My spouse is buying a house without me

maman

PPhillips 's post  (apologies, can't get the quote to work) suggests that there is a single, universally accepted  view on the nature of marriage.. That's not true. It reminds me of the posters who always champion the one pot/shared bank account approach to  family finances implying that if you don't choose to do this then there must be something wrong with your relationship. It's blinkered. 

pphillips

maman said:

PPhillips 's post  (apologies, can't get the quote to work) suggests that there is a single, universally accepted  view on the nature of marriage.. That's not true. It reminds me of the posters who always champion the one pot/shared bank account approach to  family finances implying that if you don't choose to do this then there must be something wrong with your relationship. It's blinkered. 

I think that some people want the benefits of marriage but not the obligations so they create this "marriage lite" fiction in their mind that they can be married but don't have to share anything. So they get married but decide to keep separate their own money, assets and inheritance. What's true is that such selfish individuals should never had gotten married in the first place.

TBagpuss

OP, if you separate now then it is unlikely that you will be entitled to a share of the inheritance or a house bought with it.

If the house becomes your family home and you both live there together and were to then separate permanently at a later date then the position would change.

The inheritance is not excluded from consideration in a divorce but court's will not *normally* give a spouse a share of an inheritance where the inheritance has been kept completely separate from joint assets so is still identifiable, or  where it was received after the separation or only a short time before. that said, a court is entitled to consider what your respective needs are and so can in effect require your spouse to dip into the inheritance to provide some form of settlement for you if it is necessary. 

unholyangel

pickledonionspaceraider said:

Of course it is morally reprehensible to anticipate an inheritance from a partners family.
Nobody should feel entitled to or anticipate an inheritance, and even more so, someone who is an in-law
It is very money grabbing
It literally makes me sick to think that after I am gone, an ex of one of my children, could put claim to money I have left my children.  Money I had earned with sweat and tears.  And then the EX uses it to fund their own life, meet someone else...stab my child in the back further by using my financial gift to my child, as a way to hurt them.
I would literally come back and haunt them, and it is a true disrespect for the diseased 

Curious where you'd draw the line (and others, if they'd care to comment). 

If they inherited but stayed together for 1 year? 2? 5? 10? 40? What about if their future ex was loved by you, like your own and they were a fantastic partner who supported your child through very tough times? What if they stayed married but were continually cheating on your child? What if your child was the one who treated them badly?

pickledonionspaceraider

unholyangel said:

pickledonionspaceraider said:

Of course it is morally reprehensible to anticipate an inheritance from a partners family.
Nobody should feel entitled to or anticipate an inheritance, and even more so, someone who is an in-law
It is very money grabbing
It literally makes me sick to think that after I am gone, an ex of one of my children, could put claim to money I have left my children.  Money I had earned with sweat and tears.  And then the EX uses it to fund their own life, meet someone else...stab my child in the back further by using my financial gift to my child, as a way to hurt them.
I would literally come back and haunt them, and it is a true disrespect for the diseased 

Curious where you'd draw the line (and others, if they'd care to comment). 

If they inherited but stayed together for 1 year? 2? 5? 10? 40? What about if their future ex was loved by you, like your own and they were a fantastic partner who supported your child through very tough times? What if they stayed married but were continually cheating on your child? What if your child was the one who treated them badly?

What if, What if, What if....
I believe I have made my point perfectly clear. 

prowla

The judgmentia are out in force on this one!

Was there a prenup agreement?

If not, then things in a marriage are shared.

Are the couple divorced?

If not, then they are still married.

Are they legally separated?

If not then they are still married.

etc.

burlingtonfl6

Comms69 said:

pphillips said:

I don't get the judgemental and moral lecturers of some of the posters on here, what is it about the nature of marriage that they don't understand? Some of them may not be married or may not agree with marriage but that's frankly irrelevant to the question that was asked.

what is it about the nature of marriage that they don't understand-

Still able to pass a moral opinion on a situation without the necessity to involve the legal aspects. 

It's legal to have affairs, still morally wrong for the vast majority of people.

''That's what the law says''
150 years ago you could beat your wife with a mop.....doesn't mean it's right

sweetsand

It's the years you have lived together and your contributions via paid work or making it a home, regardless where you got on or not.
Though this not apply to you, any so-calle pre-nup agreements are not worth the paper they are written on for most peopel that are worth less than a few jmillion especiially if they have lived together for more than a couple of years.