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

POPPYOSCAR

FBaby wrote: »

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.

Quite possibly.


But a lot of posters are saying that he would automatically be entitled to 50% and that is not my understanding.

Guest101

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Quite possibly.


But a lot of posters are saying that he would automatically be entitled to 50% and that is not my understanding.

I think the confusion is 'entitled to' and 'gets' are different.


he's entitled to make a claim on the property. And the division starts at 50/50.


But what he gets could be more or less. (depending on children)

peachyprice

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Quite possibly.


But a lot of posters are saying that he would automatically be entitled to 50% and that is not my understanding.

I don't think anyone has said it's automatic rather that 50% is the starting point, OP was under the impression that 100% hers was the starting point.

She would have a hard time convincing a judge to award her 100% as she made no provision before the marriage.

Guest101

Not that pre-nups are even binding in the UK.


The court takes it as an intention at the time. Depending on how long you're married, the weight placed on a pre-nup gets less and less.

74jax

So have we heard back that the OP is talking about divorce? On my phone and can't easily scroll back to see. I'm getting confused over if she really means in divorce now.

Pricivius

In trying to clarify the position as the OP was clearly struggling to understand, it appears I have over-simplified the matter and may have misled. In which case, I apologise. Lesson learnt.

I think/hope that we can agree that:

- the OP's suggestion that pre-acquired assets are completely safe from her OH is incorrect.

- the OP had the opportunity pre-marriage to protect her assets as far as is possible but did not do so.

- her OH could make a claim on the pre-acquired assets as part of any divorce and it would be for a Judge to decide whether to include them in the financial order, based on all the evidence presented.

- the Judge makes a decision which is fair and reasonable, starting at 50/50 and taking all the evidence into account to decide what is in the pot and how it should be split.

Or maybe I've over-simplified again!

peachyprice

Pricivius wrote: »

In trying to clarify the position as the OP was clearly struggling to understand, it appears I have over-simplified the matter and may have misled. In which case, I apologise. Lesson learnt.

I think/hope that we can agree that:

- the OP's suggestion that pre-acquired assets are completely safe from her OH is incorrect.

- the OP had the opportunity pre-marriage to protect her assets as far as is possible but did not do so.

- her OH could make a claim on the pre-acquired assets as part of any divorce and it would be for a Judge to decide whether to include them in the financial order, based on all the evidence presented.

- the Judge makes a decision which is fair and reasonable, starting at 50/50 and taking all the evidence into account to decide what is in the pot and how it should be split.

Or maybe I've over-simplified again!

Not what OP wanted to hear, but sums it up nicely.

POPPYOSCAR

peachyprice wrote: »

I don't think anyone has said it's automatic rather that 50% is the starting point, OP was under the impression that 100% hers was the starting point.

She would have a hard time convincing a judge to award her 100% as she made no provision before the marriage.

Yes they have.

POPPYOSCAR

Pricivius wrote: »

In trying to clarify the position as the OP was clearly struggling to understand, it appears I have over-simplified the matter and may have misled. In which case, I apologise. Lesson learnt.

I think/hope that we can agree that:

- the OP's suggestion that pre-acquired assets are completely safe from her OH is incorrect.

- the OP had the opportunity pre-marriage to protect her assets as far as is possible but did not do so.

- her OH could make a claim on the pre-acquired assets as part of any divorce and it would be for a Judge to decide whether to include them in the financial order, based on all the evidence presented.

- the Judge makes a decision which is fair and reasonable, starting at 50/50 and taking all the evidence into account to decide what is in the pot and how it should be split.

Or maybe I've over-simplified again!

At last.


Thank you.

Mojisola

Pricivius wrote: »

- her OH could make a claim on the pre-acquired assets as part of any divorce and it would be for a Judge to decide whether to include them in the financial order, based on all the evidence presented.

I think that she would stand a higher chance of keeping her first home if the family home was entirely in her husband's name, even though she continues to share the family home costs.

It would make sense for a couple to agree that, should they split up, they would each keep the property that was in their individual names.