Married couple - tenants in common?

pete1968_2

Another thing to consider is that is it just 55% of the original deposit only and/or 55% of any rise in value of the property or in the worse scenario 55% of any loss in the property. The trust deed should try and cover all angles.

pops5588

Seems you just can't win these days urbanmyth. When it goes t!ts up people tell you you haven't been sensible enough, but when you pre-empt something that may or may not happen just in case people still look to criticise.

Hope the purchase all works out for you. I don't know if it's even worth going to a solicitor about a pre-nup though, seeing as the "nup" has already happened and most judges don't even consider them in this country!

Georgesmum79

urbanmyth wrote: »

I made a commitment to be with the man I love. I want to spend the rest of my life with my best friend. I fully expect us to share our assets throughout our lifetime. IF however (and I hope it never happens) he chooses to renege on that commitment, why should I let him have half of what I have worked hard and made many sacrifices for? Now that wouldn't be very fair.

:beer:

You don't need to justify your relationship here. You asked for financial advise, not relationship guidance. In these days only the very naïve think that 'the relationship' is guaranteed to last forever: we all hope that it will, but in this day and age who knows.....

When you make the declaration of trust for the house to be held in unequal shares, this should detail that you own percentages of the house's value, whether it goes up or down. E.g: if the house is bought for £100 000, and you put down a £10K deposit, and your partner £20K, with the remaining £70K coming from a mortgage, to which you contribute equally, the result is:

• You will always own 10%
• Partner will always own 20%
• The remaining 70% is split equally.

It really is quite simple once you go through the figures with your solicitor. It will be a bit more complex if you contribute to the mortgage in unequal shares, but again, the solicitor will advise how this should be reflected.

StuC75

Rather than a straight percentage split, its best to define how the deposit interest should be handled over time..

How much is the deposit as a % of the purchase?

Afterall an early split would give it a 'greater' weighting whilst 20years down the line and the payments made outweigh the deposit side of things..

Also then what happens over the years if have kids and contributions change in line with family lifestyle - is that going to be weighted too.. e.g. You paid more deposit, but then had children and worked part time so husband paid greater share of the mortgage as a result ..

the 'clearer' approach may be say after clearing mortgage, remaining equity to be split X % to repay what was provided by the deposit, with remaining split 50/50 or according to mortgage repayments..

Anything that can be defined agreed upfront can only make it easier down the line.. But if your having a greater share, does that mean you contribute more to any improvements down the line?...

It can become a case of where do you draw the line..

martinsurrey

pops5588 wrote: »

Seems you just can't win these days urbanmyth. When it goes t!ts up people tell you you haven't been sensible enough, but when you pre-empt something that may or may not happen just in case people still look to criticise.

Hope the purchase all works out for you. I don't know if it's even worth going to a solicitor about a pre-nup though, seeing as the "nup" has already happened and most judges don't even consider them in this country!

Most people here will say that going into a marriage with one eye on the exit is where the OP went wrong.

Nothing wrong with protecting what is yours when single, but marriage is a commitment in both law and mind.



Good luck OP, but I really don’t think any agreement would be worth the paper its written on, if you split up, a court will decide on fairness regardless of what bits of paper you have.

Georgesmum79

pops5588 wrote: »

Seems you just can't win these days urbanmyth. When it goes t!ts up people tell you you haven't been sensible enough, but when you pre-empt something that may or may not happen just in case people still look to criticise.

Hope the purchase all works out for you. I don't know if it's even worth going to a solicitor about a pre-nup though, seeing as the "nup" has already happened and most judges don't even consider them in this country!

Indeed! The clue is in the term 'pre' which means, 'before', so if you are already married, a bit pointless really. Consider the joint tenancy declaration of trust as a 'post-nup'!:rotfl:Also, as I said before, if the divorce judge considered that the pre-nup was unfair and not in the spirit of the law of this country, they can simply ignore it. Doh!:eek: We have so much American telly in this country that we can forget that we don't live over there....

Georgesmum79

martinsurrey wrote: »

Most people here will say that going into a marriage with one eye on the exit is where the OP went wrong.

Nothing wrong with protecting what is yours when single, but marriage is a commitment in both law and mind.



Good luck OP, but I really don’t think any agreement would be worth the paper its written on, if you split up, a court will decide on fairness regardless of what bits of paper you have.

And is this based on your legal experience or just your opinion?
Next you will say that a will is not worth anything as the court will decide......

The joint tenancy and tenants in common trusts are as binding as a will, and this is what is used in England (and Wales?) instead of a pre-nup, which is an American convention!

Unless someone here is in fact a solicitor specialising in property and divorce law, then please let's not pass our opinions as facts of law.

Your solicitor will advise you on the declaration of trust in more detail, and probably offers to write your wills at the same time. It makes sense to ask the same solicitor to draft both documents at the same time, as they have knowledge of all the facts and there won't be any question of confusion, should either the will or the trust need to be executed.

martinsurrey

Georgesmum79 wrote: »

And is this based on your legal experience or just your opinion?
Next you will say that a will is not worth anything as the court will decide......

The joint tenancy and tenants in common trusts are as binding as a will, and this is what is used in England (and Wales?) instead of a pre-nup, which is an American convention!

Unless someone here is in fact a solicitor specialising in property and divorce law, then please let's not pass our opinions as facts of law.

Your solicitor will advise you on the declaration of trust in more detail, and probably offers to write your wills at the same time. It makes sense to ask the same solicitor to draft both documents at the same time, as they have knowledge of all the facts and there won't be any question of confusion, should either the will or the trust need to be executed.

Not saying it is not binding, but a divorce judge can and will say something along the lines of,

"the joint tenancy gives 100% benifitial interest of the house to person A, which I find unfair for XYZ, so I grant person B 50% of persons A's interest in the house."


(but of course in much more judge-y language and with a whole list of conditions)

the joint tenancy is no less valid, but the divorce judge goes over the top of it.

and yes I have seen it happen (not me but parents).

pops5588

martinsurrey wrote: »

Most people here will say that going into a marriage with one eye on the exit is where the OP went wrong.

Hmmm.....happily married and getting on the property ladder with hard-earned savings......nope! No idea where you think the OP went wrong! Sorry!

Could've sworn that's what this website was all about...

Georgesmum79

martinsurrey wrote: »

Not saying it is not binding, but a divorce judge can and will say something along the lines of,

"the joint tenancy gives 100% benifitial interest of the house to person A, which I find unfair for XYZ, so I grant person B 50% of persons A's interest in the house."


(but of course in much more judge-y language and with a whole list of conditions)

the joint tenancy is no less valid, but the divorce judge goes over the top of it.

and yes I have seen it happen (not me but parents).

What you are failing to understand is that the declaration of trust that details percentages of ownership also details the reasons why, and this is the important point! If you have paid 10% of the purchase price with YOUR savings, then it cannot be seen as unfair that you will receive 10% of the sale price in the case of a divorce. However, the judge can rule that you give an equivalent sum of money to your spouse as a settlement, in which case, it might make sense for you to relinquish your claim to your 10%, as long as this is agreed by your spouse.
I find it near to impossible that a judge would rule against the declaration, unless there are other matters to take into account, such as custody of children, maintenance payments etc. Nobody can predict how the divorce will be settled until the divorce actually happens! In theory, if there are no other financial matters to take into consideration, then the trust stands.

I will not debate this matter any future, but I wish the OP good luck and much happiness in new house and in marriage! If you have any questions, please just have a chat with your solicitor about the declaration of trust and I am confident they will resolve it for you.