Inheritance

Gavin83

andrewandyandrew said:

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.

Yes, the starting point is 50/50. I expect based on what you’ve written A would get to keep the house. If there’s any mortgage probably more.

You need to stop thinking of the assets as A’s and B’s. All the assets are shared and belong to them equally. Also you need to remember that looking after the children is considered and equal level of contribution to the family.

I agree with many of the others here, he’s left it too late to question the arrangement. If he wasn’t happy he should have dealt with it ages ago, ideally before children were on the scene.

sassyblue

Please don’t come here claiming A has done nothing or contributed nothing to the marriage or home. She worked and then left work to care for two children that were planned, she also did not have to 'make any claims' about why she should be the primary carer, she is the mother!!

are you claiming that A never cleaned the home, fed or clothed the children, took them to school, shopped for food, washed, ironed, cooked or tidied? Really?

those acts are contributions to the home and family, they aren’t just swept away because you’re splitting up and think you can rubbish her.  You will find (quite rightly) the Courts concern is the welfare of the children and that they have a roof over their head.

I find these posts equally sad and infuriating. If men had to have the children and run the home they'd soon see what hard work it is.

wannabe_a_saver

Mojisola said:

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. 

If A has been their main carer their whole lives, how would changing that now be better for their welfare?

andrewandyandrew

I have been surprised and disappointed by the great leap to the defence of A here and the apparent welfare of children. 

B buys all their  presents both in money and in expending the effort to think of what and go and do it. B cooks all the meals unless it’s beans or out of packets. B washes up, empties the bins.  The children can and do make their own way to school now once B ensures they are dressed and good to go As B bought or more accurately built (as that is what B did after holding down a full time highly paid job during the day for two years) the family are close to the school. 

B’s primary concern is for the well-being of the children. Money accumulated is money is to give to them to start their lives or to help them in their old age not to  waive over their heads which increasingly appears to be As plan. 

As for the further observation that most families can only dream of this, I would offer this. The wealth accumulated  is the money earned and invested, no windfalls or luck. This is earned after tax salary by B for the well-being of the offspring and the security of all. No court can offer as much to children, no court pays for the roof or gladly snatched the scarce moments to teach the children or spend time with them as opposed to being at work so many hours outside lockdown. 

Might I rather than B offer this final thought. Children whether you embraced the idea or not are every parents primary responsibility. I am sure we can agree on that. 

Where I may differ is it for me it starts with them having good health a warm house and every opportunity of education and goes on from there. 

We can all have our views on what makes a good parent but mine is to be confident of my children’s security opportunity health and nutrition through their youth and into adulthood and they start adult life with some measure of security in savings and without the burden of debt deemed acceptable by earlier generations who had to bear no such debt themselves. 

So if you sit down to watch TV read a book or have a nap and you are not confident you have the bases covered for your kids then get up get moving and get working so you can be as far as is humanly possible. In my view not doing that is not being a good parent at all. For those who claim no such work exists. we have three unfilled vacancies on 50k per annum but no one it appears has been up for the challenge of learning or getting the qualifications to fill them. 

B it seems will have to sit tight to ensure the wealth accumulated does go to the intended beneficiaries, the children and spend time at home in the garage. With hindsight B might have chosen differently or been more suspicious at the outset but we all have our crosses to bear. 

Now if you will excuse me I have not attended to my work for long enough. 

MalMonroe

Is B really you?

A has contributed massively to this family of four, no matter what you may think. Far more than 50 percent anyway.

If you are B (I think you are), I'm really sorry to say that your poor upbringing has made you money-mad.  

Nowhere in your post do you say anything about love, understanding, caring. It's all about the money. 

B is 'contemplating walking out' - what about the children? You going to leave them too?  Leave A to cope with everything, alone. 

But WHAT exactly is the reason? That A has more money than you, will have more than you, you don't have enough, A has too much or you have too much and resent having to share with your family? All about the money? There doesn't seem to be any reason for walking out. 

When you love someone enough to marry them, money should become irrelevant. Everything then becomes yours, combined, shared. You don't feel spite towards your partner because they leave work to have your shared child. You say "in due course A had a further child in 2011" - as if it had nothing to do with you.

 You also say, "This has been accumulated from earned income of B only. A has not worked and has made no financial contribution at all."

How sad is that? Because A and the two children will be better off when B does walk out. And I don't mean financially.

sassyblue

andrewandyandrew said:

I have been surprised and disappointed by the great leap to the defence of A here and the apparent welfare of children. 

I bet you have been.  A dose of the real world can be harsh.

You sound very cold and calculating, I’d love to hear A's side of the story.

Remember, when you do eventually divorce, it’s so common for one spouse to claim the other spouse contributed nothing but the court is NOT concerned with who did what - it will only be looking for a fair outcome for you both. 

strawb_shortcake

A must have bought something to the table otherwise B wouldn't have been so amenable to the changes that led them to the present day situation.

A presumably did quite well in their previous career to build up a £200k pension. Going by A's suggested background this is a good pat on the back for social mobility. 

As I say to my (older) children  until you know you are ready to have children keep it wrapped or keep it in your pants. B obviously considered A a suitable choice for a parent at one time or they'd not have gone along for the ride.

But if B really isn't happy and wants to leave, divorcing before any future inheritance is paid out is going to be a lot cheaper, so perhaps accept the situation and the 50/50 split whilst it's cheap  and maybe think twice before embarking on another relationship 

74jax

Are you B? Or in a relationship with B?
Re-reading the posts do you not see how A had contributed, at all?
2 children were made, so all was fine and dandy when first was made. It was all going great they made number 2 several years later.

EDITED after reading your credit card thread, dated /ages seem to make me think you are B. If you are then re-read what you put on that thread when trying to get a joint card : 
It is disappointing if we are not allowed a joint card, after all we have a joint account, joint mortgage, it took both of us to have the kids and we are jointly responsible for those too.

You clearly valued A equally last year.