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

coolcait

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

At last.


Thank you.

I think that the point about "the judge will decide" has already been made a couple of times.

It's often a problem with fast-moving threads, where further information gets fed in along the way. There can be a 'shifting sands'/ 'moving goalposts' feel to them at times.

If the thread is on a topic which is treated differently under Scottish law and English law, then the scope for confusion gets even greater!

So, it's helpful to have a post which summarises the legal position, pulling together the points which have been made so far.

I don't think that the 'name on deeds' question is a new one to this forum. I'm sure I've seen it come up, in a variety of scenarios, a few times over the years.

FBaby

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

I think it is because in the situation OP has described there isn't much information that would support a different approach as a starting point. Cases where pre-marital property assets are considered are more likely in the case of inherited property, or at least if the property had been fully paid for before marriage. In OP's case, neither applies. She is paying the rest of the mortgage as part of the marriage, and the income coming from it is also part of the marriage. The fact that they have separate accounts and both comes in and out of hers is unlikely to make a difference.

I personally find it very sad that OP would rather leave all her assets to distant/older relatives than at least something for her step-children. I would have been very hurt if my OH felt the same. He doesn't act as a dad towards my children, and they are not very close, but he considers them part of his family and cares about their welfare. I wouldn't have agreed to marry him if that wasn't the case because ultimately, my children are part of who I am and always will be.

LittleVoice

Wonder when the OP made her will.

seven-day-weekend

What's wrong with you owning one house and him owning the other? Then he can leave his to his children if he wishes and you will still have yours to leave to whoever you like and also to live in if you wish.

FBaby

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

What's wrong with you owning one house and him owning the other? Then he can leave his to his children if he wishes and you will still have yours to leave to whoever you like and also to live in if you wish.

I think the issue from OP's perspective is that she paid almost all her place on her own, whereas she contributes towards his place.

I do see where OP is coming from because she looks at it from the perspective that it is not fair that having contributed a lot more towards the assets, she should be left with only half.

But that's the reason why many people make the decision not to marry. I think what went wrong is that she hasn't truly embraced the notion of marriage, and that is that this is about sharing everything, on the understanding that one person is likely to contribute more towards something than the other. It could be that she contributes more financially, but he contributes more to the marriage emotionally. There is no more you and me, just an us, and clearly it is something that OP has not yet assimilated.

Goes back to all those threads about people not understanding the concept of marriage when the decide to have a lovely white grand day.

BrassicWoman

However, OP only gets to keep her house and get rental income from it (which may be going towards upkeep or cpaital or whatever, either way she has an appreciating asset) because she lives somewhere else, and it is only right she fund that by paying rent/ bills in that place somewhere else.

So no, she should not be on the deeds. She's already had the benefit once she shouldn't get it twice.