Property after divorce

davidwood123

Malthusian wrote: »

So let's say I marry my girlfriend when we are both students, me studying Law and her studying Geography. I am scraping by on student loans with £100 in the bank and she has £10,000 saved thanks to generous parents. After graduating we have kids and she gives up her average-earning job to look after them while I carry on with my career as a high-flying London barrister. Twenty years later we divorce with a net worth of £10 million. Are you saying she should get 99% of everything since that's what she took into the marriage?

Not going to happen. A married couple share their finances, if you don't like it, don't marry.

No. You got where you were because of her. Your mutual wealth was created by the two of you.

I think the poster meant the types of people who marry someone for financial reasons.

They have nothing, marry someone with money and do jack all apart from help spend it. ( no children in this situation)

The ironic thing is about your example given is she would probably end up with more than you anyway

pphillips

UK divorce settlements already resemble what each partner takes in to a marriage if it was a short marriage and there were no children.

Diary

Danny333 wrote: »

Don't know about her lease. Read the link. Thanks. I'm not keen on marriage she is

Is she trying to coerce you into marriage? If so you need to ask yourself why.

mark5

pphillips wrote: »

UK divorce settlements already resemble what each partner takes in to a marriage if it was a short marriage and there were no children.

Not if you have been married 5-10 years it doesn't.

If partner A (male)takes about 100k into a marriage all put in a house deposit at the start of marriage. Just spent 7-8 years working hard building up house deposit etc

Partner b (female)goes into marriage with student debt, car loan, credit card debt etc, does work but spent the majority of her time partying and enjoying herself up until now.

Both a and b are married nearly 10 years, both earn similar money during marriage, they have 2 children. During the marriage all of b's
Debt is cleared by a joint effort, no real savings or pensions are accumulated during this time.

At point of divorce partner a gets 40% and partner b gets 60% of assets because they have 2 children who will stay with partner b more often!

Mojisola

pphillips wrote: »

UK divorce settlements already resemble what each partner takes in to a marriage if it was a short marriage and there were no children.

mark5 wrote: »

Not if you have been married 5-10 years it doesn't.

That's because it isn't a short marriage!

mark5

Mojisola wrote: »

That's because it isn't a short marriage!

Does that settlement sound fair based on what both parties took into the marriage and contributed during the marriage though?

10 years is hardly a lifetime.

It's usually women who push for marriage and men who get screwed when it goes wrong.

My advice to any male, is don't get married.

Malthusian

davidwood123 wrote: »

No. You got where you were because of her. Your mutual wealth was created by the two of you.

Hence why the courts will take the default position that assets should be split 50/50. You seem to be under the misapprehension that I'm arguing against this. I'm not. I'm arguing against Mark5's assertion that people should always take out of a marriage what they take in, which my example illustrates could be absurdly unjust.

The courts' position is that the longer marriage goes on, the more irrelevant "what you brought into the marriage" becomes.

mark5 wrote:

My advice to any male, is don't get married.

I would agree with this - for any man who is more worried about losing his meagre material goods than losing a lifetime spent with his partner.

enthusiasticsaver

Yes she may well have a claim on it and she should do as it will become a matrimonial asset although it depends on if the marriage is a long or short one. Obviously no children involved. You are benefitting from receiving rent from your property whilst living in hers so why should she not benefit?

FBaby

I would agree with this - for any man who is more worried about losing his meagre material goods than losing a lifetime spent with his partner.

Sometimes they lose both! I do understand anyone who after having taken the risk once and having lost both money and love, they would be more careful to be prepared to lose both again.

Some people fare better on their own with money than on their own with no money after a nasty divorce.

LilElvis

FBaby wrote: »

Sometimes they lose both! I do understand anyone who after having taken the risk once and having lost both money and love, they would be more careful to be prepared to lose both again.

Some people fare better on their own with money than on their own with no money after a nasty divorce.

And some men can understand that just because one woman would screw them for every penny it doesn't mean that all women are untrustworthy. I know a man whose wife walked out on him after 8 years of marriage saying she wanted nothing and then proceeded to drag him through the courts and was awarded £120,000 - not a penny of which she had contributed. Fortunately for me he didn't tar me with the same brush as we've been married for 11 years - in fact it's our anniversary today.