Property in the divorce settlement

New_Mum

Hi there!

I have recently read that a married person is entitled to hold any land or property in their own right (and in their own name) during marriage. If the marriage breaks down, however "any property owned by you or your partner will be taken into account when arriving at a financial settlement on divorce". What could that mean in practice? Let's imagine that the couple have no children together and one partner will have to move out on divorce but does not have anywhere to move to, or perhaps does not even have a job. Would the other partner need to provide them with accomodation, if he/she owns a property? I haven't heard of this scenario but could it be possible/has anyone know someone this happened to?

Ames

It's almost impossible to answer without knowing more details. If they were both young and had been married for less than two years then with no children then they'd probably both leave the marriage with what they had before. If they've been married fifty years and one stayed at home whilst the other worked then everything owned by each of them - including property, pensions, savings and so on - would be split equally. Or a million other answers for all the variables in between.

tacpot12

I've not heard of the situation so I can't offer any direct advice, but depending on the financial assets of the party with the most assets, and the financial resources of the other party, a court could order that some assets were transferred or some income were provided for a time.

If you are in this situation and considering separating, I'd suggest you make a note of all the assets that each of you have, including all pensions, and pay for some independent legal advice from a solicitor. They should be able to help you understand the range of any potential settlement so you know where you stand.

[Deleted User]

Obviously tending to assume you are someone with less assets in the relationship. But could be wrong.

Get proof if you can before the relationship breaks down. Its amazing how paperwork disappears afterwards lol.

Its probably best to see a solicitor with documentation before splitting up, and then take some off to allow for a judge who might rule against you on some points that a solicitor tells you should be decided in your favour.

FBaby

Once you are married, it doesn't matter who owns what as it is deemed joint assets. If the marriage was to end when considered a 'short' marriage, a judge might consider that the asset should remain with the owner if the non-owner moved in after marriage or not long before.

It's not black and white though but the default is 'your married, no such things as mine and yours any longer'

pphillips

I do know someone who had an acrimonious divorce and unfortunately their solicitor's fees almost equalled their financial settlement.

It is correct that in a financial settlement all assets are taken into account including assets accumulated before the marriage and it is normal for full financial disclosure to be made before agreeing on settlement. If one person has a new partner who is supporting them or is about to benefit from an inheritance, then this will also be taken into account.

The law takes 50:50 as a starting point and then adjusts that according to the financial needs of each person.

Practically this means that and in the case of an old married couple for example, the husband gets to keep his pension but the wife gets the house. If for example they have been married only a short time, no children, and both their salaries go towards the mortgage then the house might be sold and any profit split between them.

Financial settlements are of course limited to what there is in the pot, less solicitors fees and that means that a refusal to come to an agreement on the finances could mean the couple end up with nothing at all or even in debt.