Laws around protecting assets in event of breakups and kids

Type_45

Primrose wrote: »

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.

The female perspective again: "Share all your money from the start, or die a lovely old man".

Again, what I am after here are legal facts. Not what women ideally want.

Strange, isn't it, how the women on this thread are all United behind the theme of getting their hands on my money. Odd how none of them have said anything along the lines of "the right woman will want YOU, not your money, and she therefore won't have an issue with you wanting to protect your own finances". Very odd.

Type_45

unholyangel wrote: »

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.

Essentially then: don't get married (unless you're financial equals), and get a pre-nup (but it may be overruled in court)?

But co-habiting is fine (as long as the partner doesn't financially contribute to the mortgage or improvements to the house)?

Primrose

Type_45 wrote: »

The female perspective again: "Share all your money from the start, or die a lovely old man".

Again, what I am after here are legal facts. Not what women ideally want.

Strange, isn't it, how the women on this thread are all United behind the theme of getting their hands on my money. Odd how none of them have said anything along the lines of "the right woman will want YOU, not your money, and she therefore won't have an issue with you wanting to protect your own finances". Very odd.

I smiled at that. You do seem rather judgemental about what you perceive women want and the idea that they all seem to want to get their hands on your money. I wonder if you've had a bad experience with a woman and money in the past and this has influenced your judgement.

Yes, I'm a woman. My then boyfriend many years ago was penniless and still studying. Because I earned more than he did, I funded him to the extent of his needs and as soon as we decided we were a permanent item (very quickly incidentally) I put all my savings in joint names, long before we were married. Yes, he could have run off with them and left me penniless but sooner or later you have to value your own judgement and trust people or any relationship will be undermined.

I hope you're lucky and find the sort of woman you're looking for. Just don't make your early dating conversations make her feel like she's being quizzed by an intrusive accountant or bank manager or she may think you're somebody who knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing :rotfl:

onwards&upwards

Type_45 wrote: »

The female perspective again: "Share all your money from the start, or die a lovely old man".

Again, what I am after here are legal facts. Not what women ideally want.

Strange, isn't it, how the women on this thread are all United behind the theme of getting their hands on my money. Odd how none of them have said anything along the lines of "the right woman will want YOU, not your money, and she therefore won't have an issue with you wanting to protect your own finances". Very odd.

You know you can use Tinder just for casual hookups, that might suit better?

Savvy_Sue

Type_45 wrote: »

The female perspective again: "Share all your money from the start, or die a lovely old man".

Again, what I am after here are legal facts. Not what women ideally want.

Strange, isn't it, how the women on this thread are all United behind the theme of getting their hands on my money. Odd how none of them have said anything along the lines of "the right woman will want YOU, not your money, and she therefore won't have an issue with you wanting to protect your own finances". Very odd.

I guess it never occurred to me to have to say that ... Obviously the right woman will want you, not your money - just as if you ever find her, you'll hopefully be less concerned about protecting your finances!

Primrose wrote: »

Yes, I'm a woman. My then boyfriend many years ago was penniless and still studying. Because I earned more than he did, I funded him to the extent of his needs and as soon as we decided we were a permanent item (very quickly incidentally) I put all my savings in joint names, long before we were married. Yes, he could have run off with them and left me penniless but sooner or later you have to value your own judgement and trust people or any relationship will be undermined.

Indeed, when we married, DH was unemployed. Jobcentre wouldn't tell him what would happen to his benefit when we married. It reduced to 50p per fortnight, sent out by first class giro.

did I worry about him taking advantage of my assets? Last thing on my mind. Like it or not, we would each give up EVERYTHING for the other.

Primrose wrote: »

I hope you're lucky and find the sort of woman you're looking for. Just don't make your early dating conversations make her feel like she's being quizzed by an intrusive accountant or bank manager or she may think you're somebody who knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing :rotfl:

:rotfl: indeed ...

pphillips

Type_45 wrote: »

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.

To address the point of this thread:

1. If you get married then the starting point on divorce is a 50/50 split but this adjustable depending on relevant factors such as the length of the marriage, the needs of the children to be housed, the needs of the parties ect.

2. If you don't get married then your future partner will have to prove they have a beneficial interest because of their financial contribution towards the property, for example mortgage payments or making improvements.

In addition, on breakup you would have to pay child support if your children no longer live with you.

I hope this clarifies matters and answers your questions.

elsien

Type_45 wrote: »

So basically, what I'm getting from this is:

- Don't get married
- don't allow a partner to contribute to my mortgage or to any repairs or maintenance
- marry a financial equal if possible
- even if I have a live-in partner and a child, I shouldn't lose the house in the event of a break up


Anything else I've missed? Or misunderstood?

You may have missed the fact that any potential partner may not be willing to commit to a relationship and have children with someone who is basically seeing her as a lodger who can be kicked out with nothing after any number of years together.

There's a balance between protecting yourself and committing to someone with all
that that may entail.

unholyangel

Type_45 wrote: »

The female perspective again: "Share all your money from the start, or die a lovely old man".

Again, what I am after here are legal facts. Not what women ideally want.

Strange, isn't it, how the women on this thread are all United behind the theme of getting their hands on my money. Odd how none of them have said anything along the lines of "the right woman will want YOU, not your money, and she therefore won't have an issue with you wanting to protect your own finances". Very odd.

I'm female...if you'll go back and reread my first post on this thread, it was essentially saying you're taking a sensible approach.

Sure I spoke about financial aspects but I didn't mean how much money they had. I'd prefer someone poor but financially responsible to someone rich but financially irresponsible. Its exhausting enough having actual children without having one for a partner too.

We don't pool our money - we pay half each for joint expenses and spend/save the rest however we want. But then we both earn roughly the same. I do slightly more household wise, but I point blank wouldn't put up with a guy who expected me to do all or a stark majority. Some stuff is owned jointly, some stuff we consider as just ours individually.

Every couple is different. The challenge is trying to find one with similar enough views on how a relationship should be so that you "gel". And also paying attention to words that dont match their behaviour - people typically don't advertise their bad traits.

maman

unholyangel wrote: »

We don't pool our money - we pay half each for joint expenses and spend/save the rest however we want. But then we both earn roughly the same. I do slightly more household wise, but I point blank wouldn't put up with a guy who expected me to do all or a stark majority. Some stuff is owned jointly, some stuff we consider as just ours individually.

Every couple is different. The challenge is trying to find one with similar enough views on how a relationship should be so that you "gel". And also paying attention to words that dont match their behaviour - people typically don't advertise their bad traits.

Well said.:T DH and I have been together for a very long time and we still operate in much the same way as you do.


I've read too many threads on here that imply that if you're not prepared to throw everything into one pot then there's something wrong with the relationship. I appreciate there are necessary (often temporary) exceptions (like pregnancy or ill health) but personally I feel very strongly that I want to be part of an equal partnership.


I don't want to go back to the dark ages when men were breadwinners and women either didn't work at all or earned a bit of 'pin money' or when women were expected to be responsible for all things domestic. I've had an education to match that of any man and I want to use it professionally.


So, I think that OP is being very sensible to think things through in advance then he knows what's important to him in a relationship. Surely that's more important that prioritising things like 'blonde, gsoh....':(

ska_lover

maman wrote: »

Well said.:T DH and I have been together for a very long time and we still operate in much the same way as you do.


I've read too many threads on here that imply that if you're not prepared to throw everything into one pot then there's something wrong with the relationship. I appreciate there are necessary (often temporary) exceptions (like pregnancy or ill health) but personally I feel very strongly that I want to be part of an equal partnership.


I don't want to go back to the dark ages when men were breadwinners and women either didn't work at all or earned a bit of 'pin money' or when women were expected to be responsible for all things domestic. I've had an education to match that of any man and I want to use it professionally.


So, I think that OP is being very sensible to think things through in advance then he knows what's important to him in a relationship. Surely that's more important that prioritising things like 'blonde, gsoh....':(

Same here, agree with what you and Unholyangel are saying

We don't pool our money. We have one bills account which we both transfer our appropriate amounts to, and the rest of the cash we earn is our own, and stays in our own accounts

I get bored of hearing the same old dark ages stuff. So much has changed. A lot more is expected of women, and by ourselves too

I remember when I got married, my Mother told me I was beyond stupid for not demanding shared cash. It really peed me off that she assumed I even wanted that . I have always been independent and being married hasn't changed that for the most part. Having said that, my mother was the 'work for pin money' type, on the odd occasion she did work

In our household, we both earn similar amounts and have worked hard in our chosen profession.

Having said that, there are still some younger couples who operate in the 'shared pot' way. I know a couple where the man is the main bread winner and, after they got married - the wife constantly monitors expenditure and gets text alerts when something is spent. He gets a tongue lashing whilst he is standing in the petrol station forecourt for filling up his car to get to work. - Needless to say these people are not close friends of ours these days