Not according to the extensive advice I received from several solicitors prior to my girlfriend moving into my property and I started a thread on this very subject on PH which broadly backed up my comments.
Anyone moving a girlfriend or partner into their property
thinking they will not potentially acquire extensive rights is in cloud cuckoo land especially if there is a disparity in wealth and this is before they even start contributing in any way to anything connected with the home.
Look up Beneficial Interst Implied Interest Constructive Trust Promissory Estoppel and Engagement rights to name but a few.
Plenty of long running threads on PH of posters who have been shafted financially similar to CLWs by
cohabitees thinking they had few rights simply because they weren't married.
In these circumstances would a pre-nup work in the UK?Anyone moving a girlfriend or partner into their property
thinking they will not potentially acquire extensive rights is in cloud cuckoo land especially if there is a disparity in wealth and this is before they even start contributing in any way to anything connected with the home.
Look up Beneficial Interst Implied Interest Constructive Trust Promissory Estoppel and Engagement rights to name but a few.
Plenty of long running threads on PH of posters who have been shafted financially similar to CLWs by
cohabitees thinking they had few rights simply because they weren't married.
av185 said:
Amateurish said:
av185 said:
Abc321 said:
Is it not the case in the UK if you are living together, joint mortgage, etc. then you are essentially married?
Yep effectively.Cohabitees especially if over 2 years have essentially the same financial rights as married couples as many have found out to their financial cost ££.
Also see Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents Act) 1975.
Scary stuff for sure.
It is a long standing myth that cohabitees can have a "common law" marriage.
Anyone moving a girlfriend or partner into their property
thinking they will not potentially acquire extensive rights is in cloud cuckoo land especially if there is a disparity in wealth and this is before they even start contributing in any way to anything connected with the home.
Look up Beneficial Interst Implied Interest Constructive Trust Promissory Estoppel and Engagement rights to name but a few.
Plenty of long running threads on PH of posters who have been shafted financially similar to CLWs by
cohabitees thinking they had few rights simply because they weren't married.
Someone who lives with you may have rights to the property (depending on the circumstances)
They categorically do not have the same rights in general as a spouse does.
av185 said:
Not according to the extensive advice I received from several solicitors prior to my girlfriend moving into my property and I started a thread on this very subject on PH which broadly backed up my comments.
Anyone moving a girlfriend or partner into their property
thinking they will not potentially acquire extensive rights is in cloud cuckoo land especially if there is a disparity in wealth and this is before they even start contributing in any way to anything connected with the home.
Look up Beneficial Interst Implied Interest Constructive Trust Promissory Estoppel and Engagement rights to name but a few.
Plenty of long running threads on PH of posters who have been shafted financially similar to CLWs by
cohabitees thinking they had few rights simply because they weren't married.
Without having children it is doubtful they will be acquiring any rights to the assets unless contributing to the payments on the house. Anyone moving a girlfriend or partner into their property
thinking they will not potentially acquire extensive rights is in cloud cuckoo land especially if there is a disparity in wealth and this is before they even start contributing in any way to anything connected with the home.
Look up Beneficial Interst Implied Interest Constructive Trust Promissory Estoppel and Engagement rights to name but a few.
Plenty of long running threads on PH of posters who have been shafted financially similar to CLWs by
cohabitees thinking they had few rights simply because they weren't married.
However this situation is changing and Labour are planning to consult on making co-habitation status similar to marriage in terms of claims on assets. This should be being publicised far more than it is as that might catch many out when that comes in.
TownIdiot said:
In these circumstances would a pre-nup work in the UK?
I was told quite categorically by several solicitors a pre nup unlike some other countries in the UK MAY be used for partial guidance only in the event of a separation and is therefore broadly not worth the cost nor the paper it is written on.Muzzer79 said:
Co-habiting and having rights to the property that the couple live in is vastly different from being "essentially married" and having "the same financial rights as married couples"
Someone who lives with you may have rights to the property (depending on the circumstances)
They categorically do not have the same rights in general as a spouse does.
I was advised otherwise and by several solicitors too who specialise in this work. I am not saying their rights are identical but their rights are far closer than most people think and it is a common misconception that even a sub 2 year cohabitee has few rights on both your property and your estate should you die (1975 Act) especially if there is a disparity in wealth and the cohabitee came to rely on the property owner.Someone who lives with you may have rights to the property (depending on the circumstances)
They categorically do not have the same rights in general as a spouse does.
The circumstances of each case will obvious dictate the outcome and it depends on what was said etc but e.g. if it can be shown that the cohabitee to their disadvantage relied on the house owner in anyway hence a promissory estoppel there will be a right to a claim on the property in the event of a split. Any cohabitee for over 2 years will also gain a right to claim on your estate should you die and their is also a distinct possibility some kind of life interest could be created for them in the property.
Furthermore as another poster has already said the goal posts are likely to be moved on further still by Labour in the cohabitees advantage in the near future.
Muzzer79 said:
Co-habiting and having rights to the property that the couple live in is vastly different from being "essentially married" and having "the same financial rights as married couples"
Someone who lives with you may have rights to the property (depending on the circumstances)
They categorically do not have the same rights in general as a spouse does.
This is correct. The financial rights of cohabitees and married couples are fundamentally different. Someone who lives with you may have rights to the property (depending on the circumstances)
They categorically do not have the same rights in general as a spouse does.
av185 said:
Muzzer79 said:
Co-habiting and having rights to the property that the couple live in is vastly different from being "essentially married" and having "the same financial rights as married couples"
Someone who lives with you may have rights to the property (depending on the circumstances)
They categorically do not have the same rights in general as a spouse does.
I was advised otherwise and by several solicitors too who specialise in this work. I am not saying their rights are identical but their rights are far closer than most people think and it is a common misconception that even a sub 2 year cohabitee has few rights on both your property and your estate should you die (1975 Act) especially if there is a disparity in wealth and the cohabitee came to rely on the property owner.Someone who lives with you may have rights to the property (depending on the circumstances)
They categorically do not have the same rights in general as a spouse does.
The circumstances of each case will obvious dictate the outcome and it depends on what was said etc but e.g. if it can be shown that the cohabitee to their disadvantage relied on the house owner in anyway hence a promissory estoppel there will be a right to a claim on the property in the event of a split. Any cohabitee for over 2 years will also gain a right to claim on your estate should you die and their is also a distinct possibility some kind of life interest could be created for them in the property.
If you had said that co-habitees can have similar rights to married couples in respect of property, then your point would have been more valid
But it's not correct in a general sense. There would, for example, be no such equivalent of as 'marital assets' in a co-habitee relationship - cash, possessions, etc.
Muzzer79 said:
av185 said:
Muzzer79 said:
Co-habiting and having rights to the property that the couple live in is vastly different from being "essentially married" and having "the same financial rights as married couples"
Someone who lives with you may have rights to the property (depending on the circumstances)
They categorically do not have the same rights in general as a spouse does.
I was advised otherwise and by several solicitors too who specialise in this work. I am not saying their rights are identical but their rights are far closer than most people think and it is a common misconception that even a sub 2 year cohabitee has few rights on both your property and your estate should you die (1975 Act) especially if there is a disparity in wealth and the cohabitee came to rely on the property owner.Someone who lives with you may have rights to the property (depending on the circumstances)
They categorically do not have the same rights in general as a spouse does.
The circumstances of each case will obvious dictate the outcome and it depends on what was said etc but e.g. if it can be shown that the cohabitee to their disadvantage relied on the house owner in anyway hence a promissory estoppel there will be a right to a claim on the property in the event of a split. Any cohabitee for over 2 years will also gain a right to claim on your estate should you die and their is also a distinct possibility some kind of life interest could be created for them in the property.
If you had said that co-habitees can have similar rights to married couples in respect of property, then your point would have been more valid
But it's not correct in a general sense. There would, for example, be no such equivalent of as 'marital assets' in a co-habitee relationship - cash, possessions, etc.
Making a financial claim based on promissory estoppel is both difficult and expensive.
hey, further update.
seems the ex has taken some legal advice from somewhere - or massively changed her tune!
her parents are elderly and in poor health. home owners but place is only worth about £100k.
so since saying 'I'll drag the divorce out for years' to 'how quick can we get this sorted' lol
this is good news for my pal. he's since done some sums and thinks that if they kept each others lot and just split the house he'll be almost there.
question is: is the divorce and clean break thing the same? I remember from my divorce we did both and had to fill in our finances, pensions etc but can't remember if that was the divorce paperwork or the clean break one?
reading these posts makes me think im lucky my ex wasn't mental. tbs prob Clint wait to see the back of me. now re-married and shacked up down south in a million pound gaff and rick bloke! as a side laugh she cited unreasonable behaviour on the paper work (had to list something back then/0 and put I spend to much time on forums :-)
seems the ex has taken some legal advice from somewhere - or massively changed her tune!
her parents are elderly and in poor health. home owners but place is only worth about £100k.
so since saying 'I'll drag the divorce out for years' to 'how quick can we get this sorted' lol
this is good news for my pal. he's since done some sums and thinks that if they kept each others lot and just split the house he'll be almost there.
question is: is the divorce and clean break thing the same? I remember from my divorce we did both and had to fill in our finances, pensions etc but can't remember if that was the divorce paperwork or the clean break one?
reading these posts makes me think im lucky my ex wasn't mental. tbs prob Clint wait to see the back of me. now re-married and shacked up down south in a million pound gaff and rick bloke! as a side laugh she cited unreasonable behaviour on the paper work (had to list something back then/0 and put I spend to much time on forums :-)
TownIdiot said:
Jim1064 said:
Having made that journey myself, the only advice I can give is to get a solicitor. It's going to cost, that's inevitable. How much, that depends how much acrimony there is...
A solicitor won't make the wife come to the party and accept the situation.Until she does, it will just be a s
t show.A few years ago a mate made a reasonable offer to his ex .
She fought it , they spent £60k on legal fees and they were back to the offer my mate had made at the beginning.
I was lucky my wife was reasonable when I divorced.
We wrote down what we wanted between ourselves and for our kids and made it happen with minimal involvement from solicitors .
Muzzer79 said:
But this still focuses on property (as per bold)
If you had said that co-habitees can have similar rights to married couples in respect of property, then your point would have been more valid
But it's not correct in a general sense. There would, for example, be no such equivalent of as 'marital assets' in a co-habitee relationship - cash, possessions, etc.
YesIf you had said that co-habitees can have similar rights to married couples in respect of property, then your point would have been more valid
But it's not correct in a general sense. There would, for example, be no such equivalent of as 'marital assets' in a co-habitee relationship - cash, possessions, etc.
It is a different situation if you are both paying costs in respect to a property. That is why Labour's proposed changes are so ground breaking as it treats assets as if they were matrimonial assets without a marriage.
JagLover said:
Yes
It is a different situation if you are both paying costs in respect to a property. That is why Labour's proposed changes are so ground breaking as it treats assets as if they were matrimonial assets without a marriage.
FYI these proposals have been around from 2007 and every government since has said they will legislate. I am doubtful that it will happen. It is a different situation if you are both paying costs in respect to a property. That is why Labour's proposed changes are so ground breaking as it treats assets as if they were matrimonial assets without a marriage.
kingswood said:
question is: is the divorce and clean break thing the same? I remember from my divorce we did both and had to fill in our finances, pensions etc but can't remember if that was the divorce paperwork or the clean break one?
They are different things. The divorce itself is simple and can be done online himself. There is a court fee of £593. I would always recommend being the party that starts the process, and always choose a sole divorce rather than "joint".
The financial order is a process that you carry out in parallel to the divorce proceedings. I highly recommend getting a solicitor to do this for you. This is where the parties will need to undertake financial disclosure and any order must be approved by the court.
Amateurish said:
JagLover said:
Yes
It is a different situation if you are both paying costs in respect to a property. That is why Labour's proposed changes are so ground breaking as it treats assets as if they were matrimonial assets without a marriage.
FYI these proposals have been around from 2007 and every government since has said they will legislate. I am doubtful that it will happen. It is a different situation if you are both paying costs in respect to a property. That is why Labour's proposed changes are so ground breaking as it treats assets as if they were matrimonial assets without a marriage.
Think it was also in their manifesto. Best to assume that if you are cohabiting soon your partner will have the rights currently arising from marriage.
Edited by JagLover on Saturday 15th March 10:20
JagLover said:
They are putting their proposals out to consultation soon. It was mentioned in a few media outlets last week.
Think it was also in their manifesto. Best to assume that if you are cohabiting soon your partner will have the rights currently arising from marriage.
It's an interesting conundrumThink it was also in their manifesto. Best to assume that if you are cohabiting soon your partner will have the rights currently arising from marriage.
Edited by JagLover on Saturday 15th March 10:20
Let's say you move in with your squeeze and they own their property.
Notional value 200k
You live as partners and pay your fair share.
10 years later it's doubled in value
Should you get a share of the uplift?
Or if it's gone down
Should you pay your share of the loss since you moved in?
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff