Would my future husband be entitled to half my house?

RacyRed

RacyRed wrote:

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?

Mojisola wrote:

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!

You misunderstand. It is a question of entitlement. In divorce cases, making it easier for one partner to earn money is seen as a basis for entitlement to a proportion of those earnings.

As they have lived together for many years, his "entitlement" will be very well established by now. As for his job "simply" not paying as much as hers, have you considered that Panda may well have bust a gut getting the education/qualifications/experience needed for her to be in a position where she earns more? Perhaps she made more effort than her partner? Isn't that also a consideration?

However, Panda has asked for help in how to put safeguards in place. She hasn't asked for judgement to be passed on her decision! If she and her partner are comfortable with this then that is their choice. I can't believe how some people are taking such a moralistic stand on what is basically a financial practicality!

I wish I knew the answer and I'd be interested in knowing how this situation is resolved.

Mojisola

January20 wrote: »

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!

I don't think anyone is saying that they ought to get married in church but the main impetus behind the marriage is that he is taking his religion more seriously. It's strange to want to get married because of an increasing interest in a church's teaching but then to go through a civil ceremony.

Both people should want to get married before it happens and it sounds as if Panda is happy with things as they are. She shouldn't feel pressurised into a ceremony that she doesn't really want to go through and that may leave her financially short-changed.

Mojisola

RacyRed wrote: »

You misunderstand. It is a question of entitlement. In divorce cases, making it easier for one partner to earn money is seen as a basis for entitlement to a proportion of those earnings.

As they have lived together for many years, his "entitlement" will be very well established by now. As for his job "simply" not paying as much as hers, have you considered that Panda may well have bust a gut getting the education/qualifications/experience needed for her to be in a position where she earns more? Perhaps she made more effort than her partner? Isn't that also a consideration?

Yes - and I've also thought that maybe Panda had a better start in life and was able to get ahead in ways her OH couldn't or that he works in a creative or caring job that doesn't pay well but is part of the reason she loves him, etc, etc.

As they have lived together for so long, I think they must both be content with each other's place in the world and their jobs. I wouldn't want to be in a relationship where everything was measured - "I've worked harder than you to get an extra degree so I'm worth more than you and have more entitlements in the relationship"!

I don't think Panda should be going ahead with the marriage unless she really wants it for herself.

January20

Mojisola wrote: »

I don't think anyone is saying that they ought to get married in church but the main impetus behind the marriage is that he is taking his religion more seriously. It's strange to want to get married because of an increasing interest in a church's teaching but then to go through a civil ceremony.

Both people should want to get married before it happens and it sounds as if Panda is happy with things as they are. She shouldn't feel pressurised into a ceremony that she doesn't really want to go through and that may leave her financially short-changed.

Actually, what I meant was that people were saying she shouldn't get married in church because she is not committed enough to her partner.

I completely agree with the 2nd paragraph of your post: Panda should only get married because she wants to, not because of her partner's religious beliefs - which seem to be newly acquired. I'm an old cynic: he is more religious than before, meaning that he needs to get married, which will be a great advantage financially to him, and much more beneficial to him than to the OP? He could be genuine. He probably his, but who knows?

Mojisola

January20 wrote: »

Actually, what I meant was that people were saying she shouldn't get married in church because she is not committed enough to her partner.

It's not really about the level of commitment but if you get married using the church service, you promise to share all that you have. I don't see how you can make that promise while arranging pre-nups and other ways of protecting your money from your spouse.

foreign_correspondent

Mojisola wrote: »

It's not really about the level of commitment but if you get married using the church service, you promise to share all that you have. I don't see how you can make that promise while arranging pre-nups and other ways of protecting your money from your spouse.

that is from the days when marriage generally lasted 'till death do us part' - and people often only lived to middle age. Now we live longer, have more changes in our lives, more long term relationships, and for every two marriages there is one divorce - so the odds of staying together, forever, are not that high!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/jan/28/divorce-rates-marriage-ons

I would agree that whilst together, couples generally do support each other financially, and I think that is entirely appropriate - however, the difficulty comes when that togetherness ends.

I'm not at all sure that one partner should be tied in to 'all that I have I share with you' even if the other partner later decide they want out, abandons them, or instigates a relationship with someone else!

It seems prudent to recognise that a lot of marriages are now not until death, and to consider what would happen to the OPs long saved for deposit if the marriage broke up. (Let's hope it doesn't and they live happily ever after... but as anyone with one foot in the real world knows, that isnt always possible, even with the best of intentions!)

Unless she does this, she could find that after a seperation she owes him half of the house which she has paid the majority of the money towards - that's not fair, and solicitors costs in negotiating a settlement soon mount up.

Better to spend a little now negotiating an agreement they are both happy with, and getting something drawn up - than potentially spending many thousands, and possibly several antagonistoc and stressful years trying to negotiate this at a later date!

daska

Mojisola wrote: »

It's not really about the level of commitment but if you get married using the church service, you promise to share all that you have. I don't see how you can make that promise while arranging pre-nups and other ways of protecting your money from your spouse.

TBH I think it's irrelevant. The OP has already said she's NOT getting married in Church so it's quite possible that the religious ceremony may not include a promise to share - if there has to be a civil ceremony as well then that doesn't unless you choose to.

The law is a different matter, it's pretty formulaic about who's allowed to keep what and what has to be shared if it all goes pear shaped.

Mojisola

January20 wrote: »

Actually, what I meant was that people were saying she shouldn't get married in church because she is not committed enough to her partner.

foreign_correspondent wrote: »

that is from the days when marriage generally lasted 'till death do us part' - and people often only lived to middle age. Now we live longer, have more changes in our lives, more long term relationships, and for every two marriages there is one divorce - so the odds of staying together, forever, are not that high!

daska wrote: »

TBH I think it's irrelevant. The OP has already said she's NOT getting married in Church so it's quite possible that the religious ceremony may not include a promise to share - if there has to be a civil ceremony as well then that doesn't unless you choose to.

The law is a different matter, it's pretty formulaic about who's allowed to keep what and what has to be shared if it all goes pear shaped.

My comment was in reply to January's comment that people were saying they should get married in church. It is odd that, if religious belief is the impetus behind the marriage, it could take place in a civil setting.

As they won't be getting married in church, they won't be making the promises - which still include "until death do us part" - so they can phrase things as they want.

If the church marriage is something he is willing to forego, I had the same thought as January - "I'm an old cynic: he is more religious than before, meaning that he needs to get married, which will be a great advantage financially to him, and much more beneficial to him than to the OP? He could be genuine. He probably his, but who knows?"

daska

I'm still baffled as to why people are banging on about getting married, or not, in Church. The OP has confirmed that he is not Christian and that they are not getting married in Church; she has not said where they are getting married or what kind of ceremony it is. They may even require a religious and a civil ceremony if he doesn't belong to one of the main religions. Or he may be satisfied with a religious ceremony and not be fussed about the legal angle.

The important focus is how the law would view them and their respective property in the event that the marriage broke down. And that's something the OP needs to get professional advice about.

But I have to say the cynic in me agrees with January as well. It was one of the reasons I asked how she would feel if he announced it was his religious duty to divorce her and go to live as a hermit.

meritaten

January20 wrote: »

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.



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!

January - No I dont only read happy threads - I have read many threads where a female has contributed to a marraige and walked away with nothing by financial shenanigans by her OH.
and in those cases the posters on here are up in arms and shouting 'what happened to SHARING and quoting 'for richer or poorer'.
Turn this thread around and if a male was posting I think the advice would have been rather different!
But then - its very very rare to see a male posting this way.