Question on gifts / inheritance

pickledonionspaceraider

God I hate these types of questions but am going to tell you what I think haha

Despite what the law says - I think it is morally reprehensible to grasp at someone's inheritance upon divorce. 

TBagpuss

MarcoM said:

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?

Well, my post was about the approach a court takes. Neither my, or your, personal opinion would be particualrly relevant.

That said, I think in that scenario you might find yourslef on the horns of an uncomfortable dilemma - generallany tax savings would be on the basis that the money genuinely belonged to the person whose names it is in, so if you genuinely gave it to them and got the tax benefit you are likelyto struggle to un-gift it when it's no longer convenient to you! I don't know whether or in waht situations it would cross in to tax fraud territory but I doubt a judge would look very kindly on it!

tightauldgit

MarcoM said:

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?

I think you would be REALLY struggling to convince a judge that the assets were only ever yours and not part of the marital pot if you signed them over to your spouse. Equally just being in their name doesn't make them theirs though.

tightauldgit

pickledonionspaceraider said:

God I hate these types of questions but am going to tell you what I think haha

Despite what the law says - I think it is morally reprehensible to grasp at someone's inheritance upon divorce. 

Really depends on the situation but it's no more morally reprehensible that grasping at someone's salary or savings is it?

seven-day-weekend

tightauldgit said:

pickledonionspaceraider said:

God I hate these types of questions but am going to tell you what I think haha

Despite what the law says - I think it is morally reprehensible to grasp at someone's inheritance upon divorce. 

Really depends on the situation but it's no more morally reprehensible that grasping at someone's salary or savings is it?

I agree with pickledonionspaceraider - yes it is more morally reprehensible because it was someone's dying wish that the particular person should inherit.  However, what the law  says is what matters in reality.  And of course the person who has inherited might chose to use their inheritance as a marital asset.

silvercar

tightauldgit said:

pickledonionspaceraider said:

God I hate these types of questions but am going to tell you what I think haha

Despite what the law says - I think it is morally reprehensible to grasp at someone's inheritance upon divorce. 

Really depends on the situation but it's no more morally reprehensible that grasping at someone's salary or savings is it?

It can be. Presumably somewhere along the line there was an acceptance that one person would earn less, to support the family home life or for some other reason.

To make a grab for the inheritance could suggest hanging on to the marriage precisely for that reason.