Getting divorced is My wife entitled to my mothers house?

justworriedabit

OP
Even if your wife has contributed towards costs to a certain extent EG bills, minor repairs, the property is not your wifes, nor yours. Therefore, you wife cannot have it.
God forbid should your mother die before you are divorced and you then are the sole beneficiary, then she may have a claim but I'm no expert. It will be interesting what others think.
I hope I've not offended you  as it is not my intention  but reading the posts I thought I'd post this and see what others or you have to say.

maman

justworriedabit said:

OP
Even if your wife has contributed towards costs to a certain extent EG bills, minor repairs, the property is not your wifes, nor yours. Therefore, you wife cannot have it.
God forbid should your mother die before you are divorced and you then are the sole beneficiary, then she may have a claim but I'm no expert. It will be interesting what others think.
I hope I've not offended you  as it is not my intention  but reading the posts I thought I'd post this and see what others or you have to say.

I'd say that should the worst happen then she would have a claim but not a massive one as 2 years isn't a long marriage. Best not to take the chance though and get the divorce ASAP, legally  with all finances sorted. 

I don't think OP ever did respond to questions about assets like pension or cars. They all count even if no savings. 

UncleZen

Asking for a friend, no really, I am.
The friend is getting divorced. And his soon-to-be ex-wife, at some time in the past inherited her mothers house (I think she sold it). So, my question is. Is he entitled to some of that property windfall? 

Pollycat

UncleZen said:

Asking for a friend, no really, I am.
The friend is getting divorced. And his soon-to-be ex-wife, at some time in the past inherited her mothers house (I think she sold it). So, my question is. Is he entitled to some of that property windfall? 

I'm confused.

Are you the OP with a different user name?

Or are you someone different with a similar question?

If you're someone different you should really start your own thread as it's not fair to the OP to sidetrack his thread.

UncleZen

I am so sorry. I didn't mean to hijack this thread. I thought I'd  created a new one. (no wonder I couldn't find it) I was looking at this thread and noticed the similarities. 

New thread started...

zpargo

sassyblue said:

bobby_99 said:

maman said:

Of course not. It's as if you were renting. The house doesn't belong to you so you can hardly give your wife part of it. It's surely that simple. You will have to pay for your child, assuming that the child lives with your wife in future. 

i know might sound silly but had to ask these courts are so against men!

The courts are NOT against men. The starting point for ALL settlements is 50/50 but Women usually end up with a bit more than men because if children are involved their housing needs are a priory and as they usually reside with the mother she may get a larger split to keep a roof over their heads.

if there are no children or the children have left education the split should be 50/50.

The legal aspects of marriage in regard to claims on assets where one individual has considerably more assets than the other inevitably creates a conflict situation. This happens where one individual has worked hard to build up these assets if they realise these need to be split off 50-50 with the spouse. Marriage is a nice little earner for family lawyers and for those in relationships who are able to manipulate the law in which case stay with someone wealthy and then divorce them.
I have read about men who upon a divorce have to move out of the house they are paying a mortgage on, who would then also pay rent and also have to pay the child support. Not sure if anyone can confirm this but this seems a very unattractive position to be in.

Pollycat

zpargo said:

The legal aspects of marriage in regard to claims on assets where one individual has considerably more assets than the other inevitably creates a conflict situation. This happens where one individual has worked hard to build up these assets if they realise these need to be split off 50-50 with the spouse. Marriage is a nice little earner for family lawyers and for those in relationships who are able to manipulate the law in which case stay with someone wealthy and then divorce them.

Some people only consider what they have have put into a relationship from a financial perspective instead of acknowledging the non monetary value of their partner taking on responsibility for childcare etc.

It may be that one partner has sacrificed a good career to support the other partner.

zpargo said:

I have read about men who upon a divorce have to move out of the house they are paying a mortgage on, who would then also pay rent and also have to pay the child support. Not sure if anyone can confirm this but this seems a very unattractive position to be in.

And I have known women whose husbands have lied to them about how much they earn, squirreling away money, lied to a mediator about how much money they had because  they knew their wife has no proof of this.

And who have insisted on the family house being sold despite the children being 12 and 8 so they can have their share to start again.

And when the wife was awarded a 70/30 split - how we laughed. Because he thought he was going to walk away with 50% and retain his pension and have his wife's inheritance thrown into the pot - even though his wife's Mum was alive and well at the time of the divorce.

There are 2 sides to every coin.

burlingtonfl6

Pollycat said:

zpargo said:

The legal aspects of marriage in regard to claims on assets where one individual has considerably more assets than the other inevitably creates a conflict situation. This happens where one individual has worked hard to build up these assets if they realise these need to be split off 50-50 with the spouse. Marriage is a nice little earner for family lawyers and for those in relationships who are able to manipulate the law in which case stay with someone wealthy and then divorce them.

Some people only consider what they have have put into a relationship from a financial perspective instead of acknowledging the non monetary value of their partner taking on responsibility for childcare etc.

It may be that one partner has sacrificed a good career to support the other partner.

zpargo said:

I have read about men who upon a divorce have to move out of the house they are paying a mortgage on, who would then also pay rent and also have to pay the child support. Not sure if anyone can confirm this but this seems a very unattractive position to be in.

And I have known women whose husbands have lied to them about how much they earn, squirreling away money, lied to a mediator about how much money they had because  they knew their wife has no proof of this.

And who have insisted on the family house being sold despite the children being 12 and 8 so they can have their share to start again.

And when the wife was awarded a 70/30 split - how we laughed. Because he thought he was going to walk away with 50% and retain his pension and have his wife's inheritance thrown into the pot - even though his wife's Mum was alive and well at the time of the divorce.

There are 2 sides to every coin.

The divorce courts are currently there to benefit women. 

Pollycat

74jax said:

Maybe you have heard some horror stories, but courts are for EITHER party. 

sassyblue said:

The courts are NOT against men. The starting point for ALL settlements is 50/50 but Women usually end up with a bit more than men because if children are involved their housing needs are a priory and as they usually reside with the mother she may get a larger split to keep a roof over their heads.

if there are no children or the children have left education the split should be 50/50.

TBagpuss said:

Courts are not 'against men'. The relevant laws are all gender neutral and research has shown that men typically end up better off then women following divorce.

burlingtonfl6 said:

The divorce courts are currently there to benefit women. 

The posts above indicate otherwise.

Maybe you personally had a bad experience with divorce courts.

AskAsk

zpargo said:

The legal aspects of marriage in regard to claims on assets where one individual has considerably more assets than the other inevitably creates a conflict situation. This happens where one individual has worked hard to build up these assets if they realise these need to be split off 50-50 with the spouse. Marriage is a nice little earner for family lawyers and for those in relationships who are able to manipulate the law in which case stay with someone wealthy and then divorce them.

I have read about men who upon a divorce have to move out of the house they are paying a mortgage on, who would then also pay rent and also have to pay the child support. Not sure if anyone can confirm this but this seems a very unattractive position to be in.

i can confirm this.  my friend paid for the house as he was the one who worked.  his wife never worked.  when they separated, he moved out of the house and continued to pay the mortgage and bills.  he bought another house with his brother, but he had to pay his brother rent for the other half as his brother bought the house with him because he could not afford to buy the new house by himself.  he is still paying rent now.

in the final divorce proceedings, his wife was given the family home in its entirity so he lost that house and is now paying rent in the new house.  he also has to pay child maintenance.  the judge said that if he wanted any share of the matrimonial home, he would have to give half of his pension to his wife, so she got to keep the house in exchange for not having a share of his pension fund.

it can be a great financial loss for the person who has been earning all the money in the relationship.  it becomes fairer when both partners earn similar salaries, but when one partner is the bread winner in the relationship, the resulting financial settlement looks very unjust.