Advice regarding home after separation

jackieblack

Mojisola wrote: »

The time they were living together would be counted so this is an 8 year relationship.

Yes, I know
I was responding to the post I quoted, not the OP.

goodwithsaving

indiepanda wrote: »

I would seriously resent someone getting their hands on my assets if we'd just been married a few years and it didn't work out,

Exactly my stance as well. As a young (ish!) female I have developed a cautious attitude when meeting people to date simply because I don't trust anyone. I will never marry until prenuptial agreements become binding by law in this country. I funded my own home, earn my own money and have already built reasonable assets to build on - and none of that is down to anybody else.
Maybe it's unromantic, but I don't give a stuff.

I'm sorry that you may lose part of your house due to the insanity of this country but wish you luck in seeking to retain what is rightfully yours.

onomatopoeia99

indiepanda wrote: »

The divorce rules really seem to be designed to put people off marriage. I can understand sharing the value of a home if there are kids involved or if one party has clearly had to put their career aside to support the other but I would seriously resent someone getting their hands on my assets if we'd just been married a few years and it didn't work out, no kids involved and no career sacrifices on either side. I don't think, bearing in mind I am not religious nor young enough for kids to be a possibility, I would be inclined to marry now, not worth the risk.

Completely agree with you. I have my own home and almost enough savings to repay the mortgage in full (not that there's any point repaying it at the moment as I'm getting a better return in a cash ISA than the mortgage rate), I'd be very wary of marrying anyone without a similar amount of financial security, just because of how the courts deal with splitting assets in divorce where there are no children of the marriage.

Parliament seems completely incapable of acting in this regard, both in terms of the process of getting a divorce (it should be one year without consent, not five) and making the financial settlements fair.

Malthusian

indiepanda wrote: »

The divorce rules really seem to be designed to put people off marriage. I can understand sharing the value of a home if there are kids involved or if one party has clearly had to put their career aside to support the other but I would seriously resent someone getting their hands on my assets if we'd just been married a few years and it didn't work out, no kids involved and no career sacrifices on either side.

The divorce rules are desiged to put people off getting married who don't want or aren't ready to be married, which based on what you've said includes you. There's nothing wrong with that, if you haven't met someone with whom you want to share your life it's not obligatory.

That said if you'd only been married "a few years" the court may well put you back in the position you'd started in rather than order a split of the marriage assets.

Gilead

I think it can be complex - I bought my house prior to meeting my now wife. House is in my name, as are bills etc. But, we share our finances and financial decisions, take holidays, save, purchases etc etc. If we were to come to a point where a divorce was coming it would not be fair to say "well, the house is mine as I had it prior to marriage" as we have collectively enjoyed the benefit of it, and put are resources into it and other things.

I'm not saying divorce laws are perfect, but they need to reflect as much as possible the reality of what contributes to marriage. And I think a lot of what defines a marriage is how two people become one unit.

rpc

goodwithsaving wrote: »

Maybe it's unromantic, but I don't give a stuff.

What has marriage got to do with romance?

Marriage is a legally binding partnership. If you want the benefits and obligations of that then you get married. Otherwise you don't.

Simples!

mark5

Gilead wrote: »

I think it can be complex - I bought my house prior to meeting my now wife. House is in my name, as are bills etc. But, we share our finances and financial decisions, take holidays, save, purchases etc etc. If we were to come to a point where a divorce was coming it would not be fair to say "well, the house is mine as I had it prior to marriage" as we have collectively enjoyed the benefit of it, and put are resources into it and other things.

I'm not saying divorce laws are perfect, but they need to reflect as much as possible the reality of what contributes to marriage. And I think a lot of what defines a marriage is how two people become one unit.

I suppose you need to look at how much equity is in the house at the time of your partner moving in though. If it's low 5 figures then not to bad, if it's six figures it's going to hurt.