Protecting my parents investment property in a divorce

NAR

locotoro wrote: »

- To those of you painting the situation as if its "slavery" or some backwards 1900 family - I would submit that slaves don't have the option of 4/5 holidays a year with the kids looked after and treated like royalty.

Thanks for the advice from those of you that have been helpful. But its the smart !!!! judgments that turn people away from forums like these.

My reference to slavery was a stick out tongue (see smilie!) remark at Tiddlywinks post, which I didn't agree with. Sorry I decided to agree with where you are coming from, I'll leave you to fight your own battles!

Dunroamin

NAR wrote: »

Course she should be. She is a slave bought out of bondage and should be extremely grateful for her lot!

Bought into bondage, more like!

Dunroamin

locotoro wrote: »

Thanks for all your helpful comments.

To those who have hijacked and trolled this thread and turned a simple fact finding mission and an attempt to gather alternative views, I pity you that you have nothing better to do than make cheap comments when not in full view of the information.

To answer some of your jibes
- I put the question out there to gather alternatives - of course he plans to go to a lawyer however its good to know what others would suggest too - that's the whole point of a forum!
- No they are not an Indian/Pakistani family.
- She, in my view, is supposed to be grateful because she doesn't have a care in the world and has lived a life of luxury for the last 15 years. Whereas most people, including me and my wife, have to work hard to enjoy the same standard of living.
- To those of you painting the situation as if its "slavery" or some backwards 1900 family - I would submit that slaves don't have the option of 4/5 holidays a year with the kids looked after and treated like royalty.
- To those saying she should go back to her own country and take the kids. Well I hope she doesn't. I hope for both their sakes and that of the kids that they resolve any disagreement between them and live happily together.

In any event my friend wants to safeguard the inheritance of his younger siblings as the property was paid for by his parents and not by him. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Thanks for the advice from those of you that have been helpful. But its the smart !!!! judgments that turn people away from forums like these.

Well, disagreeing again, if your "friend" is thinking of breaking up the marriage, this women doesn't actually have a marital home of her own and the family are trying to hide assets from her in the case of a divorce so I'd say she has a large number of worries.

NB

Most women wouldn't think that living with her in laws for many years was "living the life of luxury".

Pollycat

locotoro wrote: »

You guys should stop making assumptions. The kids were raised on the whole by the grandmother whilst the mother travelled back and forth between the uk and her own country.

I didn't ask the question to be responded to with judgrmental remarks that dont even have half the info. I asked in order to obtain suggestions regarding a delicate situation. On the whole the advice has been useful and the discussion have been appreciated. But comments like this are petty and unnecessary

locotoro wrote: »

To those who have hijacked and trolled this thread and turned a simple fact finding mission and an attempt to gather alternative views, I pity you that you have nothing better to do than make cheap comments when not in full view of the information.

You've made quite a few comments about some of the responses you've received, accusing posters of making assumptions.

Here's a tip for you - when asking for advice, it's much more sensible (and productive for you as the person who wants advice) to include all the relevant details instead of rearing up when people do make assumptions because they "don't even have half the info" because you've not allowed them to be "in full view of the information".

thorsoak

locotoro wrote: »

Thanks for all your helpful comments.

To those who have hijacked and trolled this thread and turned a simple fact finding mission and an attempt to gather alternative views, I pity you that you have nothing better to do than make cheap comments when not in full view of the information.

To answer some of your jibes
- I put the question out there to gather alternatives - of course he plans to go to a lawyer however its good to know what others would suggest too - that's the whole point of a forum!
- No they are not an Indian/Pakistani family.
- She, in my view, is supposed to be grateful because she doesn't have a care in the world and has lived a life of luxury for the last 15 years. Whereas most people, including me and my wife, have to work hard to enjoy the same standard of living.
- To those of you painting the situation as if its "slavery" or some backwards 1900 family - I would submit that slaves don't have the option of 4/5 holidays a year with the kids looked after and treated like royalty.
- To those saying she should go back to her own country and take the kids. Well I hope she doesn't. I hope for both their sakes and that of the kids that they resolve any disagreement between them and live happily together.

In any event my friend wants to safeguard the inheritance of his younger siblings as the property was paid for by his parents and not by him. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Thanks for the advice from those of you that have been helpful. But its the smart !!!! judgments that turn people away from forums like these.

Oh dear - another new poster who doesn't like the advice given.....

OP: This thread has not been trolled - in fact if anyone should be called a troll, I would be pointing the finger at you. You ask for advice for "a friend" then get very upset when you are not getting the advice that you want.

Fact: your "friend" and his parents have committed a fraud by attempting to circumvent the financial restrictions caused by the parents bad credit record.

Fact: The property is registered with the Land Registry in your "friend"'s name. Therefore it will be legitimately recorded as part of your "friend"'s assets should his marriage breakdown.

Fact: Your "friend's" wife has obviously enjoyed a certain standard of living throughout her marriage. Whether or not you and your wife have enjoyed the same standard of living is totally irrelevant.

In conclusion, your "friend" is going to have to pay out a substantial amount to a certain type of solicitor if he wishes to wriggle out of his obligations.

BitterAndTwisted

Fifteen years living with the in-laws and then at the risk of being left a beggar once dumped. Nice!

locotoro

NAR wrote: »

My reference to slavery was a stick out tongue (see smilie!) remark at Tiddlywinks post, which I didn't agree with. Sorry I decided to agree with where you are coming from, I'll leave you to fight your own battles!

My apologies - sarcasm is a difficult tone to interpret when reading text.

Dunroamin wrote: »

Well, disagreeing again, if your "friend" is thinking of breaking up the marriage, this women doesn't actually have a marital home of her own and the family are trying to hide assets from her in the case of a divorce so I'd say she has a large number of worries.

NB
Most women wouldn't think that living with her in laws for many years was "living the life of luxury".

The highlighted point is taken and accepted. However, I would also put forward, that in my opinion, she has a lot to be thankful for given the life she has led thus far.

Pollycat wrote: »

You've made quite a few comments about some of the responses you've received, accusing posters of making assumptions.

Here's a tip for you - when asking for advice, it's much more sensible (and productive for you as the person who wants advice) to include all the relevant details instead of rearing up when people do make assumptions because they "don't even have half the info" because you've not allowed them to be "in full view of the information".

Yes, I have made a few comments to that effect. Simply because i asked advice on protection of assets - not how marriages should be run. Contrary to your belief I have found some of the responses very informative. I just don't see the necessity for posters to try and make sweeping generalisations and attempt to be judgmental. If those individuals had asked questions I would have done my best to answer them however they didn't they just made judgments.

thorsoak wrote: »

Oh dear - another new poster who doesn't like the advice given.....

I have thanked the people who provided the advice so I'm not sure why you would think that

OP: This thread has not been trolled - in fact if anyone should be called a troll, I would be pointing the finger at you. You ask for advice for "a friend" then get very upset when you are not getting the advice that you want.

Ok, so i've trolled my own thread... that makes sense

Fact: your "friend" and his parents have committed a fraud by attempting to circumvent the financial restrictions caused by the parents bad credit record.

I did say that his parents couldnt get a remortgage due to their age so the reference to credit is inaccurate. Please can you clarify where the fraud has been committed? As far as I am aware a person legally holding a property on behalf of his parents is not fraud - its usually referred to as a trust when formalised.

Fact: The property is registered with the Land Registry in your "friend"'s name. Therefore it will be legitimately recorded as part of your "friend"'s assets should his marriage breakdown.

Yes this is correct. However my question arose because he has not contributed to the purchase or the upkeep or the property - not being a trusts or a family lawyer I wanted to ask around.

Fact: Your "friend's" wife has obviously enjoyed a certain standard of living throughout her marriage. Whether or not you and your wife have enjoyed the same standard of living is totally irrelevant.

This is also true. The point was made as an explanation as to why I felt she should be more appreciative of her circumstances.

In conclusion, your "friend" is going to have to pay out a substantial amount to a certain type of solicitor if he wishes to wriggle out of his obligations.

Thank you for your conclusion. But why do you keep using speech marks when typing the word friend and starting each sentence with Fact when stating your opinion?

thorsoak

1. You ask me why I keep using speech marks when typing the word friend. The reason I use them is because of the way you have headed the thread in the first place - and I quote "Protecting MY parents property investment in a divorce" (my caps).

When one uses a heading such as this, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the poster's "friend" is in fact the poster him/herself.

2. I preceded the points I made with the facts that I derived from your posts. I then posted my opinion.

And I still fail to see why your so-called friend's wife should feel appreciative that she had a better standard of living than yours!

locotoro

thorsoak wrote: »

1. You ask me why I keep using speech marks when typing the word friend. The reason I use them is because of the way you have headed the thread in the first place - and I quote "Protecting MY parents property investment in a divorce" (my caps).

When one uses a heading such as this, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the poster's "friend" is in fact the poster him/herself.

2. I preceded the points I made with the facts that I derived from your posts. I then posted my opinion.

3. And I still fail to see why your so-called friend's wife should feel appreciative that she had a better standard of living than yours!

1. That is a logical deduction to make so point taken. I initially started the thread with the simple question in my mind about how one would protect assets that were not their own and I also thought to word it in a way that would be useful to others doing a web search on the topic. I deemed that it was more likely people would search for "protecting my parents assets..." than "how does my friend protect his parents assets...". In any case I can assure you that the information I am gathering is for my friend rather than myself.

2. I thought you were doing an impression of Rafa Benitez

3. This is a subjective point and we shall have to agree to disagree.

ognum

locotoro wrote: »

Thanks for all your responses.

Just as some additional background - the son lived in the house as a child and his parents bought a new family house when his was a teenager. They rented the house out and when he later got married the couple lived in the new family home with the parents whilst the old house was rented.

The parents then needed to remortgage due to finances and due to their age decided to remortgage the old propertty on his name. The monies for the property have been paod entirely paid by his parents. She has never had any link to the old propert

The rental income covers the mortgage and the parents top. Hes anxious that she might try and go for it if worse comes to worse because the property is supposed to be divided between him and his siblings.

Any suggestions would be great

Who has paid tax on the rental income? If the house is in the sons name then the income should be declared by him and tax is payable. Who meets all the requirements like gas saftey certification?

People should be very careful when they try to circumvent the law, if the house is in his name then it's his house not the parents, it does not matter who paid for it.

he needs legal advice and he needs to get everything sorted out, the HMRC are searching for people like this who do not pay tax when they should