Would my future husband be entitled to half my house?

marywooyeah

meritaten wrote: »

when you 'marry' you join together and SHARE your worldly goods - its written in the vows and funnily enough the courts do take that seriously.
There is a reason you vow 'for better or worse - for richer or poorer' unless you understand that hun - DO NOT marry.

hear hear!!

foreign_correspondent

crikey, I cannot belive people are being so horrified that the OP is asking this - I think more than 1/3 of marriages now end in divorce... I doubt if many expect that when they start off, but realistically, if you marry, there is a good chance you will get divorced.

Wanting to protect a hard-earned and substantial sum of money seems like sanity and realism to me, which I think is entirely sensible and wise. If more people thought about this when they set out, and wrote up an agreement, many divorces would be cheaper (less legal fees battling it out), less stressful and more amicable.

I can understand that the OP wants to reduce the amount owing to the mortgage lender (and the interest paid) by investing this money in a house, but wants to keep some security that she wouldnt lose it if the worse happened.

OP, you are being prudent - I think you should do a bit of research, and go and see a recommended local solicitor for a free half hour consultation - they should be able to tell you what your options are, and give you an estimated price for drawing up an agreement.

Good luck, I hope your marriage is long and happy - personally I think your prudent and realistic approach bodes well for you!

rdwarr

What sort of relationship will you have if your husband knows he always takes second place behind your money/assets? Marriage requires commitment.

C_Mababejive

OP i do wonder what the basis of your relationship is?

Why for instance, do you not buy a home jointly with this man whom you profess to love so much that you are happy to marry him?

I would say that he needs to guard his interests for fear of feeling homeless and actually being homeless since,if he has no legal right of tenure then he would be technically homeless.

I suggest that you re-examine the basis of your relationship and also google TOLATA..a very complex area and upon which there is much case law.

You are steering in dangerous waters..

RacyRed

Panda78 wrote: »

i just want my deposit to be secure in full. I earned it and saved it, i don't see where emotion or religion comes into that - it's just financial common sense.

Completely agree with your desire to protect your deposit. You spent ten long years saving it, as well as contributing more than 50% to household bills and paying for holidays.

As you have been with your partner for so long and you do not have children then I assume that he has had as much opportunity as you to improve his financial situation and save for himself, but for whatever reasons hasn't? I'm not knocking anyone, just pointing out that you have managed to save as well as contributing generously to a household with no dependants. As your partner works it is safe to assume that he can support himself should your relationship end for any reason. That is what most people without dependants do?

There may never be another opportunity for you to save so much again. You are absolutely right to protect yourself.

Mojisola

Panda78 wrote: »

This may sound cold hearted but i have saved for 10 years to build a big deposit and my partner has no savings at all as his job does not pay that much, so he cannot contribute to the deposit.

RacyRed wrote: »

Completely agree with your desire to protect your deposit. You spent ten long years saving it, as well as contributing more than 50% to household bills and paying for holidays.

As you have been with your partner for so long and you do not have children then I assume that he has had as much opportunity as you to improve his financial situation and save for himself, but for whatever reasons hasn't?

Lots of couples have a discrepancy between the earning potential of the partners. Sometimes it's always one way; sometimes it varies throughout the life of the marriage.

I can understand Panda wanting to protect her savings but, as that is so important to her, I don't think she should get married. They have lived happily as a couple for so long and staying unmarried will give her a degree of financial protection. Is getting married worth "risking" £35k?

RacyRed

Mojisola wrote: »

Lots of couples have a discrepancy between the earning potential of the partners. Sometimes it's always one way; sometimes it varies throughout the life of the marriage.

I can understand Panda wanting to protect her savings but, as that is so important to her, I don't think she should get married. They have lived happily as a couple for so long and staying unmarried will give her a degree of financial protection. Is getting married worth "risking" £35k?

Getting married or not is their decision to make. Even if they don't marry, the same situation will arise if the OP uses her savings to put down the deposit on a house which they live in together.

Yes, lots of couples have a discrepancy and, where there are children involved equality in all things is vital. But here we have a different situation. Panda78 has helped support her partner for many years. She works, he works. We don't know why their earning potential is different, but it is and she has been able to save money as well as being generous within their relationship.

Panda78's partner is not at home looking after children. So unless he is taking on all other household responsibilities, so that all Panda has to do is go out and earn her income, then I just don't understand why anyone would think her partner should be entitled to half of her savings just because she loves him and wants to provide a home for them to live in?

The question is not "if" she should ring fence her savings, but "how"? A pre-nuptial or preferably something more legally binding sounds sensible to me. Panda, I'd talk it over with a lawyer.

January20

meritaten wrote: »

I think you shouldnt get married - you say you arent religious so why bother? why not ask him to pay you rent while you are at it? You have every financial fact at your fingertip - all to the detriment of your supposedly 'loved one'.
You arent 'fixated' on money? couldve fooled me! before you have even married you are considering the financial implications of a 'split'!
I wouldnt marry hun - You have absolutely no concept of the meaning of marraige! It is not a business decision!

meritaten, you are a long time user of these boards. Do you only read the happy threads? how have you missed all the threads from people who have been shafted by "their loved one" when they were splitting up. There are so many stories of people using money and/ or children to get what they want because by then they don't love their partner anymore! I have a friend who is standing to lose her flat, for which she worked hard, because of a break up. It's not pretty when it goes wrong.

RacyRed wrote: »

G

Panda78's partner is not at home looking after children. So unless he is taking on all other household responsibilities, so that all Panda has to do is go out and earn her income, then I just don't understand why anyone would think her partner should be entitled to half of her savings just because she loves him and wants to provide a home for them to live in?

The question is not "if" she should ring fence her savings, but "how"? A pre-nuptial or preferably something more legally binding sounds sensible to me. Panda, I'd talk it over with a lawyer.

This is exactly what I think: just because she loves him doesn't mean that she has to be foolish. After all, he could be stringing her along until married and then claim half of what she owns - and even half sounds like a lot more than he owns on himself!

I am also disturbed by the comments about why should the OP marry in church (or another religious environment) when she is not religious. It is so unfair to say that! For generations people have had religious marriage for all kinds of reasons: their beliefs of course, but also tradition, pleasing the families, not wanting to shock the community, etc.

OP, you wouldn't think this is a money saving site would you? Just go and get some PROPER and IMPARTIAL advice from a good solicitor. You won't get either here, well not impartial anyway!

Mojisola

RacyRed wrote: »

Getting married or not is their decision to make. Even if they don't marry, the same situation will arise if the OP uses her savings to put down the deposit on a house which they live in together.

If they don't get married, her OH won't have the same rights. Depending on how long the relationship lasts, he could build up some entitlement to a share of the house but it won't be 50/50.

Yes, lots of couples have a discrepancy and, where there are children involved equality in all things is vital. But here we have a different situation. Panda78 has helped support her partner for many years. She works, he works. We don't know why their earning potential is different, but it is and she has been able to save money as well as being generous within their relationship.

Isn't that what couples do? Some types of jobs pay less than others. Panda doesn't say he's been profligate with his money, just that his job doesn't pay as well as hers.

Panda78's partner is not at home looking after children. So unless he is taking on all other household responsibilities, so that all Panda has to do is go out and earn her income, then I just don't understand why anyone would think her partner should be entitled to half of her savings just because she loves him and wants to provide a home for them to live in?

If a potential marriage partner said to me "Now we both work full-time but I earn more money than you so when I come home, I'm going to sit down and you can do all the housework to "pay" me for the extras I give you, I wouldn't be very impressed!

The question is not "if" she should ring fence her savings, but "how"? A pre-nuptial or preferably something more legally binding sounds sensible to me. Panda, I'd talk it over with a lawyer.

There is always the option of not getting married. I don't think there is any 100% way of protecting one spouse's money unless you get into the things that very wealthy use - family trusts, etc.

FBaby

I can really see both sides. I wonder if it is OP first serious relationship? I have found that you do tend to be more weary second time around, when you've lost a lot through what was once love...

I know my partner loves me and would marry me. He does talk about it as something he wants to do and will happen...in the future....but he has lost a lot before, capital that he had worked very hard to gain, and you can't help but think that if you are going to lose love, it would be nice to at least protect your money to make it less painful.

At the same time, I do think that life is full of risk and if you deeply love someone, you have to make the commitment. There is ultimately an element of lack of trust when you are not prepared to do that, and a relationship with that complete trust is always on shaky grounds.

My partner has more to lose now financially if we were to get married, but long term, it would be the other way as I am due to inherit significantly more than him. I am at a stage that I would be prepared to take that risk because I love him more than I have ever loved, but I haven't lost everything before.

OP, you've been together a long time, and maybe your partner has reached the point of questioning your commitment to him. I think if my partner still isn't prepared to marry me in 12 years, when I know that he does believe in the establishment of marriage, I would start feeling quite unsettled. You really need to discuss this with your partner, he needs to know how you feel about the money. If he is happy with your need to protect yourself, then everything is ok, but if his underlying reason to ask to marry him (religion or not) is for some comfort of your commitment to him, then definitely don't do it.