Laws around protecting assets in event of breakups and kids

[Deleted User]

Type_45 wrote: »

Marriage is essentially ruled out unless we both have similar finances. So it's really a case of safeguarding against losses outside of marriage.

My understanding from this thread is safeguarding can be achieved by simply not letting the other person contribute towards the house.

I guess what I need to establish is how a child affects this situation. (The situation being a partner who lives with me, but doesn't contribute, yet has had a child under my roof, and then the relationship breaks down). What am I liable to lose under those circumstances?

Wrong. The spouse staying home caring for your children is seen as their contribution by assisting you to earn, save and buy a house. Without her you would be caring for the child 24/7 and not working or paying a huge amount of money in childcare so not saving.

The best interest of the child is what's important not you keeping your wealth. If it's seen that the mother should stay in the family hone with a child who has lived in said home for 10 years then that is what will happen.

Stay single.

Type_45

This seems to be a slightly emotive subject for some, which is understandable. But what I'm after are cold, hard legalities, facts and info.


So, if you want to preserve wealth:

- don't get married
- don't allow them to contribute to the house/mortgage
- don't have children (for the reason being that a judge will likely give the mother the house)


So the bottom line would seem to be: have a live in partner (who lives with me for free), don't get married, and don't have kids. Then I should be OK? And if a child appears, then it's basically a game changer in the same way that marriage is and I'm basically signing half my net worth away?

[Deleted User]

Yup you've got it, kids change everything it's not about giving your ex the house but securing a home and stability for the kids. If you can't take that risk don't do it, stay single or have live in partner, no kids.

LilElvis

Something else to consider is that if it has taken you til your early forties to reach your financial position then to find a partner who has achieved similar you would be likely looking at someone of a similar age. This would then mean that having biological children would be off the agenda.

Gavin83

_shel wrote: »

Wrong. The spouse staying home caring for your children is seen as their contribution by assisting you to earn, save and buy a house.

You got any proof of this claim? I've never heard this or seen it written anywhere previously.

Humdinger1

Type

If you have a child, whether married or not, their welfare will be paramount in the event of a breakup.

Again, none of my business, but you seem to see yourself and a potential partner as financial assets, not people, first. That will, in my opinion, greatly increase the chances of your fears coming to pass. How about finding the relationship you'd like rather than viewing it as a purely financial transaction? Humdinger

Type_45

_shel wrote: »

Wrong. The spouse staying home caring for your children is seen as their contribution by assisting you to earn, save and buy a house.

I have already earned, saved and bought a house. I have almost paid my mortgage off. This is the exact point of this thread. My future partner has not contributed to my current financial position.

The point of this thread is this: under what circumstances can my future partner take from me what I have worked for the last 20 years to accumulate?

It seems grossly unfair that someone can come and live with me, with no money (and perhaps even debts) to their name and then walk away with a chunk (or all!) of my money.

Even if they have my child, this seems grossly unfair.

Type_45

Humdinger1 wrote: »

Type

If you have a child, whether married or not, their welfare will be paramount in the event of a breakup.

Again, none of my business, but you seem to see yourself and a potential partner as financial assets, not people, first. That will, in my opinion, greatly increase the chances of your fears coming to pass. How about finding the relationship you'd like rather than viewing it as a purely financial transaction? Humdinger

I actually feel that knowing the legalities around breakups will help me find the relationship I am looking for. Not knowing these facts is a problem. Once I understand where I am legally, then I can start to trust people safe in the knowledge that I know what I'm doing and what I am risking.

Financial security is very important to me (as I assume it is to everyone reading this Money Saving Expert site). I haven't got any inheritance coming my way at all in the future (nor have I had any in the past). I don't want to spend my twilight years living in a bedsit simply because I fell for the wrong person.

I know this sounds cold and unfeeling. But this is a MSE, after all! Once I'm armed with the knowledge of how to protect myself I can get cracking with tinder in confidence

Primrose

I think we all understand your need for long term financial security especially when you've worked hard to get it. Perhaps one of the issues here is that however hard you try to protect yourself, you can't necessarily insure yourself against the unexpected reactions and emotions of human nature.

You seem to be looking for the perfect partner who will fit all your financial and legal criteria and who might be prepared to share a house and a long term future with you without necessarily wanting to receive an offer of marriage. So do you effectively want to have your cake and eat it while protecting your financial position as a priority ?

If that was on offer to me I wouldn't be interested because believe or not I still think there are a lot of women out there who are seeking a man who is kind, thoughtful and willing to engage in a genuinely mutually supportive and sharing relationship rather than one who has almost paid off his mortgage and has a few quid in the bank. The latter attributes may attract some women initially but once the "small print" of your aspirations are disclosed I suspect women will project their aspirations forward a few years and wonder what sort of truly caring and sharing partner you might really turn out to be if the relationship hits a few rocks along the way.

Just be really honest with yourself before you go rushing off to a dating agency. There's nothing wrong is having the view you hold about it being a priority to protect your financial position. Just for a moment envisage a situation where you meet a hard up woman who lives in rented accommodation who turns out to take your breath away and before yourealise it has already become the love of your life. Are you going to lower your horizons, take that risk or walk away regretting it for the rest of your life and perhaps spend your remaining years as a lonely old man? Will you have the strength to walk away until a wealthier woman who meets all your criteria crosses your path?

No right answers here. This isn't an exam! Just a reminder that life doesn't always present us with a perfect solution and that as we look back some of us are able to thank our lucky stars that something that didn't sound ideal at the time can turn to be a pot of pure gold.

PS You're right of course. Life is not fair! It never has been. Some people do all the right things all their life and still get killed by terrorist, knocked down by a bus or get cancer. A five year old might rightfully make that complaint but as adults we have to learn sometimes that that's just how life turns out.

unholyangel

Your partner wouldn't get part of the house just because you had a child together. Your legal financial commitment in that scenario is to the child only. But if you marry someone, then you are also making a financial commitment to them.

In England, it will usually be determined by the length of the marriage (they can consider periods you cohabited before marrying in this) and whether there are children. It can also include anything you obtain after separating but before divorcing. You may end up financially liable to them even after divorcing unless you obtain a clean break or consent order at the time of divorcing (theres an option on the form to tick to have it dealt with at the same time).

In Scotland, marital property is only what was acquired after the date of marriage but before the date of separation (not the date of divorce) and excludes inheritance. Providing it stays in its original form (ie you don't sell your house or use inheritance to buy a family home for you both to live in). Financial separation is a required part of the divorce process in scotland.

In both jurisdictions, parties are free to agree alternative arrangements - but it has the same legal standing as a pre-nup. In that its not legally binding on the courts, they can ignore it if they wish. However courts aren't really about forcing people to do it their way, their concern is more that parties aren't being taken advantage of. So there are a few things you can do to make it more likely (although never guaranteed) that any such agreement is rubber stamped by the courts.