Inheritance

andrewandyandrew

Facts

A met their future spouse B in 2001, cohabited in Bs home until 2004 when A&B were married. A made no contribution to running the home or mortgage or other costs than buying some food. During this time (from 2004) A also sold their car and B provided a succession of new cars for A until the present day. In late 2006 age 33 A resigned from work to try for a child and fell pregnant at the end of 2007. A made various arguments why they should be the primary carer and in due course A had a further child in 2011.

During the intervening years B has bought and paid for a family home presently valued at 650,000, provided the cars as previously mentioned and two holidays a year. B has also accumulated 550k in pension savings and put money aside for the children’s university (75k). This has been accumulated from earned income of B only. A has not worked and has made no financial contribution at all. 

B is from a large and relatively poor family and is unlikely to be left any inheritance. A is an only child and is likely to be left > £1m from parents and a non blood relative. Likely benefactors are all > 80 but May survive into their 90s.

A has £200k of their own pension savings and about 35000 from a previous inheritance ( grandparent)

B is now contemplating walking out. There is no third person involved. 

Question

Would a divorce settlement award A half Bs assets including half the house and half of Bs pension savings or would the court recognise A would inherit. Would the answer be different if A had already inherited. 

A has suggested inheritances would be shared but there is no evidence of this.

Keep_pedalling

The starting point is 50/50. Potential inheritances will not come into it.

andrewandyandrew

Thanks - would the answer be different if A had inherited. 

74jax

andrewandyandrew said:

Thanks - would the answer be different if A had inherited. 

Would depend when.
If during the divorce then could fight to keep it. If years ago and used as part of the family, would be very difficult to say the fridge was bought with inheritance but the cooker was not.

andrewandyandrew

The challenge here is that A is becoming increasingly puerile  and adolescent the further they retreat from work and society. 

B wants to ensure the children are not ruled by poverty or a fear of poverty as B has been and after retirement B wanted to assist in house purchases for the children. 

B is not convinced A will not seek to dominate and control the children’s lives into their old age (A could easily live to be 100 while no male in Bs family has ever got past 70) with access to 1.5 - 2m. A also has no concept of investment. 

wannabe_a_saver

You make it sound like B got married and had a family under duress! 

The divorce courts will ensure a fair outcome and that the children's welfare is the highest priority. 

andrewandyandrew

I wouldn’t go as far as duress but I distinctly remember B telling me on meeting A that A was adamant they didn’t want children. 

I also recall B being indifferent to the idea of having a child when the idea was presented and then the idea of another child was presented to B later. 

Having said all of that as they are here B does not want children to struggle as B did - B skipped food some days in their formative years long before A as there was no money for it and B does not think experiencing that is character forming or “a good thing to learn from”

B is strongly of the view a parent should provide for their children to do anything but not nothing which means within B’s means ensuring a young person leaving university has no debt and has some or all of a house bought for them or a pension fund in waiting. 

B will just have to sit tight while ensuing all death in service and pension entitlements and half the house and cash savings are directed to their offspring. 

If A wants more than the 325k representing half the house they have not paid for or contributed to A can then contest that with their offspring and in the glare of their extended family and B’s if they want to claim that which morally is not theirs. B says A is entitled to their existing inheritance and B wants no benefit from that whether B is dead or alive.

wannabe_a_saver

If only there had been some way B could have prevented an unwanted pregnancy...

Its a real shame that B does not see that A being primary carer for the children as a contribution to the family.  The courts will disagree with that opinion. 

Mojisola

andrewandyandrew said:

The challenge here is that A is becoming increasingly puerile  and adolescent the further they retreat from work and society. 

B wants to ensure the children are not ruled by poverty or a fear of poverty as B has been and after retirement B wanted to assist in house purchases for the children. 

B is not convinced A will not seek to dominate and control the children’s lives into their old age (A could easily live to be 100 while no male in Bs family has ever got past 70) with access to 1.5 - 2m. A also has no concept of investment. 

If B is concerned about the children's welfare, B should aim to be the main carer. 

gizmo111

It seems future inheritance and divorce are being confused.
Divorce will sort out what assets they have now to be divided, who the children live with and how they are provided for throughout their minority as a minimum.  Any additional contributions/gifts/support to the children is up to each individual parent during both their lifetime and death.
Not sure what the question is here?

Savvy_Sue

andrewandyandrew said:

B is strongly of the view a parent should provide for their children to do anything but not nothing which means within B’s means ensuring a young person leaving university has no debt and has some or all of a house bought for them or a pension fund in waiting. 

With the best will in the world, there are many parents who are in absolutely no position to do that for their children, even with both parents working. If young people WANT to go to university, they need to consider the logistics of that. I was very happy to make university a fresh start without relying on my parents, and I believe my boys were too. I told them what I'd do to support them while they were students, but taking care of their debts wasn't part of the package.

As for buying even part of a house or starting a pension fund - dream on! As it happens, they're all more financially secure than we are! I dream of the day when they will keep me in the manner to which I'd like to become accustomed - to which their response is dream on!

andrewandyandrew said:

B will just have to sit tight while ensuing all death in service and pension entitlements and half the house and cash savings are directed to their offspring. 

B can take care of that in their will, but I am not sure the divorce courts will accept that A has no entitlement to housing and no entitlement to maintenance for the children. Spousal support is less common these days, but is sometimes ordered to enable a partner to return to the workplace to support themselves. 

B certainly cannot put half the house into the names of the children, because they are not yet 18. They also won't be able to inherit 'their' share of a house until then, it will have to be in trust for them. 

andrewandyandrew said:

If A wants more than the 325k representing half the house they have not paid for or contributed to A can then contest that with their offspring and in the glare of their extended family and B’s if they want to claim that which morally is not theirs. B says A is entitled to their existing inheritance and B wants no benefit from that whether B is dead or alive.

Again, it MAY be possible to do this with a will, but at this stage, impossible. 

I think B needs to think long and hard about how to meet the needs of his children, and take legal advice - by paying for it, not talking to a load of strangers on t'internet, possibly via a third party.