what is he entitled too?

BitterAndTwisted

If it's only down to the last 18 months (and I would question that) he's entitled to nowt. The courts, where marriages are of a short duration, generally seek to return each party to the position they were in upon marriage.

I'd make the blighter go to court before he saw a red cent.

dirtysexymonkey

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

If it's only down to the last 18 months (and I would question that) he's entitled to nowt. The courts, where marriages are of a short duration, generally seek to return each party to the position they were in upon marriage.

I'd make the blighter go to court before he saw a red cent.

the law was written with the idea that the couple were independent before marriage and then joined together. in this case they already lived together for six years. for four of those he paid towards the house.

you can repeat that hes entitled to nothing as many times as you like, it doesnt make it true.

princeofpounds

You were married. The house is a marital asset. Given it's a short marriage the judge might not order a 50/50 split but given you have had a long relationship before that I wouldn't be surprised it isn't far off, as a total non-expert.

Even if you want a clean split, and that is admirable, you should get a lawyer on board to make sure your interests are defended and his respected.

I'm sorry if it seems unfair, and in some ways it is, but for every story like yours there are a handful where the husband has to pay for a 'less-productive' (only in a strict economic sense) wife. Blame it on feminism or whatever you like, but we have a lot more equality these days in marriages and this is one of the consequences.

benb76

princeofpounds wrote: »

You were married. The house is a marital asset. Given it's a short marriage the judge might not order a 50/50 split but given you have had a long relationship before that I wouldn't be surprised it isn't far off, as a total non-expert.

Most of what is written here is wrong, ignore it.

pinkshoes

The absolute MAXIMUM he would be entitled to (so worst case scenario) is 50% of the equity increase in the last 8 years.

i.e. what was your mortgage back in 2003 and what was the house worth, and what's your mortgage now and what's the house worth?

In reality, you could argue that he lived with you as a lodger for the first 4 years, so only in the last 4 years has he contributed, so it would be 50% of the equity increase (or decrease!!) since 2007. He could be looking at paying YOU in that case if house prices have dropped a lot in your area!

macman

This is mostly speculative. You need proper legal advice, so contact your solicitor.

princeofpounds

Most of what is written here is wrong, ignore it.

Please explain why.

Edit to add: I thought the OP said they had children, missed out the 'no'. That improves her chances to recover more in the settlement as the husband wouldn't have been supporting the generation of the assets, so maybe it's not so bad.

Tish_P

You need to see a lawyer, as his entitlement will depend on the details of what and how much he paid and when. If it's been his home for 8 years and he has contributed in ANY way (not just financial; did he do housework and support you whole you worked? did he get the shopping?) then he may well be due a share.

As for "I don't think it's fair" that you have to share your assets - you were partners, and married at that, and sorry, but marriage and partnerships involve sharing your stuff. Sorry it didn't work out for you, but you may not be able to decide 8 years in retrospect that you didn't want to share after all.

benb76

princeofpounds wrote: »

Please explain why.

Edit to add: I thought the OP said they had children, missed out the 'no'. That improves her chances to recover more in the settlement as the husband wouldn't have been supporting the generation of the assets, so maybe it's not so bad.

The main thing is that the house is not a marital asset as most of the equity was gained prior to them being married. Only the equity gained while they were married would count.

CH27

OP please go & see a solicitor & get some accurate advice.