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

victory

catkins wrote: »

I don't honestly see what difference it makes whether the money is "happy" money or "sad" money. It should still be their money.


What if one of them had some sort of accident and received a large sum as compensation. That would obviously be "sad" money so should the person who received it keep it entirely to themselves?

If there was an accident and a large sum of compensation was received it would be because that person would be unable to work/pay the mortgage/keep up with the bills/made need care and the victim would need that money to continue to pay all his bills plus the ones for his care etc but that is not the question...

I stand by it is the sons inheritance that his dad worked all his life to get and willed it to his son as much as I stand by lots of posters including the OP are looking at it through rose tinted glasses that everything is lovely within the marriage and there is no chance whatsoever the couple could ever run into trouble/get a divorce, have an affair which statistically is 1 in 3...

Also I did ask but there was no answer would if anything happened the OP expect to take 50/50 even if she had an affair and broke down the marriage and not give her OH back his £100,000 back intact? Also there is a huge difference between £60,000 to the £100,000 surely in some areas the higher £ is 50% or more of a house already without any mortgage payments?

JodyBPM

Perhaps the OP could go get a legally binding document drawn up stating that if she ever inherits, even if she and her husband have split up, for any reason at all, before her inheritance comes, that she will split anything she inherits 50/50 with her (ex) husband?

OK, I know that's not acually likely to be legally possible/enforceable, but perhaps the OP might get some understanding of her husband's position if she reflects on that idea for a bit. That's what she's asking of her husband - for him to agree to give her half of his inheritance, regardless of whatever might happen in the future. It's a very big ask.

Marisco

If you read posts on here and on the other boards, then IMO it seems sensible to iron out who gets what in the event of a divorce. It's rare that a separation/divorce is amicable, especially if a large amount of money is involved. My separation and divorce was very amicable, but there was no money involved, he agreed not to "go" for the house (I'd inherited it from my mam, it was my "family" home) and I agreed not to "go" for his pension, and this was after 25 years of marriage. Job done!!

If a marriage only lasts a few years (say 10 or less) then I think everyone should walk away with only what they had when they first married. I don't see the op's "problem" any different to pre nuptial agreements personally. If there is a chance that large amounts are involved, then it just seems sensible to get them sorted beforehand, rather than when the soft stuff hits the fan. And if the marriage lasts until death, then there is no problem anyway!! We are just talking here of "what if" scenarios.

tea_lover

JodyBPM wrote: »

Perhaps the OP could go get a legally binding document drawn up stating that if she ever inherits, even if she and her husband have split up, for any reason at all, before her inheritance comes, that she will split anything she inherits 50/50 with her (ex) husband?

OK, I know that's not acually likely to be legally possible/enforceable, but perhaps the OP might get some understanding of her husband's position if she reflects on that idea for a bit. That's what she's asking of her husband - for him to agree to give her half of his inheritance, regardless of whatever might happen in the future. It's a very big ask.

But that's the risk you take when you marry! If you want to keep your money purely yours, don't legally bind yourself to someone else.

She's not asking for half of his inheritance, she's assuming that as a married couple whatever comes into the family is jointly-owned. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I certainly wouldn't want to be in a marriage where every decision was taken with the thought process of "what might happen if we split up". You have those thoughts and conversations before deciding to get married, imo. It's a one-time decision!

pickledonionspaceraider

peachyprice wrote: »

I really don't understand why your default view is that protecting an asset would result in this type of behaviour , absolutely nothing that OP has posted suggests that this is what her OP would so, same as I wouldn't.

That sounds like a self fulfilling prophecy - that protecting an asset would be expected to result in any kind of bad behaviour

My meaning would be to protect oneself - just in case.

You don't have to understand, or agree - just people think very differently

catkins

victory wrote: »

If there was an accident and a large sum of compensation was received it would be because that person would be unable to work/pay the mortgage/keep up with the bills/made need care and the victim would need that money to continue to pay all his bills plus the ones for his care etc but that is not the question...

I stand by it is the sons inheritance that his dad worked all his life to get and willed it to his son as much as I stand by lots of posters including the OP are looking at it through rose tinted glasses that everything is lovely within the marriage and there is no chance whatsoever the couple could ever run into trouble/get a divorce, have an affair which statistically is 1 in 3...

Also I did ask but there was no answer would if anything happened the OP expect to take 50/50 even if she had an affair and broke down the marriage and not give her OH back his £100,000 back intact? Also there is a huge difference between £60,000 to the £100,000 surely in some areas the higher £ is 50% or more of a house already without any mortgage payments?

An accident that paid out a reasonable sum might not necessarily be one that meant the person could not work. I am not talking millions here. Or the person who had the accident may already not have worked.


When me and OH married I was earning over double what he earned. Therefore the deposit for our house was, in reality, more of my money than his. I carried on being the higher earner for about 10 years and then for the next 10 or so years we earned roughly the same. A few years of him earning quite a bit more than me followed. For the last couple of years I haven't worked and he has worked full time earning a pretty good wage. So if we split up should we sit down and work out how much exactly each of us has put into the house/marriage/ furniture/holidays etc etc so that we can make absolutely sure we both get what we are owed?

Georgiegirl256

victory wrote: »

Also I did ask but there was no answer would if anything happened the OP expect to take 50/50 even if she had an affair and broke down the marriage and not give her OH back his £100,000 back intact? Also there is a huge difference between £60,000 to the £100,000 surely in some areas the higher £ is 50% or more of a house already without any mortgage payments?

I asked that too and am still waiting for a reply.

JimmyTheWig

What if the money wasn't being used for a house?

"Darling, lets use this money for a once-in-a-lifetime around the world cruise. It would be so romantic. Before I book it, can you just sign this bit of paper to say that if we split up you'll pay me back for your share of the cruise?"

Marisco

catkins wrote: »

An accident that paid out a reasonable sum might not necessarily be one that meant the person could not work. I am not talking millions here. Or the person who had the accident may already not have worked.


When me and OH married I was earning over double what he earned. Therefore the deposit for our house was, in reality, more of my money than his. I carried on being the higher earner for about 10 years and then for the next 10 or so years we earned roughly the same. A few years of him earning quite a bit more than me followed. For the last couple of years I haven't worked and he has worked full time earning a pretty good wage. So if we split up should we sit down and work out how much exactly each of us has put into the house/marriage/ furniture/holidays etc etc so that we can make absolutely sure we both get what we are owed?

I think yours is a totally different scenario to what the op is talking about though catkins. A rough calculation on your post, and I reckon you've been married about 30 odd years, and you are talking about earnings. As I said earlier I think marriages of about 10 years or less, everyone should walk away with what they came with. Plus the op's oh is going to put a hefty 100k deposit, what should happen if their marriage goes Pete Tong in a couple of years time? Should she really get 50% of the house?

TeamMCS

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

What if the money wasn't being used for a house?

"Darling, lets use this money for a once-in-a-lifetime around the world cruise. It would be so romantic. Before I book it, can you just sign this bit of paper to say that if we split up you'll pay me back for your share of the cruise?"

That's a poor comparison. A holiday cannot be sold one it's used. A house has an intrinsic value