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

duchy

Quite honestly if people don't buy into the concept that marriage is a partnership and everything is fifty fifty then why on earth bother getting married ? It's hardly like living together is not acceptable nowadays.

It amazes me how many people get married without understanding what they have legally contracted to.

Marisco

duchy wrote: »

Quite honestly if people don't buy into the concept that marriage is a partnership and everything is fifty fifty then why on earth bother getting married ? It's hardly like living together is not acceptable nowadays.

It amazes me how many people get married without understanding what they have legally contracted to.

Why indeed? I've been living with oh for 20 odd years now, and I bet we'd have a hell of a lot less hassle re money (if we had any ) than someone who is married. I think the longer someone is married there is a blurring of the lines of who has what, but if a marriage only lasts 3/4/5/6 years, then why the hell should someone walk away with half if they haven't put half in? (or at least a decent contribution)

There's a thread on here now about a lass who has paid for everything in their marriage, and has offered her ex 2k to walk away without trying to claim anything else. If people want a dogfight over money, with solicitors taking a hefty chunk, then do sod all at the start, personally I'd much rather get it ironed at the beginning, before things go pear shaped! It should preferably be done before getting married, but certainly within the first year or two.

Mojisola

Marisco wrote: »

Why indeed? I've been living with oh for 20 odd years now, and I bet we'd have a hell of a lot less hassle re money (if we had any ) than someone who is married. I think the longer someone is married there is a blurring of the lines of who has what, but if a marriage only lasts 3/4/5/6 years, then why the hell should someone walk away with half if they haven't put half in? (or at least a decent contribution)

They don't. Up to about five years it would be considered a short marriage (unless the couple lived together before the marriage and/or had children) and the divorce settlement would normally put both people back where they were financially before they got married.

catkins

Marisco wrote: »

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?

Ok that's true but what if we had split up before 10 years of marriage? I would have put in more money as I was earning far more. I really cannot imagine I would have wanted more than half of whatever money we had because we have from day 1 of our marriage shared all money

elisebutt65

We bought our first house together last year. OH put in £60g and I put in £20g. We have an offset mortgage and all spare money goes into the savings so we have offset about £30g ATM.

We had the solicitor draw up a deed stating what each of us put in initially so that if we split then the equity will be divided up proportionally. What's wrong with doing that?

Equally, he has 4 kids & I have 2 so our wills break down the assets in the same way, after the survivor pops clogs.

We also pay all bills proportionately for our salaries as he's on 3 times my wage. Whatever happens though if the worst happened, wed both come out with what we roughly put in, which is fair.

System

duchy wrote: »

Quite honestly if people don't buy into the concept that marriage is a partnership and everything is fifty fifty then why on earth bother getting married ? It's hardly like living together is not acceptable nowadays.

It amazes me how many people get married without understanding what they have legally contracted to.

Some of us have nothing when we get married. Money/property comes later.

FBaby

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?

What happens the other way round though? OP's husband is the one with the affair and wants out when OP was happy with the marriage. If they'd stayed together, the house would have increase in value increasing her share of the equity, so should they have an agreement that says that if he leaves her for someone else, she has to give her the equivalent of her part of the equity up to the point the mortgage would have been paid?

The problem is that there are so many scenarios possible of what might happen during a marriage, you can't build all of them in an agreement, hence if you are not prepared to take the risk to lose out on your own assets, don't get married in the first place and make it clear to your OH why you are not wanting to do so.

74jax

FBaby wrote: »

The problem is that there are so many scenarios possible of what might happen during a marriage, you can't build all of them in an agreement, hence if you are not prepared to take the risk to lose out on your own assets, don't get married in the first place and make it clear to your OH why you are not wanting to do so.

I think fbaby is spot on. There's way to many scenarios to cover everything. As I said earlier on here, and also on other threads we do have a pre nup. Hubby wanted one and I wasnt fussed.

Ours expires after something like ten years, but I don't really know. I could see why he wanted to protect his dad's money from me if we split after only a couple of years. But after a certain length of time, to him, he felt it should be 50/50.

lika_86

elisebutt65 wrote: »

We bought our first house together last year. OH put in £60g and I put in £20g. We have an offset mortgage and all spare money goes into the savings so we have offset about £30g ATM.

We had the solicitor draw up a deed stating what each of us put in initially so that if we split then the equity will be divided up proportionally. What's wrong with doing that?

That's fine I think if input continues to be proportional, but if after the deposit both parties contributed equally to the mortgage then this would be unfair.

gettingtheresometime

Just a quick question for those who think the husband is right.

Say the OP agrees to this and 5yrs down the line they decide to move.

Should the OH still protect his £100K inheritance by 'owning' a larger share of the new property or should that then be 5050?

What about if they moved a 2nd time?

At what point would the OP be entitled to consider that it was now time for 50:50 ownership?