First marriage, legal entitlement?

jedijoe

Hello.  

I split from my first husband in 1980, we had a mortgage free house together.  He sold this in 1983 for £70,000 and then went on to buy another house mortgage free. I never saw a penny. 

I married by second husband in 1984, we split in 2005 though are still technically married.  We have no savings or home due to severe financial losses made during our time together. Am I entitled to any form of recompense from my first husband regarding the house we both owned?

I understand a long time has gone by and things should have been handled better but times were different and one could somewhat start again, which is an impossibility today with mortgage costs etc.

Many thanks.

DE_612183

ok, were your name of the deeds of the house he sold - either they were not, or you agreed to the sale and the proceeds going to him.

When you divorced - did you get a financial statement of the split?

More info is required to give you a better idea, but my first thoughts are that 40 years is not something you could go back to now.

SVaz

Who owned this mortgage free house?
Sounds like he either inherited or was much older?
Was it a short marriage with No children?
It sounds like even if you should have been entitled to something, it’s far too late now to do anything about it. 

jedijoe

It was a 10 year marriage. Property was much, much cheaper back then. It cost £19,000 with both our names on the deed. There was no children from our time together.  There was absolutley no financial split, 100% to him. Thank you for your input.

DullGreyGuy

Was there a clean break/consent order or any form of financial order with your first divorce?

saveallmymoney

DullGreyGuy said:

Was there a clean break/consent order or any form of financial order with your first divorce?

Doesn't matter as she has remarried.

Exodi

saveallmymoney said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Was there a clean break/consent order or any form of financial order with your first divorce?

Doesn't matter as she has remarried.

I think this is half true. My understanding is that you are prevented from applying for any financial orders if you remarry, but this is different to if there was already a financial order in place before the remarriage, that has simply not been adhered to.

For example, if the court had approved a consent order that stipulated that the ex would provide the OP half the proceeds from the house... and he just didn't.

If the OP and their ex 'never got around' to reaching a financial settlement, they can not do it now they have re-married.

(I may be wrong!).

The OP would need to find the existing order as you can't expect the ex to be accommodating.

And there's also the moral aspect of chasing someone for money 40+ years later which I won't comment on.

jedijoe

I think the moral aspect is more leaving an abusive relationship and wanting to run but now releasing many, many years later that the one sided aspect to the split has ended up with nothing to give to grandchildren during later years.

lincroft1710

The grandchildren will just have to accept granny is not in a position to give them anything. The time to have made a claim was when you split 44 years ago.

Savvy_Sue

jedijoe said:

I think the moral aspect is more leaving an abusive relationship and wanting to run but now releasing many, many years later that the one sided aspect to the split has ended up with nothing to give to grandchildren during later years.

And it may well be that trying to get half the value of the house then would have caused additional trauma, and it may be worth remembering that you can't put a price on peace of mind! 

Plus, if you were successful in getting that money now (and it doesn't sound very likely), then it would become part of your assets. That might make divorce look like an attractive option to your current separated husband. 

It may be worth considering finalising the separation in divorce while there's not much to argue about? 

Hoenir

jedijoe said:

I think the moral aspect is more leaving an abusive relationship and wanting to run but now releasing many, many years later that the one sided aspect to the split has ended up with nothing to give to grandchildren during later years.

Your first husband had nothing to do with the "financial losses" you incurred with your second husband though.