Share house with new husband?

bluebear36

OP - you should point out to your fiance that under the Matrimonial Homes Scotland Act 1981, he has the right to live in the property (once you are married) regardless of whether his name is on the deeds or not. You cannot just boot him out. If he still wants his name on the deeds after being told that I'd be suspicious of his intentions.

FBaby

bluebear36 wrote: »

OP - you should point out to your fiance that under the Matrimonial Homes Scotland Act 1981, he has the right to live in the property (once you are married) regardless of whether his name is on the deeds or not. You cannot just boot him out. If he still wants his name on the deeds after being told that I'd be suspicious of his intentions.

I assume not if OP decided to sell?

[Deleted User]

FBaby wrote: »

Is there such a word in marriage? Maybe it should be re-rewritten! In sickness and health and self-preservation

I agree with you, no there is no word. But unfortunately in this day and age I know only a few friends/acquaintances that are still married years down the line. But loads more that have been divorced/ split up.

I just think the OP should protect herself by any way she chooses. Its not going to be a level financial relationship to start with.

I don't understand why he's mentioned it because they still won't be on an even keel financially. It's his gain, her loss if they did split up. and atm that's not her fault. People and life circumstances change that's all I'm saying. He may end up earning more than her. The future is unknown and in marriages/partnerships now days they don't last a lifetime and each person should make provisions to be financially independent if they can, if things do go wrong. Most people can't do this, but to OP can.

I'm not all doom and gloom, far from it. But I am being realistic. A lot of marriages break up over sex or money or both of these things. And theres nothing wrong with a man or woman protecting themselves financially.

Errata

I just think the OP should protect herself by any way she chooses. Its not going to be a level financial relationship to start with.

I doubt it will be for some considerable time whilst he's climbing the career ladder, paying off his student loans, paying his way, and building up some savings.

ETA And made pension contributions. Meanwhile, the property is increasing in value so if he's got any sense he'll hang on for about 20 years before begging for a half share.

purpleshoes_2

Ive been in jobs where I earned 20k or less and still managed to pay off debt, put money into a pension and savings plans, in fact in my entire working life, I think Ive only had one job where I earned over 20k (I worked in a poorly paid sector).

The problem as I see it right now is that the OP is being railroaded into a decision that her OH wants. Also, it's her home. If shes bought and paid for it and wants it to remain hers after she gets married why shouldn't she?

His attitude really isn't helping and it would be the attitude more than anything else that would make me think twice about marrying him if I were in the OP's shoes.

purpleshoes_2

Of course he wants all assets to be joined, he probably thinks hes died and gone to heaven.

Wanting to protect yourself should it all go wrong is sensible. Particularly when these such a difference between earnings plus one of them owns a home and the other doesn't.

[Deleted User]

Wanting to protect yourself should it all go wrong is sensible. Particularly when these such a difference between earnings plus one of them owns a home and the other doesn't.[/QUOTE]

I totally agree with this Purple shoes.

bluebear36

FBaby wrote: »

I assume not if OP decided to sell?[/QUO

I was going from the stance of the OP's original plan of living together until a deposit is saved on a new place, and renting out her property.

If her property is sold the Act still applies. Her OH would have to sign an affidavit consenting to the sale. It was brought in because there were a lot of women who didn't own the marital home, who were being booted out when the marriage ended.

Whether her property is sold or rented, she should make sure that the new property is divided into pro-indiviso shares in the disposition as she will be ploughing a lot more money into it than her OH. My (now) husband and I used shares like this when we bought before we were married as I paid in substantially more than him. It gives protection if we split, and we have a survivorship destination in the disposition to cover if either one of us dies.

Happier_Me

FBaby wrote: »

Does this mean that if a man in his 40s who has built a good career and been able to invest falls madly in love with a woman in her 30s who has two children under 10 and has mainly be a stay at home mum and never got the chance to save any extras, he should not consider marrying her until she can sort herself out, get a career, start investing until he can be totally confident that she is not marrying him for his money and what she could get if they then divorced?

No, but I would certainly be looking to protect some of those assets built up during all those years earning a good income and being sensible with it... and if that meant not getting married then so be it.

I am a happily married woman with kids and we have both contributed fairly evenly financially during the 19 years we have been together (me a little more probably). If our relationship were to end for whatever reason then I would absolutely look to protect what our hard work has achieved over the years from a new relationship. 20 years into that relationship I might feel differently.