Protecting my parents investment property in a divorce

Rottensocks

She came from abroad with no education and no responsibility. They got married and he has lavished her with all the money in his pocket and his parents are constantly buying her gifts. After 15 years of marriage and three kids she has never had a single money worry and is very lucky. considering both me and my wife both earn more than my friend but we both have to work to pay mortgage and she doesn't because of his parents. Turns out shes not as appreciative as she used to be and not having a clue about finance or working she wants more.

I do think some aspects of this paragraph were perhaps unfortunately worded, and give the impression that the wife has been 'judged' by the OP, and found wanting. That might explain why other posters are picking up on it: I'll admit, I read it and thought "Gosh, no longer APPRECIATIVE?!"

The problem is, in terms of divorce, the wife now and for the last X years has a certain standard of living, which obviously will go down post divorce, but shouldn't go down so much that she's left homeless (with or without the children) and son is left rolling in it....

Whatever the truth of the situation, no matter how workshy or undeserving the wife is, in divorce terms it won't matter too much.
The essential issue is that if she was good enough to marry and father children upon, she's good enough to get a 'golden handshake' at the end.

In terms of the flat, what is the concern exactly, that she will pursue and get the flat to live in as part of a settlement, or that she will claim the value and run off with a stack of the equity and/or rental income? You don't say how much this flat is worth, so one assumes it must be substantial, with a nice rental income too?

Pollycat

locotoro wrote: »

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.

You just don't get it, do you?

You missed out all of this information from your original post:

locotoro wrote: »

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.

and didn't add it until over 24 hours after your first post.

You didn't think it was relevant to your request for advice on 'protection of assets'?

thorsoak

In your very first post you say "Hi all,

I actually trying to get information on behalf of a friend. His parents own a property which is rented out - although it is in his name. They bought it possibly 30 years ago and when they decided to upscale they asked their son (married at the time) to take out a mortgage on the property as they were not able to due to age and bad credit

But you then say "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 property on behalf of his parents is not fraud - its usually referred to as a trust when formalised".

So either the parents had bad credit or they did not - your statements contradict each other.

In order to obtain the mortgage the deeds were transferred into the son's name - not in the name of a parental trust. Therefore the mortgage was obtained under a false premise.

thorsoak

OP - do you remember the saying "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!"? ;-)

sharp910sh

I hope she gets the house.

NAR

locotoro wrote: »

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

Apology accepted. Problem on this site people are not always content to answer the questions asked. A number often want to put their interpretation on the situation and ask things that are none of their business. But heigh ho, it is a public forum.

Tiddlywinks

NAR wrote: »

Apology accepted. Problem on this site people are not always content to answer the questions asked. A number often want to put their interpretation on the situation and ask things that are none of their business. But heigh ho, it is a public forum.

If only we could all be like you....

NAR

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

If only we could all be like you....

. . . . and not like you!

Pollycat

NAR wrote: »

Apology accepted. Problem on this site people are not always content to answer the questions asked. A number often want to put their interpretation on the situation and ask things that are none of their business. But heigh ho, it is a public forum.

Another problem on this site is that people don't always give all the relevant information in order for the advice requested to be given, so that gives rise to conjecture.

That's exactly what has happened here.

Agreed, it is a public forum.
And when you put information out on a public forum and ask for advice, it doesn't always mean that you'll like the content of the replies or the tone of the replies.

Of course, a solicitor wouldn't make assumptions or sweeping generalisations but then again. one would hope that if seeking legal advice you'd be a bit more up-front with information - and of course, you'd have to pay for that advice.

margaretclare

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Is this an Indian / Pakistani family? Sounds like it.

Apparently not. Maybe Thailand/Philippines, referring to the wife's 'own country'.

It always puzzles and amazes me why people put these complex situations on a forum like this. Obviously we don't get all the information first go off, what we get is in a garbled form - 'my friend' meaning 'me'? And obviously, the correct people to go to would be a legal firm, one which has some kind of expertise in divorce when there are complex property issues to sort out.