Pre-marital assets - have I made a risky decision?

[DickusMaximus]

The initial message was deleted from this topic on 06 July 2022 at 14:57

[vulture1]

If she is saying things like that the marriage is on the rocks imo

[supersport]

Division of assets would be based on "need".

Unless you signed a prenup then pre-marital assets isn't a thing as you describe it.

The length of the marriage would be taken into account, you aren't going to get half her cash after 3 weeks.

[anonymous-user]

This has legs.

[Gixer968CS]

Doesn't work like that. All your assets became joint once you married, so that that is your new starting point. If (when??) you divorce they are carved up on a needs basis - you need a house, she needs a house, you need x per month, she needs x per month. The reality is that you and your Barristers hammer out an agreement between you. It's very unlikely that a judge will rule on it. In fact they do everything to avoid that. It is literally a trade off - capital in exchange for reduced payments etc etc.

Either party could make a case that assets were "pre-marriage" and so should be treated differently but in reality it probably wont impact the end game.

I have no legal training but I have been divorced twice and one of those had two financial court proceedings (she came back for a second bite), so been through 3 altogether and the most recent one 2 years ago. So, whilst demonstrably bad at marriage, I do know what happens.

My last advice, if it comes to it do not use a solicitor for anything other than the most basic process related issues. Waste of money as they just ping pong with the other side, winding you all up and racking up your costs, all to no effect. Get a good barrister as everything is decided that day in court.

[CloudStuff]

On the financial side - only professional advice should be sought.

On the 'I have been there, know how you feel' side, as a random bloke on the car forum, I'm happy to chat to anybody about this as a sounding board. Been there etc....

[dundarach]

If there's no kids, keep it that way.

If you want them, leave now and find someone else.

Yes it is that simple, just go now, life too short to invest 20 years into it.

[DickusMaximus]

Gixer968CS said:

Doesn't work like that. All your assets became joint once you married, so that that is your new starting point. If (when??) you divorce they are carved up on a needs basis - you need a house, she needs a house, you need x per month, she needs x per month. The reality is that you and your Barristers hammer out an agreement between you. It's very unlikely that a judge will rule on it. In fact they do everything to avoid that. It is literally a trade off - capital in exchange for reduced payments etc etc.

Either party could make a case that assets were "pre-marriage" and so should be treated differently but in reality it probably wont impact the end game.

I have no legal training but I have been divorced twice and one of those had two financial court proceedings (she came back for a second bite), so been through 3 altogether and the most recent one 2 years ago. So, whilst demonstrably bad at marriage, I do know what happens.

My last advice, if it comes to it do not use a solicitor for anything other than the most basic process related issues. Waste of money as they just ping pong with the other side, winding you all up and racking up your costs, all to no effect. Get a good barrister as everything is decided that day in court.

Thank you for the comprehensive response

https://www.co-oplegalservices.co.uk/media-centre/...

These legal sites are specifically mentioning property purchased before marriage - they say the same about savings so I’m still confused! I guess as you say ‘need’ trumps all other issues

[BoRED S2upid]

Why isn’t she working?

It will be an interesting fight in the courts because I can guarantee if it was the other way round that £1m house would be 50% hers. How much of it will you get after divorce?

[anonymous-user]

You say new wife, how long have you been married and how long co-habiting?

[MattyD803]

DickusMaximus said:

So the situation is less invidious than expected. Given there’s no need for her to have my income as she has her own savings. Phew. Possibly?

I married two people

The loving generous funny smiling sober one

And the occasional slapping pushing abusing ‘I’ve thrown your phone in the sea’ one

It’s..tragic

Seeing as you've mentioned the involvement of drink (by default of mentioning 'sober').....I wonder if the way forwards is actually some sort of counselling (with a focus on her alcohol & abuse side of things ideally).....

[Gixer968CS]

DickusMaximus said:

Gixer968CS said:

Doesn't work like that. All your assets became joint once you married, so that that is your new starting point. If (when??) you divorce they are carved up on a needs basis - you need a house, she needs a house, you need x per month, she needs x per month. The reality is that you and your Barristers hammer out an agreement between you. It's very unlikely that a judge will rule on it. In fact they do everything to avoid that. It is literally a trade off - capital in exchange for reduced payments etc etc.

Either party could make a case that assets were "pre-marriage" and so should be treated differently but in reality it probably wont impact the end game.

I have no legal training but I have been divorced twice and one of those had two financial court proceedings (she came back for a second bite), so been through 3 altogether and the most recent one 2 years ago. So, whilst demonstrably bad at marriage, I do know what happens.

My last advice, if it comes to it do not use a solicitor for anything other than the most basic process related issues. Waste of money as they just ping pong with the other side, winding you all up and racking up your costs, all to no effect. Get a good barrister as everything is decided that day in court.

Thank you for the comprehensive response

https://www.co-oplegalservices.co.uk/media-centre/...

These legal sites are specifically mentioning property purchased before marriage - they say the same about savings so I’m still confused! I guess as you say ‘need’ trumps all other issues

The article really just reiterates what I said: prior assets may ask to be excluded but the reality is that it's all in the round anyway. For example, if she wanted to keep her pre marriage assets you might agree if it meant it got you a clean break with no ongoing liability for any maintenance etc. It's all up for debate. Whatever solicitors and others tell you ahead of the day in court just ignore. They are obliged to tell you to play nice, be prepared to give in, be sensible, keep your job, don't spend any money etc. Ignore it all. The court and the judge on the day will not be interested in history, they just deal in the facts on the day and will implore you two to come to an agreement that the court then ratifies.

My second wife was also violent and abusive (phone in the loo, car hit with golf umbrella, possessions stamped on, me bitten, punched, kicked etc). Took me way too long to walk away but haven't regretted doing so for one second. Now have a stable, even tempered, loving partner that I adore.

[DickusMaximus]

Thank you again.

And I’m glad it worked out for you that’s great

[DickusMaximus]

Rufus Stone said:

You say new wife, how long have you been married and how long co-habiting?

Cohabited her place 2 yrs
Married 18 months

[Vasco]

dundarach said:

If there's no kids, keep it that way.

If you want them, leave now and find someone else.

Yes it is that simple, just go now, life too short to invest 20 years into it.

Very true. Often overlooked or ignored.

[Sticks.]

Given the cost of going to court, mine was a balance of the most one side could get without going to court, and the other paying the least. Pre-nup was worthless. Good luck.

[anonymous-user]

DickusMaximus said:

Cohabited her place 2 yrs
Married 18 months

My understanding is that for a short marriage, unless there are extenuating circumstances the Court adopts the principle that each party takes back what they brought to the marriage and anything remaining is divided equally, and no spousal maintenance.

[anonymous-user]

Rufus Stone said:

DickusMaximus said:

Cohabited her place 2 yrs
Married 18 months

My understanding is that for a short marriage, unless there are extenuating circumstances the Court adopts the principle that each party takes back what they brought to the marriage and anything remaining is divided equally, and no spousal maintenance.

A friend of mine had a very short marriage and was about £0.7m down at the divorce after splitting assets. . This to a much wealthier girl. It was him that cheated but I don’t think that affects the payout.