what is he entitled too?

dirtysexymonkey

benb76 wrote: »

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.

if the oh was claiming only as part of a divorce. hes not. if he paid into a house, maintained it and added to his value while he lived there as the ops partner, irrespective of marriage, then he will be entitled to something.

if that were not the case then there would be no cases of people being able to claim part of a house outside of a marriage, and that is clearly untrue.

VfM4meplse

Firstly, I am sorry to hear that you are going through a divorce.

I think this is a difficult one, no matter what your solicitor advises it will be a best-guess as it depends on how the judge feels on the day. I must say I rejoiced at the recent Billericay ruling - a victory for women everywhere but I was particularly pleased having been born and bred in Essex - and it would be worth taking a look at the SavvyWoman site (the last newsletter referred to just this topic). Sign-up today!

mrs_marty

benb76 wrote: »

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.

That's my understanding too. You really need to go instruct a solicitor and they will help you understand it all.

benb76

dirtysexymonkey wrote: »

if the oh was claiming only as part of a divorce. hes not. if he paid into a house, maintained it and added to his value while he lived there as the ops partner, irrespective of marriage, then he will be entitled to something.

if that were not the case then there would be no cases of people being able to claim part of a house outside of a marriage, and that is clearly untrue.

I agree. I just wanted to correct another poster when they said that the house had effectively become 50/50, just because they had got married.