Section 25 (Matrimonial Causes Act 1973)

dowling71

Flugelhorn said:

I suppose the in-law could leave the inheritance to someone else eg a cat rescue charity or similar.

Yes, I hadn't considered that. Only really because none of us are especially wealthy and they get on and she would see the value of leaving money to her kids as my father did to me. 

Flugelhorn

dowling71 said:

Flugelhorn said:

I suppose the in-law could leave the inheritance to someone else eg a cat rescue charity or similar.

Yes, I hadn't considered that. Only really because none of us are especially wealthy and they get on and she would see the value of leaving money to her kids as my father did to me. 

because it can happen, people change their minds as they get older, they may also opt not to leave money to a child if they think it would be affected by a divorce settlement etc, they may think that others can better benefit from the money, many things can happen. 

dowling71

Yes, but even if the leaving of an  inheritance to a charity instead of to your children was the most predictable of all the possible options in any scenario, (making the possibility of any future inheritance for anyone to appear to be entirely unforeseeable), the question remains, why would all the information online about Section 25 (Matrimonial Causes Act 1973) be so misleading on the point of 'foreseeable inheritance'?

Thanks in advance, 

Flugelhorn

sounds like it is possible if their is certainty though apparently this is rare https://www.shoosmiths.co.uk/insights/legal-updates/how-is-future-inheritance-and-entitlement-under-a-trust-treated-in-divorce

similar discussion here https://becket-chambers.co.uk/2018/03/01/crystal-ball-gazing-dilemma-future-inheritance-prospects-finance-cases/

Savvy_Sue

When it says: 

dowling71 said:

Pensions, inheritances and other foreseeable future gains"

I don't think that means the same as 

dowling71 said:

'foreseeable inheritance'?

I think the wording is perhaps slightly misleading, in that pensions are (generally) future, but inheritance is only reliably in the past: your MIL has no obligation to leave anything at all to her DD, and no guaranteed ability to do so. 

But IANAL so if you want 'proper' advice then get yourself one. Or take a look on Wikivorce, which will be a lot cheaper. 

tightauldgit

dowling71 said:

Hi thanks for that, just to clarify when you say the two lump sums are Matrimonial assets, does that mean that there is no proportional consideration for one party having contributed them and not the other?

Thanks in advance, 

Generally not as they were years ago and look to have been comingled with other marital funds. Unless you had some agreement at the time that you would pay more for the house and then get that back when it was sold or the funds had been ringfenced in someway. 

Pension is a different thing as it has a current value which is an asset of yours. 

As others have said there's no guarantee of any future inheritance and if and when it comes in x years time how could it be considered an asset of the marriage which ended years ago?

If the person had died during the marriage but the inheritance was still in probate for example it may be different 

Pollycat

I agree with Savvy_Sue regarding misleading wording.

If you Google 'is future inheritance part of a divorce', you'll find lots of hits from solicitors that basically say that future inheritance is unlikely to be taken into account unless the inheritance is imminent and/or likely to be substantial.

Scorpio33

I am guessing, but does it not relate to a situation whereby death has occurred, and inheritance is pending, but not completed yet due to the probate not yet being completed. So in that situation future inheritance would could as a marital asset?

TBagpuss

dowling71 said:

Caz3121 said:

dowling71 said:

why is my pension which is 25 years away more 'foreseeable' and subject to inclusion than a 100k inheritance from an in-law?

your pension pot has a current value, there is no guarantee of any inheritance...MIL's assets may be partially or fully used up for care in future so there could be zero left, she could decide to leave everything to the cat home. (it is her's to do as she wishes)

<<if she did that would be fine by me but it's more foreseeable that she would leave it to her 2 daughters>>

<<I'm wondering why section 25 mentions inheritance if it's seems to be so off limits>>

Did you have anything legal set up regarding the £50k from father? (I gifted my daughter money for similar and legal document in place signed by both parties that confirms in case of breakup that gift goes to her before any division property equity)

<<No... Not something I / we considered at the time. Naive in retrospect>>

I'm wondering why section 25 mentions inheritance at all if it's seems to be so off limits? 

BEcause it depends on circumstbaces. If you had an elderly relative and were their sole beneficiary, and they were dead (but probate wasn't complete) or had permanently lost capacity and were dying, so that it was certain that you would get the inheritance in the very near future, it would be relvant. Also, there my be cases where a future inheritance is certain if more distant (For instnace, where a property has been leftto you but subject to another person's right to occupy it) or in some cases (stately homes and the like) where the current owner's power to will assets away fro the heir may be linited by existing trustsd or other arrangements 

Inheritance can also be relvant where you have already recived it - your spouse won't normally be able to calim a share of the inheritance itself, but may well be able to sucessfully argue that it changes the position regarding you respective needs, so affects the over all settlement. 

FWIW, things such as contributions and conduct , which also appear in s25, are not normally very relvant.

WIth your pension, as others have said, the relvance is what the pension pot is worth now, not what you may get when you retire in the future.  Your ex won't get a share of the pension you weill/may build up between now and when you retire, only of whathas been built up up until now (and the ourts can split that further to excluse the propertion built up prior to the marriage/ relationship in cases where people married later in life)