Getting a divorce just found out our property is owned by my husband's mother

Red-Squirrel_2

unforeseen wrote: »

i would have said that transferring the house indicates that he was aware that OP was a money grabbed and was protecting his assets.

Then maybe, perhaps, he should have just not married her at all if he didn't like her or trust her! If you don't want to share your stuff, there is always the option of not getting married and making children, it isn't compulsory.

rpc

Even if the house was in his name, a marriage less then 5 years is considered short in the eyes of the law

Not with kids in the picture.

getmore4less

Transfering the property only changes the "legal" owner, clearly (unless there was market rent) he retained a beneficial interest in the property and the tax man will be happy to include the full value for both the Son(IHT) and the mother(CGT) should he die

If it can be established there was financial input in the maintenance and improvement of the property there is potential for a beneficial interest claim.

in practice probably best to go through the divorce make some attempt to put forward a case and take a settlement that give a clean break before the lawyers get a bigger share than either of you.

Mojisola

fairy_woman wrote: »

I was working for the 5 years and contributing to the family also.

I really feel like I been deceived

Guest101 wrote: »

Oh no, a complaint to the HSE will no doubt get them to pay up. (EPC and Gas safety are the only two things to consider in this case)

If she was contributing towards the 'mortgage' and it was really rent going to her MIL, it shows the level of deceit her husband and his family were willing to stoop to.

fairy_woman - you need to get legal advice on your situation.

When this is all sorted out, be grateful that his true colours have been shown now and that you haven't spend a lifetime with someone who was prepared to lie to you over such a fundamental issue.

Guest101

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Who knows, her son didn't seem to be bothered about doing it to his own children?

How so?


1: You presume they'll live with the mum? Seems a rather sexist assumption


2: He's offered to pay for a deposit on a house.


3: They've had a roof over their head so far.

Guest101

Mojisola wrote: »

If she was contributing towards the 'mortgage' - there was no mortgage, op already said this and it was really rent going to her MIL, it shows the level of deceit her husband and his family were willing to stoop to. - But not the deceit of marrying someone for a house?

fairy_woman - you need to get legal advice on your situation. - don't spend too much on it though, throwing good money after bad

When this is all sorted out, be grateful that his true colours have been shown now and that you haven't spend a lifetime with someone who was prepared to lie to you over such a fundamental issue.

Are you suggesting she openly told him that she's only marrying him so she can divorce him 5 years later to get the house?

Guest101

getmore4less wrote: »

Transfering the property only changes the "legal" owner, clearly (unless there was market rent) he retained a beneficial interest in the property and the tax man will be happy to include the full value for both the Son(IHT) and the mother(CGT) should he die

If it can be established there was financial input in the maintenance and improvement of the property there is potential for a beneficial interest claim. - Not so in a case where neither party had ownership rights.

in practice probably best to go through the divorce make some attempt to put forward a case and take a settlement that give a clean break before the lawyers get a bigger share than either of you.

I agree, best to settle cheaply

Guest101

rpc wrote: »

Not with kids in the picture.

That has no bearing on settlement, only on rights to occupy

Guest101

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Then maybe, perhaps, he should have just not married her at all if he didn't like her or trust her! If you don't want to share your stuff, there is always the option of not getting married and making children, it isn't compulsory.

I agree this this point totally. This marriage was doomed from the start and now there's kids involved - crazy all round

martinsurrey

fairy_woman wrote: »

no mortgage

I understand now its not his but from the start I thought it was his I even paid for many of the bills and new furniture and works needed in the house thinking it was his.

I would never of gone through the marriage itself if I knew his mother owned the property I have also proof of him saying he owned the property.

Mojisola wrote: »

fairy_woman - you need to get legal advice on your situation.

When this is all sorted out, be grateful that his true colours have been shown now and that you haven't spend a lifetime with someone who was prepared to lie to you over such a fundamental issue.

there are some true colour in this thread, and they are the OP's

1)OP knew they weren't paying mortgage or rent
2)Think paying for bills and furniture makes them entitled to the house, when they are just living expenses
3) Wouldn't have married him if she had known he didn't own a house!

Seems like the person who know the OP best has had a lucky escape!