Entitled to a share of marital home?

thorsoak

Your "friend" would appear to be considering marriage as a way to a meal ticket. However, if the marriage were to fail within five years, it would be considered as a short relationship and the financial positions would revert to those as to when they married.

BrassicWoman

Type_45 wrote: »

Please don't ruin the thread, Miss Marple.

Sometimes when I ask for advice on here it isn't for my own benefit but for those I am trying to help. Does that need to be spelled out...

I'm sure they can type themselves. odd that the situations for three people are all so similar!

Comms69

Type_45 wrote: »

Half the house is the story as I remember it. A story told to me almost 5 years ago.

But my overall point remains. The person above who thinks that not marrying solves the problem of losing a share of your own property is mistaken.

That isnt how i read it, but rather that marrying IS sharing your property.

there are of course other factors to take into account.

Unless he basically rebuilt the house from scratch theres no way he got half. Not a chance.

BrassicWoman

Type_45 wrote: »

Not true. An ex-colleague of mine owned a house. Her partner moved in. They never married. But when they split up he got half the house. He apparently had done up the house in some way and so convinced the court that he was under the impression that he shared the house with her.

So your idea that not marrying is a silver bullet to keeping your possessions would seem to be misguided.

mitigate and eradicate don't mean the same

LilElvis

Type_45 wrote: »

Professionals frequent this forum. Or at least they used to. An inexplicable dumbing down has stricken this forum of late.

And how would you know who the "professionals" are? You wouldn't.

If I was in a relationship, with a child on the way and substantial assets I would bee seeking paid for professional advice rather than relying on an unqualified individual who, in turn, was looking for answers from a bunch of unknown strangers in the internet. You're really not helping anyone.

Pollycat

LilElvis wrote: »

And how would you know who the "professionals" are? You wouldn't.

If I was in a relationship, with a child on the way and substantial assets I would bee seeking paid for professional advice rather than relying on an unqualified individual who, in turn, was looking for answers from a bunch of unknown strangers in the internet. You're really not helping anyone.

And with gaps in the information known...:think:

gettingtheresometime

Type_45 wrote: »

Please don't ruin the thread, Miss Marple.

Sometimes when I ask for advice on here it isn't for my own benefit but for those I am trying to help. Does that need to be spelled out...

Well yes if the scenarios are contradictory

Type_45

Comms69 wrote: »

That isnt how i read it, but rather that marrying IS sharing your property.

there are of course other factors to take into account.

Unless he basically rebuilt the house from scratch theres no way he got half. Not a chance.

It doesn't matter if it was 50% or 10%. The point remains that not getting married doesn't protect your house from a partner.

Type_45

thorsoak wrote: »

Your "friend" would appear to be considering marriage as a way to a meal ticket. However, if the marriage were to fail within five years, it would be considered as a short relationship and the financial positions would revert to those as to when they married.

Perhaps. But the marital home is another matter. That's the issue this thread is all about.

elsien

Pollycat wrote: »

And with gaps in the information known...:think:

‘There are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know."