Hypothetical Q - Home ownership split upon divorce

TBagpuss

HAving a document is far more sensible however, asagian, it means that youi have to have discussed and considered and agreed on it, and it reduces the chances of having to have a long and expensive fight.
Paying towards the mortgage can be evidence of a joint intention to gain a beneficial agreement, it is not automatic, it's just one of the factors a court would consider if a claim were made against the house by the oerson not naed on the deeds.

FBaby

The property will just be in my name, but assume my gf and myself get divorced after 2/3 years

You can't divorce your girlfriend, so what are your plans? Getting married in the next year and wondering what would happen 2 years later, or are you wondering what would happen if you break up your relationship (not married)?

How long have you been together?

beckysbobbles1

I think you've asked a very sensible question. Of course we don't go into marriage thinking we'll divorce but the sad fact is that people change, circumstances change and divorce may happen (the same as it may not happen).


I am in a similar situation. I own my own house, I have an investment portfolio and a few other assets. My boyfriend has nothing. He lives with me and pays rent (we even have a Lodgers agreement) but if we were to marry and subsequently divorce, I would be very disappointed if he has a claim on my assets.


Surely it should only be assets made after you are marriage?

Mojisola

beckysbobbles1 wrote: »

I am in a similar situation. I own my own house, I have an investment portfolio and a few other assets. My boyfriend has nothing. He lives with me and pays rent (we even have a Lodgers agreement) but if we were to marry and subsequently divorce, I would be very disappointed if he has a claim on my assets.

Because he is your partner, the lodger's agreement is meaningless.

By paying 'rent', ie a contribution to the mortgage, he will be gaining a beneficial interest in your property. He may not want to pursue this if you break up but he will have the law on his side if he does.

FBaby

So what are you going to do? Never marry in your life, or end up only dating rich men so that if you end up marrying, at least you can go with your half and his half?

The reality is that you will always face this dilemma, so either accept you will never marry and accept that your boyfriend might lose patience after a while, especially if they know that the only thing stopping you is keeping hold of your money, ditch your boyfriend and only date those who are not asset poorer than you, or accept that you sometimes have to take calculated risk in life because a loving marriage can be worth more than any penny.

TBagpuss

Mojisola wrote: »

Because he is your partner, the lodger's agreement is meaningless.

By paying 'rent', ie a contribution to the mortgage, he will be gaining a beneficial interest in your property. He may not want to pursue this if you break up but he will have the law on his side if he does.

That's not quite correct. If a (former) partner were to make a claim they have to show that there was a joint intention that they would gain an interest in the property. Such a joint intention can be inferred by looking at the whole course of conduct of the parties and contributions to a mortgage can work that way, on the assumption that 'no-one would pay towards a mortgage without getting something back' but it is not automatic. A rental agreement would go some way to counter that assumption, although a formal cohabitation agreement which specifically records that you are cohabiting would be better.

cashbackproblems

thanks for all the responses! To make it clearer, we have been together for 3 years and yes would look to marry in the next 18 months - 2 years, but from what i have read the courts will still give rights to your partner on property etc which you bought before marriage. I think its fair if she pays some of the mortgage for 2 years she gets that amount back (partially), but not half of the whole property after just 2/3 yrs of marriage and having contributed 0% of the deposit and fees.

This is a big concern as i am putting into it 100k of my own savings, and won't lose it. I will consider a declaration of trust if we don't get married, i haven't discussed this with her but I'm sure she would sign it but apparently it has no legal holding. She has no savings, major job prospects (but a stable income) so is reliant on me. Its not that i expect things to go wrong..but i have seen they can

Regarding offshore account, it is in a non-EU jurisdiction and i have been assured by a tax lawyer that no one would know about this, plus any excess cash i would probably slowly put under my mums name so she can't get it.

Person_one

Its fairly simple, if you aren't prepared to fully share everything that you both own, better to not get married. You don't have to after all. If you don't like the rules you can just choose not to join the club. Might be a bit awkward explaining why to your girlfriend though...

A declaration of trust is a good way for unmarried couples to set out how property is divided, but if you get married at a later date then the marriage supersedes it.

poppy10_2

Wait, doesn't the declaration of trust still take effect after you get married?
It seems unfair if one partner is putting in £100k deposit and the other partner is putting in nothing, that the house will be split 50:50

paddy's_mum

cashbackproblems wrote: »

i have been assured by a tax lawyer that no one would know about this

IF you get married and IF you divorce, to get away with the above, you would have to tell bare-faced lies to a Court....

Watch out for the sneaky little surprise pregnancy too, unless you intend to remain chaste.