Husband refuses to put my name on the deed of the house

Pricivius

Kynthia wrote: »

You would have to argue to a judge whether an asset was non-marital and then you would have to argue that the non-marital assets shouldn't be shared. It's not automatic that pre-acquired assets are treated separately in a divorce.


http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed128775

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

This was my understanding as well.


However many are posting that the husband will automatically be entitled to half.

Kynthia says it's not automatic that pre-acquired assets are treated separately, which is the same as the husband will automatically be entitled to half. It's for OP to argue that pre-acquired assets should be treated separately. As OP married her OH without making a pre-nup which would have clearly set out their agreed intentions that pre-acquired assets are not included, the presumption is they intended to share everything, as is expected in marriage. If her OH tells the Judge that he expected everything to be shared on marriage, whilst OP says that she didn't, a Judge has a decision to make, but there is little to support the OP's position. If she genuinely wanted to protect her pre-acquired assets, there were options available to her which she did not take and she seemingly did not take legal advice.

FBaby

Can't OP leave her flat in her will to anybody she wants, as long as the husband gets the marital home?

Are you all saying that OP has to leave everything in her will to her husband or he can contest it?

You're confused because OP is too. She says the issue is about death, but then argues her point as if it was a matter of divorce. She keeps saying that it's not about divorce, we tell her that any concerns about what happens if she died is a matter of setting up wills, but she keeps bringing back the discussion to issues that would only come to light in a divorce situation.

Pricivius has summarised perfectly the reality of the situation, but whatever the advice, OP seems adamant that her house is protected in the instance of divorce and that she should be entitled to half of the house they all reside in.

tara747

Meyor wrote: »

I am willing to share, but only what I accumulated during the marriage, not before.

I still have my pension and other assets but that flat of mine is dear to me as I suffered to buy and practically went without for a period of time to meet the mortgage payments. Now it is mostly paid off from my own sweat, I should decide what happens to it if I were to no longer be here.

Do you know who is going without so that you can own your RTB property? People who are on the waiting list for social housing.

gettingtheresometime wrote: »

well regardless of the legalities of who gets what if either of you divorce or die, I can't help but feel that the housing crisis won't be solved until rtb is ended and that in this situation its a bit like 2 vultures fighting over a carcass.

Of course I realise I'm in a minority here especially as rtb looks like to be extended

Well said, and I absolutely agree with you. This thread is about one thing and one thing only: greed.

pollypenny

Absolutely about greed. They are married, the wife has benefited from a RTB discount, now they want another one!

Pigs with noses in a trough!

HappyMJ

pollypenny wrote: »

Absolutely about greed. They are married, the wife has benefited from a RTB discount, now they want another one!

Pigs with noses in a trough!

The OP doesn't want the discount..she wants to be on the deeds which would disqualify them from getting the RTB discount.

TBagpuss

Pricivius wrote: »

The starting point for a judge will be the fact you got married and signed a binding legal contract to be "as one" and share everything. So 50/50 split.

.

That's not actually correct. The mariage isn't (at least for the purposs of a court dealing with finances on divorce) a legal contract to be a'as one' or to share eveything.

On a divorce, what the law says is that the Judge must have regard to all the cicumstances of the case. The over-riding aim is to achieve an outvcome which is fair and reasomabkle, and priority is given to the needs of minor children.
50/50 is the *starting* point, but except in cases of childless couples with no pre-existing assets and with broadly equal incomes and needs, it is not generally the outcome (where matters are decided by a court. People are, of coruse, free to agree whatever they want, between themselves)

When, how and by whom an asset was aquired, what contributions aparty has made to it, and how far the parties have maintained separte finaces are all factors which may be relevent in considering what is fair and reasonable in a particualr cae, but there is no hard and fast rule about how pre-marital assets are to be treated.

it is worth bearing in mind that cases whcih go to the Supreme Court and get reported or written about a lot often relate to very wealthy peopel, where the issue is how assets over and above what is needed to meet each person's reasonable needs are to be met. For most 'normal' people, the issue of what each of you realistically needs, to move forward, tends to be the biggest single factor.

Gigervamp

tara747 wrote: »

Do you know who is going without so that you can own your RTB property? People who are on the waiting list for social housing.

And I bet her tenants are paying more rent than OP paid when she was renting it from the council.

This is one of the problems of RTB. Lots are put back into the rental market at rents much higher than social rents. It's disgusting and should be banned. :mad:

POPPYOSCAR

[QUOTE=Pricivius;69344075]Kynthia says it's not automatic that pre-acquired assets are treated separately, which is the same as the husband will automatically be entitled to half. It's for OP to argue that pre-acquired assets should be treated separately. As OP married her OH without making a pre-nup which would have clearly set out their agreed intentions that pre-acquired assets are not included, the presumption is they intended to share everything, as is expected in marriage. If her OH tells the Judge that he expected everything to be shared on marriage, whilst OP says that she didn't, a Judge has a decision to make, but there is little to support the OP's position. If she genuinely wanted to protect her pre-acquired assets, there were options available to her which she did not take and she seemingly did not take legal advice.[/QUOTE]



No it is not the same thing at all.


http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed81553
Mostyn J followed the approach of Wilson LJ adopted in Jones v Jones [2011] EWCA Civ 41:

• The court should first decide whether the existence of pre-marital property should be reflected at all. This depends on questions of duration and mingling.
• If it does decide that reflection is fair and just, the court should then decide how much of the pre-marital property should be excluded. Should it be the actual historic sum? Or less, if there has been much mingling? Or more, to reflect a springboard and passive growth?
• The remaining matrimonial property should then normally be divided equally.
• The fairness of the award should then be tested by the overall percentage technique

pollypenny

HappyMJ wrote: »

The OP doesn't want the discount..she wants to be on the deeds which would disqualify them from getting the RTB discount.

She said her discount would be 'deducted from his substantial discount'. Therefore, still a discount.

FBaby

I think reading most advice on this on the internet does suggest although it is possible to consider a pre-marital property as excluded from division of assets, the laws that are apply to agree division (need and fairness) are much more likely to conclude that these are assets of the marriage than the opposite.

What goes against it in OP's case too is that the house isn't fully paid yet, so in essence, it can be argued that the marriage is still paying for it.