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
    • 154Posts
    • 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 3
    • Type 45
    • By Type 45 15th Jan 20, 3:06 PM
    • 154 Posts
    • 22 Thanks
    Type 45
    Surely you(r friend) have discussed these details?
    Originally posted by Pollycat
    It's almost certainly going to be just the woman's name on the deeds. But with some sort of agreement that the man has a stake in the marital house. That's as far as they've discussed at this point. All bills will be shared once they move in.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 15th Jan 20, 3:41 PM
    • 10,426 Posts
    • 12,611 Thanks
    Comms69
    It's almost certainly going to be just the woman's name on the deeds. But with some sort of agreement that the man has a stake in the marital house. That's as far as they've discussed at this point. All bills will be shared once they move in.
    Originally posted by Type 45
    If theyre married then it's pointless having such an agreement.

    I really dont see what's so complicated by this situation.
    • Accountant_Kerry
    • By Accountant_Kerry 15th Jan 20, 5:47 PM
    • 446 Posts
    • 629 Thanks
    Accountant_Kerry
    If theyre married then it's pointless having such an agreement.

    I really dont see what's so complicated by this situation.
    Originally posted by Comms69
    Totally agree, you cant override the law, law dictates you are in effect pooling assets whether you like it or not, if a short marriage then in divorce the aim is to put you back where you started so to speak a longer marriage is based on kids, lifestyle, fair etc etc.

    If you dont want to share all your assets dont get married, its pretty simple
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 16th Jan 20, 11:41 AM
    • 7,409 Posts
    • 11,880 Thanks
    Malthusian
    I really dont see what's so complicated by this situation.
    Originally posted by Comms69
    They want to get married but they don't want to get married. (It's mostly the future wife who doesn't want to be a wife, by the sound of it.) This can be achieved by signing magic pieces of paper. Anyone who says it won't work is wrong because they haven't understood that their magic piece of paper is magic.

    The OP's question in post #1 has been comprehensively answered but it turns out they still aren't interested in what the answer is.
    • Type 45
    • By Type 45 17th Jan 20, 10:51 AM
    • 154 Posts
    • 22 Thanks
    Type 45
    They want to get married but they don't want to get married. (It's mostly the future wife who doesn't want to be a wife, by the sound of it.) This can be achieved by signing magic pieces of paper. Anyone who says it won't work is wrong because they haven't understood that their magic piece of paper is magic.

    The OP's question in post #1 has been comprehensively answered but it turns out they still aren't interested in what the answer is.
    Originally posted by Malthusian

    Yes I think it has. If there's a marriage then it's a shared marital property. And a pre-nup stating otherwise can be contested.

    What if they don't get married though. The woman buys the house herself but they share the bills and upkeep? I am guessing that there would be a 'beneficial interest' claim by the man, but that his percentage stake would be a matter for the court?
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 17th Jan 20, 2:11 PM
    • 10,426 Posts
    • 12,611 Thanks
    Comms69
    Yes I think it has. If there's a marriage then it's a shared marital property. And a pre-nup stating otherwise can be contested.

    What if they don't get married though. The woman buys the house herself but they share the bills and upkeep? I am guessing that there would be a 'beneficial interest' claim by the man, but that his percentage stake would be a matter for the court?
    Originally posted by Type 45
    As long as there is no investment in the property - paying for mortgage, repairs or upgrades, there is no beneficial interest - basically.
    • Type 45
    • By Type 45 27th Jan 20, 10:41 PM
    • 154 Posts
    • 22 Thanks
    Type 45
    The marriage in question will indeed take place this spring. And a pre-nup has been suggested by the lady along these lines:

    a. The lady will retain existing property and investments in her sole name free from any claim by the man.
    b. The man will retain existing property and investments in his sole name free from any claim by the lady.
    c. The lady is to purchase accommodation in her sole name where the two of them will live and that, upon any potential future separation then they will each benefit by 50% from any increase in value to that property from the date of the marriage until any date of separation.
    d. The lady and man will each contribute towards the outgoings upon that property to be purchased by the lady.

    It is understood that there may be a joint account set up in the names of the man and lady to facilitate bills/utility payments at the property where they will be living but that, in all other respects, they will retain separate accounts and investments.





    So there you have it. If they separate, the man will not get half the house. Rather he will get half the amount the house has risen in value during the course of the marriage. Does that seem fair?
    • Pollycat
    • By Pollycat 27th Jan 20, 10:45 PM
    • 24,612 Posts
    • 66,109 Thanks
    Pollycat
    Pre nups arenít legally enforceable in the UK.
    Originally posted by onwards&upwards
    Have the lady and the man taken this ^^^^ comment into account?
    • LilElvis
    • By LilElvis 27th Jan 20, 11:14 PM
    • 4,711 Posts
    • 12,112 Thanks
    LilElvis
    Does that seem fair?
    Originally posted by Type 45
    Neither your opinion, or that of a bunch of strangers on the internet, matter. It sounds as though they have both taken independent legal advice and have come to a mutually agreed understanding as to what would happen to their assets in the event of their marriage failing. How much weight would be given by a court in the event of a disagreement regarding the asset split is something which hopefully won't occur, but of which they should have been made aware.
    • 74jax
    • By 74jax 28th Jan 20, 7:41 AM
    • 5,311 Posts
    • 7,413 Thanks
    74jax
    The marriage in question will indeed take place this spring. And a pre-nup has been suggested by the lady along these lines:

    a. The lady will retain existing property and investments in her sole name free from any claim by the man.
    b. The man will retain existing property and investments in his sole name free from any claim by the lady.
    c. The lady is to purchase accommodation in her sole name where the two of them will live and that, upon any potential future separation then they will each benefit by 50% from any increase in value to that property from the date of the marriage until any date of separation.
    d. The lady and man will each contribute towards the outgoings upon that property to be purchased by the lady.

    It is understood that there may be a joint account set up in the names of the man and lady to facilitate bills/utility payments at the property where they will be living but that, in all other respects, they will retain separate accounts and investments.





    So there you have it. If they separate, the man will not get half the house. Rather he will get half the amount the house has risen in value during the course of the marriage. Does that seem fair?
    Originally posted by Type 45
    I am in the UK and I'm one of the few on here with a prenup. At the time I posted on here so if you search you'll find a couple of threads.

    I married my husband who had considerable more than me. He wanted a prenup, I didn't even give it a thought and wasn't fussed so didn't mind.

    What you have had drawn up was not what was recommended to us. Granted it was 7 years ago now so may have changed.

    Ours set out what we wished would happen in 5 years if we split. I'm not sure you can set one 'forever'.

    We added certain clauses and it was signed witnessed logged etc - but we both new it wasn't binding. It was hopefully something a judge would follow if needed. In this scenario it seems both feel its done, it will be followed etc.

    Your comment about 'there you are, if they separate the man will not get half the house' is nonsense. No one knows. And that piece of non legally binding paper might not be followed to the letter. Until they are legally binding you can not 100% know. This will have all been explained to you when drawn up, but I would definately have them look again at what you have copied (but of course you might have not copied it all).
    Forty and fabulous, well that's what my cards say....
    • Accountant_Kerry
    • By Accountant_Kerry 28th Jan 20, 9:49 AM
    • 446 Posts
    • 629 Thanks
    Accountant_Kerry
    She sounds like a catch
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 28th Jan 20, 10:18 AM
    • 7,409 Posts
    • 11,880 Thanks
    Malthusian
    So there you have it. If they separate, the man will not get half the house. Rather he will get half the amount the house has risen in value during the course of the marriage. Does that seem fair?
    Originally posted by Type 45
    If they divorce, it goes to court and it is not a short marriage, the starting point will be a 50 / 50 split (before taking into account children etc). He may choose to only take half the rise in the value of the house but he will be entitled to take other assets in lieu of the rest of his 50%. So why should anyone care?
    • Accountant_Kerry
    • By Accountant_Kerry 28th Jan 20, 10:21 AM
    • 446 Posts
    • 629 Thanks
    Accountant_Kerry
    The marriage in question will indeed take place this spring. And a pre-nup has been suggested by the lady along these lines:

    a. The lady will retain existing property and investments in her sole name free from any claim by the man.
    b. The man will retain existing property and investments in his sole name free from any claim by the lady.
    c. The lady is to purchase accommodation in her sole name where the two of them will live and that, upon any potential future separation then they will each benefit by 50% from any increase in value to that property from the date of the marriage until any date of separation.
    d. The lady and man will each contribute towards the outgoings upon that property to be purchased by the lady.

    It is understood that there may be a joint account set up in the names of the man and lady to facilitate bills/utility payments at the property where they will be living but that, in all other respects, they will retain separate accounts and investments.





    So there you have it. If they separate, the man will not get half the house. Rather he will get half the amount the house has risen in value during the course of the marriage. Does that seem fair?
    Originally posted by Type 45
    Why are they getting married? I cant see how such a defined level of inequality can lead to a successful marriage
    Last edited by Accountant_Kerry; Today at 10:26 AM.
    • kangoora
    • By kangoora 28th Jan 20, 10:28 AM
    • 935 Posts
    • 929 Thanks
    kangoora
    Maybe at the wedding they should change "with all my worldly goods I thee endow" to "with all my worldly goods being distributed in accordance with the pre-nuptial agreement between the lady and the man signed, dated and properly witnessed on 15th July 2020 - and especially being that I own the house and he is only going to get 50% of the increase in the equity of the house if he turns out to be a cheating b@astard"

    Bit of a mouthful though
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

2,232Posts Today

8,182Users online

Martin's Twitter