HELP!! Mortgage deposit, my husband has more!!

FBaby

I'm really surprise by such a large number of posters thinking that his attitude is normal and even worth applauding. Surely, that would apply to everything that is invested in the marriage? Should it be the same thing with pensions? That if divorce takes place, one shouldn't be entitled to the pension of the other because after all, they have worked hard themselves to pay for it?

Doesn't this attitude totally go against the establishment of marriage which DOES consider that any capital/investment and the rest belongs to the marriage, not individuals? Is that the whole point of divorces costing money and time to sort out?

Ultimately, is view is worth nothing because if OP were to divorce, unless it is in the first years, whatever he says about the deposit, a good solicitor could argue against it.

My husband and I still have separate bank accounts and manage our savings/investments separately. That's because we both like to be in control. However, we both accepted the day we married that we did so for our marriage, not us as individuals. We didn't NEED to be married, we didn't care about a big ceremony, we wanted to be united all the way for better and worse as they say!

You still haven't said anything about how you came about to decide to marry?

peachyprice

lika_86 wrote: »

My understanding is that i t isn't done by either 'owning a greater percentage', it's generally done by a deed of trust which says that the first [X] amount (in this case £60-100k) in equity is paid to the person who put it in if the house is sold, after that the equity will be split 50/50. So if the house increases in value, the amount they get out first usually is the amount they put in (not a percentage that increases if the value of the house does).

I can't speak for other people, but mine is definitely a % of the property.

TBH, it wasn't something that we'd even thought about before going to the solicitors that day, he suggested it to protect my interest (I paid the whole deposit from a previous house sale) we agreed it seemed like a good idea, job done, no drama.

victory

Daisydot123 wrote: »

He said Incase we split and went separate ways and ended up having to sell the house he would want his 100k back we will both be paying the mortgage.

Which is exactly right, it is his inheritence, from his father to his son and he wants to protect it, would you want to take it if you split up?

If it were a lottery win, that is completely different, it would be fun, happy money an inheritence is not at all happy.

Amara

I was born in a country, where all inheritancies belong to person, who has been given to and are not included in martial assets. It saves so much hassle. Surely we marry for love, not money, so why so many people are angry, when their spouses want to protect the money their parents worked for?
OP, if you don't even want this money, why you're so upset? Just agree on what he wants. You can always ask for the same, when your inheritance will come.

FBaby

victory wrote: »

Which is exactly right, it is his inheritence, from his father to his son and he wants to protect it, would you want to take it if you split up?

If it were a lottery win, that is completely different, it would be fun, happy money an inheritence is not at all happy.

If the parents have an issue with inheritance benefiting a daughter/son in law, then they should make arrangement for it to go in a Trust. It is THEIR responsibility. By doing nothing, they accept that as assets of the marriage, there is potential of it being shared at some stage.

FBaby

Surely we marry for love, not money,

Ha ha, from my perspective that statement supports the exactly the opposite of what you claim. You marry for commitment nothing else. You don't have to marry because you love each other, you don't have to marry because you want to share your money. You marry because you are prepared to commit to trusting each other. If you got it wrong, you accept the consequences.

Georgiegirl256

FBaby wrote: »

I'm really surprise by such a large number of posters thinking that his attitude is normal and even worth applauding. Surely, that would apply to everything that is invested in the marriage? Should it be the same thing with pensions? That if divorce takes place, one shouldn't be entitled to the pension of the other because after all, they have worked hard themselves to pay for it?

I usually agree with you FBaby, we tend to have similar views on things, but on this topic we couldn't be more different! Pensions are a slightly trickier matter, depending on whether or not kids are involved. As if they are then more than likely the Woman gave up work and so therefore had no income of her own etc. If no kids were involved then yes, my views would be the same as they are regarding the deposit. The pension is his, and why should she be able to get her mitts on it, and vice versa.

Ultimately, is view is worth nothing because if OP were to divorce, unless it is in the first years, whatever he says about the deposit, a good solicitor could argue against it.
?

I'm not sure if the last paragraph is totally correct. There is something you can tick when applying for the mortgage to safeguard your deposit. Unless that only applies to non married people? I'm not completely sure?

Georgiegirl256

Amara wrote: »

I was born in a country, where all inheritancies belong to person, who has been given to and are not included in martial assets. It saves so much hassle. Surely we marry for love, not money, so why so many people are angry, when their spouses want to protect the money their parents worked for?
OP, if you don't even want this money, why you're so upset? Just agree on what he wants. You can always ask for the same, when your inheritance will come.

Bingo!! Spot on! Yes, people marry for all different reasons, but the main reasons are love and commitment, not 'I wonder how much money I can get my hands on if we divorce?' Although that totally happens, and you really cannot blame people for wanting to protect themselves.

The last question in the quoted post is the one I can't get my head around either?

Georgiegirl256

FBaby wrote: »

Ha ha, from my perspective that statement supports the exactly the opposite of what you claim. You marry for commitment nothing else. You don't have to marry because you love each other, you don't have to marry because you want to share your money. You marry because you are prepared to commit to trusting each other. If you got it wrong, you accept the consequences.

I'm sure the majority of us trust our OH's 100%, but that trust can be broken.

So FBaby, can I ask you a question? One that I asked the OP (that she hasn't answered yet) because I am genuinely curious. If your husband put up 100k deposit on your house, and then you split up, what would you do? Would you take half, or would you let him have his inheritance money back first?

TBagpuss

peachyprice wrote: »

I can't speak for other people, but mine is definitely a % of the property.

TBH, it wasn't something that we'd even thought about before going to the solicitors that day, he suggested it to protect my interest (I paid the whole deposit from a previous house sale) we agreed it seemed like a good idea, job done, no drama.

It tends to depend on when the trust was drawn up. Older documents often have a fixed sum, modern ones often have a percentage (as it ensures that if house prices fall, you don;t end up with one person's investment being protected, and the other left with nothing)

In terms of divorce, the start point is that the house is a matrimonial asset, however, if there was a declaration of trust with post dated the marriage, then provided that both parties had taken legal advice a court would take this into account, although it would not be strictly bound by it.

OP - one option would be for you to consider a post-nuptial agreement which could explicitly state that you would each retain your respective inheritances in the event of any split