Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Type 45
    • By Type 45 30th Dec 19, 8:52 PM
    • 153Posts
    • 22Thanks
    Type 45
    Entitled to a share of marital home?
    • #1
    • 30th Dec 19, 8:52 PM
    Entitled to a share of marital home? 30th Dec 19 at 8:52 PM
    I am wondering please if anyone knows what the rights would be in the following scenario:

    - A man and woman, in their early 40s, are to wed
    - They are expecting a child (neither has children yet)
    - They are buying a house together to move into as a family
    - The woman is from a wealthy family and will purchase the new house without the man's financial input
    - Both will contribute to bills and upkeep of the house in a shared and equal manner
    - it's unknown as yet as to whether both names are on the deeds, or just the woman's name
    - it's also unknown as yet as to whether there is a mortgage and if so whose name the mortgage is in
    - the couple will sign a pre-nup ensuring that should they divorce then they leave the relationship with what they came in with (as mentioned, the woman has family wealth and inheritence due in the future)

    Question: in the above scenario, if the couple were to divorce, would the man be entitled to a share of the house? Would the woman have to buy the man's share (assuming he has a share at all)?
Page 2
    • Type 45
    • By Type 45 14th Jan 20, 4:07 PM
    • 153 Posts
    • 22 Thanks
    Type 45
    Not well off enough to consult a professional....
    Originally posted by -taff
    Professionals frequent this forum. Or at least they used to. An inexplicable dumbing down has stricken this forum of late.
    • thorsoak
    • By thorsoak 14th Jan 20, 4:21 PM
    • 5,989 Posts
    • 28,066 Thanks
    thorsoak
    Your "friend" would appear to be considering marriage as a way to a meal ticket. However, if the marriage were to fail within five years, it would be considered as a short relationship and the financial positions would revert to those as to when they married.
    • BrassicWoman
    • By BrassicWoman 14th Jan 20, 4:26 PM
    • 2,288 Posts
    • 8,759 Thanks
    BrassicWoman
    Please don't ruin the thread, Miss Marple.

    Sometimes when I ask for advice on here it isn't for my own benefit but for those I am trying to help. Does that need to be spelled out...
    Originally posted by Type 45
    I'm sure they can type themselves. odd that the situations for three people are all so similar!
    May 19 grocery challenge £100.79/ £200
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 14th Jan 20, 4:26 PM
    • 10,424 Posts
    • 12,607 Thanks
    Comms69
    Half the house is the story as I remember it. A story told to me almost 5 years ago.

    But my overall point remains. The person above who thinks that not marrying solves the problem of losing a share of your own property is mistaken.
    Originally posted by Type 45
    That isnt how i read it, but rather that marrying IS sharing your property.

    there are of course other factors to take into account.

    Unless he basically rebuilt the house from scratch theres no way he got half. Not a chance.
    • BrassicWoman
    • By BrassicWoman 14th Jan 20, 4:28 PM
    • 2,288 Posts
    • 8,759 Thanks
    BrassicWoman
    Not true. An ex-colleague of mine owned a house. Her partner moved in. They never married. But when they split up he got half the house. He apparently had done up the house in some way and so convinced the court that he was under the impression that he shared the house with her.

    So your idea that not marrying is a silver bullet to keeping your possessions would seem to be misguided.
    Originally posted by Type 45
    mitigate and eradicate don't mean the same
    May 19 grocery challenge £100.79/ £200
    • LilElvis
    • By LilElvis 14th Jan 20, 4:50 PM
    • 4,707 Posts
    • 12,104 Thanks
    LilElvis
    Professionals frequent this forum. Or at least they used to. An inexplicable dumbing down has stricken this forum of late.
    Originally posted by Type 45
    And how would you know who the "professionals" are? You wouldn't.

    If I was in a relationship, with a child on the way and substantial assets I would bee seeking paid for professional advice rather than relying on an unqualified individual who, in turn, was looking for answers from a bunch of unknown strangers in the internet. You're really not helping anyone.
    • Pollycat
    • By Pollycat 14th Jan 20, 5:19 PM
    • 24,590 Posts
    • 66,082 Thanks
    Pollycat
    And how would you know who the "professionals" are? You wouldn't.

    If I was in a relationship, with a child on the way and substantial assets I would bee seeking paid for professional advice rather than relying on an unqualified individual who, in turn, was looking for answers from a bunch of unknown strangers in the internet. You're really not helping anyone.
    Originally posted by LilElvis
    And with gaps in the information known...
    • gettingtheresometime
    • By gettingtheresometime 14th Jan 20, 8:42 PM
    • 5,096 Posts
    • 12,669 Thanks
    gettingtheresometime
    Please don't ruin the thread, Miss Marple.

    Sometimes when I ask for advice on here it isn't for my own benefit but for those I am trying to help. Does that need to be spelled out...
    Originally posted by Type 45
    Well yes if the scenarios are contradictory
    Lloyds OD / Natwest OD / PO CC / Wescott / Argos Card / JD Williams cleared thanks to the 1 debt v 100 day challenge
    • Type 45
    • By Type 45 15th Jan 20, 12:27 AM
    • 153 Posts
    • 22 Thanks
    Type 45
    That isnt how i read it, but rather that marrying IS sharing your property.

    there are of course other factors to take into account.

    Unless he basically rebuilt the house from scratch theres no way he got half. Not a chance.
    Originally posted by Comms69

    It doesn't matter if it was 50% or 10%. The point remains that not getting married doesn't protect your house from a partner.
    • Type 45
    • By Type 45 15th Jan 20, 12:29 AM
    • 153 Posts
    • 22 Thanks
    Type 45
    Your "friend" would appear to be considering marriage as a way to a meal ticket. However, if the marriage were to fail within five years, it would be considered as a short relationship and the financial positions would revert to those as to when they married.
    Originally posted by thorsoak
    Perhaps. But the marital home is another matter. That's the issue this thread is all about.
    • elsien
    • By elsien 15th Jan 20, 12:38 AM
    • 20,574 Posts
    • 52,499 Thanks
    elsien
    And with gaps in the information known...
    Originally posted by Pollycat
    ĎThere are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know."
    All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.

    Pedant alert - it's could have, not could of.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 15th Jan 20, 6:41 AM
    • 10,424 Posts
    • 12,607 Thanks
    Comms69
    It doesn't matter if it was 50% or 10%. The point remains that not getting married doesn't protect your house from a partner.
    Originally posted by Type 45
    No but getting married is agreeing in law to share all property and assets...
    • jackieblack
    • By jackieblack 15th Jan 20, 7:08 AM
    • 9,074 Posts
    • 15,097 Thanks
    jackieblack
    if the marriage were to fail within five years, it would be considered as a short relationship and the financial positions would revert to those as to when they married.
    Originally posted by thorsoak
    Not necessarily, when there is a child of the marriage

    If they divorce the court would prioritise the child’s welfare.
    2.22kWp Solar PV system installed Oct 2010, Fronius IG20 Inverter,
    south facing (-5 deg), 30 degree pitch, no shading

    Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur

    MFW #4 2018 £866.89 OPd, 2019 £1322.33 (inc £750 offset)
    2020 YTD £50, Jan £50


    Everything will be alright in the end so, if itís not yet alright, it means itís not yet the end
    • Pollycat
    • By Pollycat 15th Jan 20, 8:32 AM
    • 24,590 Posts
    • 66,082 Thanks
    Pollycat
    ‘There are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know."
    Originally posted by elsien
    I'm familiar with the saying.
    I'm taking about the things that the OP doesn't know in this specific case:
    Maybe the OP should come back and ask again when the 'unknowns' are known.
    Also factoring in the response re pre-nups.
    Originally posted by Pollycat
    The OP doesn't know whose name(s) are on the house deeds.
    The OP doesn't know if there is a mortgage and if there is, whose name(s) it is in.

    I don't understand why the OP is asking for advice when this information is unknown to him/her.
    If someone has asked the OP to post on here for advice on their behalf, I'm sure they would have provided this information.
    Or the OP would have asked for this information before posting.
    Last edited by Pollycat; 15-01-2020 at 8:41 AM.
    • Type 45
    • By Type 45 15th Jan 20, 9:10 AM
    • 153 Posts
    • 22 Thanks
    Type 45
    No but getting married is agreeing in law to share all property and assets...
    Originally posted by Comms69
    Whilst married, yes. But they can be divided up again with a pre-nup.
    • Type 45
    • By Type 45 15th Jan 20, 9:16 AM
    • 153 Posts
    • 22 Thanks
    Type 45
    I'm familiar with the saying.
    I'm taking about the things that the OP doesn't know in this specific case:

    The OP doesn't know whose name(s) are on the house deeds.
    The OP doesn't know if there is a mortgage and if there is, whose name(s) it is in.

    I don't understand why the OP is asking for advice when this information is unknown to him/her.
    If someone has asked the OP to post on here for advice on their behalf, I'm sure they would have provided this information.
    Or the OP would have asked for this information before posting.
    Originally posted by Pollycat

    The marital home has not yet been purchased. The shopping for the house has only just begun.

    When the house is purchased it will likely be paid for by just the woman (with the help of her mother). But the ongoing bills once they move in will be paid for by both of the couple.

    It's therefore unknown at this stage who's name is on the deeds and whether the man would have any claim to the property. This is the point of the thread.
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 15th Jan 20, 9:19 AM
    • 14,366 Posts
    • 11,495 Thanks
    unholyangel
    It doesn't matter if it was 50% or 10%. The point remains that not getting married doesn't protect your house from a partner.
    Originally posted by Type 45
    Pretty sure I've explained before on a previous post of yours that even a non-partner can make a beneficial interest claim (it has nothing to do with them being your partner) and this is why its always wise to have an agreement stating what exactly they are paying for and making clear they are not gaining an interest.

    That way should they (whether it be partner, friend or whatever) try to later claim an interest, it can be easily shown there was no intention for them to gain an interest.
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 15th Jan 20, 10:05 AM
    • 10,424 Posts
    • 12,607 Thanks
    Comms69
    Whilst married, yes. But they can be divided up again with a pre-nup.
    Originally posted by Type 45


    No a pre-nup is not legally binding
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 15th Jan 20, 10:42 AM
    • 7,391 Posts
    • 11,861 Thanks
    Malthusian
    It doesn't matter if it was 50% or 10%.
    Originally posted by Type 45
    If you (or your friend) are rich enough that 40% of a house is not significant in the grand scheme of your finances then you can clearly afford some paid-for professional advice.

    You said that an unmarried partner got 50% of a house just because they'd "done up the house in some way". Comms disputed this. You doubled down by saying it happened twice. Now you're attempting a very inept reverse ferret by saying it was actually 10% but it doesn't matter. (Once or both times?)

    If you have a beneficial interest of 10% in a property and marry the other owner, you will, assuming it's not a short marriage, change that interest from 10% to 50% as the default position. You asserted that it is "not true" that "co-habitation doesn't have anywhere near the same level of risk" (Accountant_Kerry) which is incorrect. In the scenario you described co-habitation risks "losing" 10% of the house and marriage risks losing 50%. This is a very different level of risk.
    • Pollycat
    • By Pollycat 15th Jan 20, 10:49 AM
    • 24,590 Posts
    • 66,082 Thanks
    Pollycat
    The marital home has not yet been purchased. The shopping for the house has only just begun.

    When the house is purchased it will likely be paid for by just the woman (with the help of her mother). But the ongoing bills once they move in will be paid for by both of the couple.

    It's therefore unknown at this stage who's name is on the deeds and whether the man would have any claim to the property. This is the point of the thread.
    Originally posted by Type 45
    Surely you(r friend) have discussed these details?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

664Posts Today

6,653Users online

Martin's Twitter