Entitled to a share of marital home?

Malthusian

Type_45 wrote: »

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?

If they divorce, it goes to court and it is not a short marriage, the starting point will be a 50 / 50 split (before taking into account children etc). He may choose to only take half the rise in the value of the house but he will be entitled to take other assets in lieu of the rest of his 50%. So why should anyone care?

Accountant_Kerry

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?

Why are they getting married? I cant see how such a defined level of inequality can lead to a successful marriage

kangoora

Maybe at the wedding they should change "with all my worldly goods I thee endow" to "with all my worldly goods being distributed in accordance with the pre-nuptial agreement between the lady and the man signed, dated and properly witnessed on 15th July 2020 - and especially being that I own the house and he is only going to get 50% of the increase in the equity of the house if he turns out to be a cheating b@astard"

Bit of a mouthful though

BrassicWoman

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.

From what you have said, you are neither the lady or the man, they are just friends of yours.

They need a proper lawyer here, so the best advice is for you to keep your nose out.

74jax

Accountant_Kerry wrote: »

Why are they getting married? I cant see how such a defined level of inequality can lead to a successful marriage

Inequality in what way though? My husband and I married with ridiculous inequality in money. But we were equal in so many other ways.

Accountant_Kerry

74jax wrote: »

Inequality in what way though? My husband and I married with ridiculous inequality in money. But we were equal in so many other ways.

Did you seek to maintain this inequality so one was always bascally living in the others house?

Pollycat

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?

It doesn't matter if random strangers on t'interweb think it's fair.
It doesn't matter if Uncle Tom Cobleigh down the Dog and Duck thinks it's fair.
It doesn't even matter if you think it's unfair (assuming you're not the man in the scenario).
What matters is that the 2 parties involved have considered all legal ramifications and have come to an agreement between themselves.
If either party is not happy, they either attempt to renegotiate or walk away.

74jax

Accountant_Kerry wrote: »

Did you seek to maintain this inequality so one was always bascally living in the others house?

Pretty much. We both had properties and still do. We live in what I originally owned and hubby rents what he originally owned.

In all other ways than money we're equal, but financially..... Miles apart.

It's never been an issue for us though like in the op. But you can definately have a very successful marriage when you both join with differing financial status.

Accountant_Kerry

74jax wrote: »

Pretty much. We both had properties and still do. We live in what I originally owned and hubby rents what he originally owned.

In all other ways than money we're equal, but financially..... Miles apart.

It's never been an issue for us though like in the op. But you can definately have a very successful marriage when you both join with differing financial status.

I guess that's the key difference you both actually own a house, no idea if the man in this situation has that sort of independence

Flix21

Accountant_Kerry wrote: »

I guess that's the key difference you both actually own a house, no idea if the man in this situation has that sort of independence

Ok, so partnerships can only be successful if they both have similar financial circumstances?
Accept I may be reading this wrong, but i'm seeing it as - the rich should marry the rich, and the poor stick with the poor.