Entitled to a share of marital home?

Comms69

Type_45 wrote: »

It's almost certainly going to be just the woman's name on the deeds. But with some sort of agreement that the man has a stake in the marital house. That's as far as they've discussed at this point. All bills will be shared once they move in.

If theyre married then it's pointless having such an agreement.

I really dont see what's so complicated by this situation.

Accountant_Kerry

Comms69 wrote: »

If theyre married then it's pointless having such an agreement.

I really dont see what's so complicated by this situation.

Totally agree, you cant override the law, law dictates you are in effect pooling assets whether you like it or not, if a short marriage then in divorce the aim is to put you back where you started so to speak a longer marriage is based on kids, lifestyle, fair etc etc.

If you dont want to share all your assets dont get married, its pretty simple

Malthusian

Comms69 wrote: »

I really dont see what's so complicated by this situation.

They want to get married but they don't want to get married. (It's mostly the future wife who doesn't want to be a wife, by the sound of it.) This can be achieved by signing magic pieces of paper. Anyone who says it won't work is wrong because they haven't understood that their magic piece of paper is magic.

The OP's question in post #1 has been comprehensively answered but it turns out they still aren't interested in what the answer is.

Type_45

Malthusian wrote: »

They want to get married but they don't want to get married. (It's mostly the future wife who doesn't want to be a wife, by the sound of it.) This can be achieved by signing magic pieces of paper. Anyone who says it won't work is wrong because they haven't understood that their magic piece of paper is magic.

The OP's question in post #1 has been comprehensively answered but it turns out they still aren't interested in what the answer is.

Yes I think it has. If there's a marriage then it's a shared marital property. And a pre-nup stating otherwise can be contested.

What if they don't get married though. The woman buys the house herself but they share the bills and upkeep? I am guessing that there would be a 'beneficial interest' claim by the man, but that his percentage stake would be a matter for the court?

Comms69

Type_45 wrote: »

Yes I think it has. If there's a marriage then it's a shared marital property. And a pre-nup stating otherwise can be contested.

What if they don't get married though. The woman buys the house herself but they share the bills and upkeep? I am guessing that there would be a 'beneficial interest' claim by the man, but that his percentage stake would be a matter for the court?

As long as there is no investment in the property - paying for mortgage, repairs or upgrades, there is no beneficial interest - basically.

Type_45

The marriage in question will indeed take place this spring. And a pre-nup has been suggested by the lady along these lines:

a. The lady will retain existing property and investments in her sole name free from any claim by the man.
b. The man will retain existing property and investments in his sole name free from any claim by the lady.
c. The lady is to purchase accommodation in her sole name where the two of them will live and that, upon any potential future separation then they will each benefit by 50% from any increase in value to that property from the date of the marriage until any date of separation.
d. The lady and man will each contribute towards the outgoings upon that property to be purchased by the lady.

It is understood that there may be a joint account set up in the names of the man and lady to facilitate bills/utility payments at the property where they will be living but that, in all other respects, they will retain separate accounts and investments.




So there you have it. If they separate, the man will not get half the house. Rather he will get half the amount the house has risen in value during the course of the marriage. Does that seem fair?

Pollycat

onwards&upwards wrote: »

Pre nups aren’t legally enforceable in the UK.

Have the lady and the man taken this ^^^^ comment into account?

LilElvis

Type_45 wrote: »

Does that seem fair?

Neither your opinion, or that of a bunch of strangers on the internet, matter. It sounds as though they have both taken independent legal advice and have come to a mutually agreed understanding as to what would happen to their assets in the event of their marriage failing. How much weight would be given by a court in the event of a disagreement regarding the asset split is something which hopefully won't occur, but of which they should have been made aware.

74jax

Type_45 wrote: »

The marriage in question will indeed take place this spring. And a pre-nup has been suggested by the lady along these lines:

a. The lady will retain existing property and investments in her sole name free from any claim by the man.
b. The man will retain existing property and investments in his sole name free from any claim by the lady.
c. The lady is to purchase accommodation in her sole name where the two of them will live and that, upon any potential future separation then they will each benefit by 50% from any increase in value to that property from the date of the marriage until any date of separation.
d. The lady and man will each contribute towards the outgoings upon that property to be purchased by the lady.

It is understood that there may be a joint account set up in the names of the man and lady to facilitate bills/utility payments at the property where they will be living but that, in all other respects, they will retain separate accounts and investments.




So there you have it. If they separate, the man will not get half the house. Rather he will get half the amount the house has risen in value during the course of the marriage. Does that seem fair?

I am in the UK and I'm one of the few on here with a prenup. At the time I posted on here so if you search you'll find a couple of threads.

I married my husband who had considerable more than me. He wanted a prenup, I didn't even give it a thought and wasn't fussed so didn't mind.

What you have had drawn up was not what was recommended to us. Granted it was 7 years ago now so may have changed.

Ours set out what we wished would happen in 5 years if we split. I'm not sure you can set one 'forever'.

We added certain clauses and it was signed witnessed logged etc - but we both new it wasn't binding. It was hopefully something a judge would follow if needed. In this scenario it seems both feel its done, it will be followed etc.

Your comment about 'there you are, if they separate the man will not get half the house' is nonsense. No one knows. And that piece of non legally binding paper might not be followed to the letter. Until they are legally binding you can not 100% know. This will have all been explained to you when drawn up, but I would definately have them look again at what you have copied (but of course you might have not copied it all).

Accountant_Kerry

She sounds like a catch