Share house with new husband?

FBaby

!He hasn't contributed, earnt it, worked for it - it isn't his./QUOTE]
So on that basis if her husband to be inherit a large sum after they marry he should make it clear that because she hasn't worked for it, earnt it or contributed towards it, it should be all his and she should have no rights to it at all?

Many people marry and agree to share assets when one has a lot more to lose than the other that doesn't mean all those who are due to gain from it have a financial motive to marry.

Seanymph

But it isn't his, that's a fact.

And that he is demanding it is made half his would worry me - and make me question his motivation.

You 'share' in a marriage - you aren't emotionally blackmailed into handing over what's yours to someone else.

lulu_92

I see it from both sides.

I live with OH in a house he bought 8 years ago (4.5 years before he even knew I existed). I like the house but I have always felt like a lodger on some level. Especially when he gets annoyed about my stuff "taking up too much space" (I told him the solution would be to let me have his big wardrobe but he said no ) I want us to move to a house we both own, but with about £8k in his house and about £4 in savings I don't think we could do it.

He wanted to rent our house out and take out a mortgage on a new house in just my name and I said it sounded too much like a get out of jail free card that could lump me with a house I couldn't afford on my own.. so we're staying put!

I also don't want any stake in the house we're in now. If anything were to happen I'd take our savings and he'd keep the house (I put the mortgage equivalent into our savings account, he doesn't put any money into said account). I think he worked hard to buy that house and I have no interest in claiming half of it just because.

pmlindyloo

MaryJo wrote: »

We are not yet married. It is booked for next year.

We currently live together in my house. I take a nominal amount for utility bills (I don't really need it; it's a token). Before he moved in, we drew up a contract to state that paying a nominal amount for 'bills' did not constitute contribution towards ownership of the property.

Nothing has really changed apart from perhaps the fact that he now understands that under Scottish law, premarital assets are separate. He isn't particularly clued up on the law and was just heading blindly into the marriage assuming that 'everything would be joined in marriage'.

I have to agree that you need to take a long hard look at your relationship and how it is going to work in the future. Until you are both happy with the financial side of things then postpone/cancel the wedding. To start a marriage off with this level of disagreement is not a good idea.

Reading the above post the part about 'I take a nominal amount
for utility bills' made me question your relationship. It sounds as if
your husband to be is treated more like a lodger than anything else I realise that when he originally moved in you wanted to protect your assets (hence the contract) but you must have moved on from there since you are planning marriage.

I may be totally wrong but it is a real possibility that your husband to be sees himself as a 'appendage' to your life. Certainly there seems to be a case of it's my house and I am allowing you to live here and I don't want/need your money.

For me this is the real problem.

Marriage is a partnership in all ways. If you really wish to continue with the 'me and him' relationship then do so but then why bother to make a commitment to marriage?

Unfortunately, in my opinion, marriage has lost it's true meaning. Just like you, people consider the divorce aspect before they even get married.

Have you actually discussed your future life together? What will happen if you have children/one of you loses their job/one of you becomes ill?

People have different ways of dealing with their finances. The important thing is that you both agree on which way to move forward.

At the moment it seems that the fact that you disagree does not bode well for your future together as whatever you decide someone is going to feel resentful.

Amysdad70

FBaby wrote: »

!He hasn't contributed, earnt it, worked for it - it isn't his./QUOTE]
So on that basis if her husband to be inherit a large sum after they marry he should make it clear that because she hasn't worked for it, earnt it or contributed towards it, it should be all his and she should have no rights to it at all?

Many people marry and agree to share assets when one has a lot more to lose than the other that doesn't mean all those who are due to gain from it have a financial motive to marry.

You are quite correct in comparing this to a lottery win. He must feel like he has hit the jackpot here. Any reasonable person would agree with the OP

duchy

If he wants half then why isn't he contributing half now ?

If he was paying his way now - even at a 1 to 3 ratio rather than "a token amount" then it would show some level of investment in your relationship but it seems he's paying the sort of money he'd be paying his Mum to live at home - and thinks that marrying you entitles him to his name on the deeds for no other effort than turning up n the day. Who is paying for the wedding btw- The smart money says not him !!

Once you are in a situation to buy a home which is "yours" - when he is earning enough/saved his share of the deposit - this can be revisited - but I wouldn't be marrying a man who appeared to be a taker not a giver. Considering you are basically keeping him already I think he's got a cheek.


If of course he has on top of his token payment saved an equivalent amount to what his full share would be -with a view to contributing to a future new home together but it sounds more like he pays keep and the rest is "his money" and you cover the rest . Who pays for stuff like holidays and meals out ?

itsanne

FBaby wrote: »

I'm in with him on this one. If you are not prepared to share all then you are not fully committed to marriage in which case just don't get married in the first place. You don't have to at least at this stage.

I guess the question is: if a week before you get married he won millions at the lottery and he told you that despite marrying you he didn't want the cheque to be made to both your names and that although he will treat you with the money any assets bought with the win will be his only, how would you really feel?

Although OH and I have always shared finances, I disagree that not signing half the house over to her fiance suggests a lack of commitment by the OP. Many couples don't share all finances - it's just another way of doing things. However, the emotional blackmail the OP feels and her fiance's pressure that the house should be signed over are not good signs, and if anything they make it more important that she doesn't sign. As I said earlier, there's nothing to stop that being changed later on.

There's a big difference between a house worked for and paid for before the couple were together and a lottery win shortly before they are married.

Mojisola

FBaby wrote: »

I guess the question is: if a week before you get married he won millions at the lottery and he told you that despite marrying you he didn't want the cheque to be made to both your names and that although he will treat you with the money any assets bought with the win will be his only, how would you really feel?

itsanne wrote: »

There's a big difference between a house worked for and paid for before the couple were together and a lottery win shortly before they are married.

I don't think there is - if one partner wants to protect their money by saying that pre-wedding assets stay owned by one person, then to be fair, that should to apply to all pre-wedding assets.

In England and Wales, the law is different but Scotland does allow this protection.

itsanne

Mojisola wrote: »

I don't think there is - if one partner wants to protect their money by saying that pre-wedding assets stay owned by one person, then to be fair, that should to apply to all pre-wedding assets.

In England and Wales, the law is different but Scotland does allow this protection.

If the fiance won the lottery while the OP kept the house in her name I would agree, but I took the comparison as a more general one. In that case, I think there is a difference.

Goldiegirl

For me, marriage is a life long commitment, where everything is shared


Therefore, if I was the person bringing a property to the marriage, I would change the property to joint names after the marriage took place.


If I had any hesitation about whether this was the right course of action, I simply wouldn't get married


If I was the person without the property, and my intended didn't want to share their property with me, same result, I simply wouldn't get married.


It's as black and white as that for me