Mates Ex Wife Wants His House.. Help?

noonesperfect

bristol_pilot wrote: »

With all my worldly goods I thee endow... = I am giving you everything I own.

Legally, she has contributed to the house just by living in it. The starting point for negotiation on divorce is a 50-50 split. In this case it seems to have been reduced to 40% because it was a short marriage. Settlements of 100% of the house are common for a longer marriage, plus the pension to which the wife may have made no financial contribution. And, the most worrying development, in a minority of cases settlements are starting to include a share of the ex-husbands FUTURE earnings.

No wonder the UK is fast becoming the divorce capital of the world! If David Cameron is serious about supporting marriage he should propose having much fairer divorce laws and making properly negotiated pre-nups legally binding in the UK. Messing about with a twenty quid tax allowance is peanuts in comparison with the riches on offer to a lady who is a bit bored with her husband.

It works both ways :mad: (i.e. the situation is reversed)

bristol_pilot

noonesperfect wrote: »

It works both ways :mad: (i.e. the situation is reversed)

No it doesn't, which is a large part of the unfairness.

However it is true that some divorcees are disappointed to find that they don't get as much as they expected and are a bit miffed to find that they are expected to earn a living.

noonesperfect

Sorry but you're wrong.

bristol_pilot

Can you quote a recent case of a woman being ordered by a UK court to support her ex-husband from her future earnings?

Lucy_Lastic

Yes, it does work both ways.

I had to sell my house to pay off my ex after a 4 year marriage. When he moved in (with nothing but a suitcase) the house and mortgage were in my name only.

After 4 years he left with a BMW and a chunk of equity.

Never again........

noonesperfect

bristol_pilot wrote: »

Can you quote a recent case of a woman being ordered by a UK court to support her ex-husband from her future earnings?

No.

What I was saying is that if it is the woman that owns the house/earns the lion's share etc and he contributed little financially - she doesn't get to keep it all when she and her husband divorce, even if she is divorcing him (because he couldn't keep it in his pants or whatever).

bristol_pilot

The courts have primary regard to the wife's financial security. Originally this was to reduce welfare dependence, but things have gone too far. That is not to say that in some cases the ex-wife does not have to make a payment to the ex-husband. There is unfairness on both sides (in different individual cases). It is a fact that the majority of divorces in the uk are wives divorcing their husbands. Therefore, overall, there is more unfairness against husbands.

Wouldn't it be much fairer if:

1. assets owned prior to the marriage were ringfenced
2. there could be no attachment of future earnings after the marriage is over (except to support children, which is a different issue)
3. pre-nups to be legally binding, provided both parties had received proper legal advice at the time
4. conduct (e.g. adultery) should be taken into account in settlements - as things stand, my wife can sue me for HER adultery (or vice versa).

noonesperfect

It is a fact that the majority of divorces in the uk are wives divorcing their husbands

I wonder why......... :wall: :rotfl:

bristol_pilot

lol...will you marry me, noonesperfect? :rotfl:

Lucy_Lastic

Don't do it - he'll have half your house!

:rotfl: