Question on gifts / inheritance

MarcoM

Hello,

I would like to know what people's experience is of how inheritances and gifts received over the course of a marriage have been split in their settlement.

Example A) the house has been bought 50% with an inheritance received by one partner. Am I correct in saying that as the house is in both names then the funds that help buy it are split in a settlement?

Example inheritance and or gift received by one of the partners and kept in said partners name. This is less likely to be shared in a settlement but could still be part of the pot to be shared,

Example C) inheritance and or gift received by one of the partners and part of ot if held under the other partner's name (i.e. for tax purposes). The fact this is in the other partner's name at the time of divorce trumps up the fact that it was received by the other partner. Nevertheless, it will still go in the shared pot as point b above.

These are just my wild guesses as I know nothing of the law.

Hearing your experiences uf such situations would be interesting.

Thanks

elsien

Depends on the timing of the inheritance and the length of the marriage, I believe.

Relative - all assets regardless of whose name they were in or whether acquired before a long marriage were split as part of the divorce settlement but an inheritance that came just before separation was excluded. 

MarcoM

elsien said:

Depends on the timing of the inheritance and the length of the marriage, I believe.

Relative - all assets regardless of whose name they were in or whether acquired before a long marriage were split as part of the divorce settlement but an inheritance that came just before separation was excluded. 

Hi,

With your relative was it decided in court or amicably?

elsien

Decided in court. The ex refused to take part in mediation so there wasn't any other option. Cost an arm and two legs and is best avoided if at all possible. 

MarcoM

elsien said:

Decided in court. The ex refused to take part in mediation so there wasn't any other option. Cost an arm and two legs and is best avoided if at all possible. 

broadly in terms of the whole pot, what percentage did your relative get?

caprikid1

Far too little information for anyone to even consider a decent reply.

Amount of money involved ?, length of marriage at what point was the inheritance received etc. Are there children involved ? Age of Children, both working ? Incomes , Pensions ?

As has already been suggested avoid court at all costs , try and do this amicably if it is less than £50K , if we are talking hundreds of thousands then you need to get proper legal advice.

In essence the court will always start at a 50/50 split on the pot at the end of the marriage and will not distinguish where it came from. It will then start to look at all the factors IE Children income, pensions.....

You can never look at one item in the POT and come to a conclusion as to how the courts will split it, neither can you look at another inheritance and how that was split.

MarcoM

caprikid1 said:

Far too little information for anyone to even consider a decent reply.

Amount of money involved ?, length of marriage at what point was the inheritance received etc. Are there children involved ? Age of Children, both working ? Incomes , Pensions ?

As has already been suggested avoid court at all costs , try and do this amicably if it is less than £50K , if we are talking hundreds of thousands then you need to get proper legal advice.

In essence the court will always start at a 50/50 split on the pot at the end of the marriage and will not distinguish where it came from. It will then start to look at all the factors IE Children income, pensions.....

You can never look at one item in the POT and come to a conclusion as to how the courts will split it, neither can you look at another inheritance and how that was split.

i take your point and legal advice will be sought. I was just asking what people's experiences were

In your opinion, where one partner has worked part time (hence lower wage) and the other full time are the courts likely to award more for the part timer looking at the future or would they look at it from the point of view of whom has worked longer?
No children.

caprikid1

MarcoM said:

caprikid1 said:

Far too little information for anyone to even consider a decent reply.

Amount of money involved ?, length of marriage at what point was the inheritance received etc. Are there children involved ? Age of Children, both working ? Incomes , Pensions ?

As has already been suggested avoid court at all costs , try and do this amicably if it is less than £50K , if we are talking hundreds of thousands then you need to get proper legal advice.

In essence the court will always start at a 50/50 split on the pot at the end of the marriage and will not distinguish where it came from. It will then start to look at all the factors IE Children income, pensions.....

You can never look at one item in the POT and come to a conclusion as to how the courts will split it, neither can you look at another inheritance and how that was split.

i take your point and legal advice will be sought. I was just asking what people's experiences were

In your opinion, where one partner has worked part time (hence lower wage) and the other full time are the courts likely to award more for the part timer looking at the future or would they look at it from the point of view of whom has worked longer?
No children.

In the absence of children and with fairly limited knowledge I would really suggest you or your friend have an hour with a specialist solicitor to understand what is realistic.

Even the above has so much information missing, even with it I would not like to hesitate a guess. It might make no difference.

Starting points though.
Age of people
Length of marriage
Earnings ability IE full time, 
Size of Estate
Size of pension pot

I went through a very amicable divorce which had various external cash injections throughout the marriage and we just split it all 50/50, she came out with double the cash injections from her side so hardly missed out. Marriage was c18 years.

If the pot is big enough I am not sure any of the above matters.

tightauldgit

generally with inheritances and gifts they are going to become part of the marital pot if they've been used as part of the marital finances or unless there is a justification to exclude them. 

If they are very recent or received after the split that might be a reason not to include them otherwise I think you would have to have fairly exceptional circumstances to exclude them

TBagpuss

The overriding aim is to be faor to both of you, and in most caesd courts will priortise meeting the parties needs which may mean all assets, including any inheritance, has to be taken into account.

If there is enough for the paties needs to be met without the inheritance then generally speaking, if the inheritance has been intermingled with the joint asets - e.g. used to reduce the joint mortgage, paid into a joint account and mxed with savings, or used to buy a family car, then it is taken into account like eveything else.

If it has always been kept entirely separate and easily identifiable - e.g. if it is money in a separate account, shares, or if the beneficiary invested the money in a BTL property held in their sole name, then they may be able to argue that they inheritance should not be shared but should be kept by the persn who inherited it. Equally, if someone hasan inheritance after the separation then it's likely that they can argue it should not be shared.

However, even in those caes, the fact that the beneficiary has the inheritaed assets may have an impace on what their needs are compared with waht they would have been had they not had it, so it can be indirectly relvant. 

It is veru much down to the facts of the specifc cae so you need to talk to a solicitor who has all of the information and finacial disclosure. 

MarcoM

TBagpuss said:

The overriding aim is to be faor to both of you, and in most caesd courts will priortise meeting the parties needs which may mean all assets, including any inheritance, has to be taken into account.

If there is enough for the paties needs to be met without the inheritance then generally speaking, if the inheritance has been intermingled with the joint asets - e.g. used to reduce the joint mortgage, paid into a joint account and mxed with savings, or used to buy a family car, then it is taken into account like eveything else.

If it has always been kept entirely separate and easily identifiable - e.g. if it is money in a separate account, shares, or if the beneficiary invested the money in a BTL property held in their sole name, then they may be able to argue that they inheritance should not be shared but should be kept by the persn who inherited it. Equally, if someone hasan inheritance after the separation then it's likely that they can argue it should not be shared.

However, even in those caes, the fact that the beneficiary has the inheritaed assets may have an impace on what their needs are compared with waht they would have been had they not had it, so it can be indirectly relvant. 

It is veru much down to the facts of the specifc cae so you need to talk to a solicitor who has all of the information and finacial disclosure. 

what do you think of inherited assets which have been put in the other person's name for tax purposes?