Pls arbitrate in a row with DH as to who 'owns' our company.. (long - sorry..)

[howdidthishappenthen]

Before we were married both my husband and I worked - he was self employed, and I employed. I was originally the higher earner, then for 6 months or so whilst we were dating I subsidized him (he lived rent and bills free in my house) whilst he set up his company. The company then grew massively, and we moved into a bigger house, this time him subsidizing me (his bigger income now paying more of the bills and refurb costs).

Then we married in 2006, I fell pregnant straight away, and after a lot of rows with my employer, left quickly (and ended up winning a fortune in a discrimination case, but that?s another story) and joined my husband working in the company he?d set up.

One of the things we immediately did was set up (as a separate company) a new division offering other services to his existing clients. We used an ?off the shelf? company he already owned as the vehicle for this. The business idea for this company was his. I did the financial forecasts, wrote the T&Cs and the sales plan, and employed and trained the staff that set it up.
I worked in our 2nd company for 6 months until I had the baby, then took 9 months maternity leave before coming back in late 2008. I have since run this company on a day to day basis with little involvement from my husband (he runs the other ventures we have, so he contributes equally financially, just via a different route).

Anyway (FINALLY she reaches the point..) we have an ongoing point of tension between us that because he ?owns? the Companies House entity and he had the original idea to sell these services, he always wants to be known as ?Founder and Managing Director?; I get instead to be an employee (any title I want, but just an employee)

This grates me enormously ? I feel that as I was in on day 1, I did the legwork to get the company up and running, I have run it (or at least 80% ish) on a day to day basis for 3 years of the 3.5 years it has been in existence, and as a married couple we theoretically own everything together (even if individual assets are recorded in separate names) it?s at least as much mine as his. He says that on paper it?s his, the idea was his, so that?s the way it is and why do I want to pretend otherwise as it would be a lie?

Am I being petty? Does it really matter? I just HATE that whevever the subject comes up publically as to who is the ?boss? in the company, he NEEDS it to be him. I employ the staff, I sign up new clients, I do the banking and finances, I deal with subcontractors. In my mind, we should either both be known as Directors, or if we're going to bloody well insist on their begin only one, the MD should be me.

He thinks I'm really annoying for being bothered about job titles etc when we all share the money anyway and we aren't breaking up (on the contrary, we're very happy together), so what does it matter? ARGHHHHHH. Am I making a big deal about nothing? And if so why am I seething every time it comes up?

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

You're not making a big deal about nothing. This is presumably one of the reasons why so much wealth is held by men. Having the original idea does not mean that he has to be the ONLY owner of the company, many companies have co-owners. It's not about trying to denigrate his role, but about him trying to lower you to the level of an employee. Rather than him asking why it's important for you to be co-owner, ask him why it's so important to him that you don't have that status.

And also, if he's the Managing Director how about you leave him to it for a week or two? It's hardly like you'll be missed...

[SarkyLady]

Company ownership is not about who does the actual day-to-day work, or necessairly about how had the initial idea. It is about who put up the money that was needed to set up the business and took the financial risk associated with setting up the business.

Have you always been paid an appropriate wage for the hours that you have spent working on the business? If not then this would suggest that you were not a 'mere employee'. Owner often draw minimal/no wages in the early days in the expectation that they will reap the benefits later on. Employees are paid appropriatesly for their time and take no financial risk.

[howdidthishappenthen]

We were married when we set up the company, so the money that went in was ours, and as neither of us worked elsewhere, and this was our sole source of income, the risk was also jointly ours.

We both take out only the money that we need, and all money taken out is for our joint use and we both have equal access to it and control over it.

But this post isn't really to do with the way a court would determine ownership if we were divorcing and asking for a division of assets (I am v confident I could prove my point in those circs); it's about power dynamics in the relationship. He 'needs' his name on the door for our biggest sole asset. That's not a fair reflection of what's happens in our working lives and it bothers me to just 'let it be' to salve his ego.

[SarkyLady]

But I think you need to think of it in a 'court-like' manner as that is the only way that you will persuade him that he is wrong.

I definitely would not let this go.

There are two separate issues here, which I think you should deal with in turn.
First - who owns the company? This is essentially a historical question about what happened in the early days of the company. I can't see how he can claim that you contribution has been that of an employee. (for the reasons I say above)
Second - current job titles. This is a current question. Draw up some desciptions of the roles that are up for grabs and work through on a checklist manner who actually does this work.

[Butterbur]

Company ownership is actually about who owns the shares of the company, not who put up the money. Owning them 50:50 is usually the most tax effective for most husband and wife companies.

Directorship is about the day to day running of the company. Being a Director is a legal status, and to become one, you need to register as such with Companies House, not just assume the title.

I think you should be a Director of both companies, and so should your husband, because otherwise management of the company would be difficult if you or your husband died or became unexpectedly incapacitated.

It seems only fair that you should be the MD of the one that you run, and he should be the MD of the original one.

"He thinks I'm really annoying for being bothered about job titles..." It's a shame he can't see the irony of this statement under the circumstances.

I'm not sure how this issue would afffect financial settlement in the event of a divorce, but it looks to me as if he could sack you, and conceal his own assets and income in the company, so that you could come off very much the worst.

You need to keep on at him.

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

Good point from dittany. What about writing a list of your contributions (including all this shared risk, shared contribution, no wages stuff) and then asking him what if e.g. a male friend of his had had this role in the founding of the company he would consider that friend's role to be?

Sarky - agree re: court-like manner.

[howdidthishappenthen]

In the back of my mind I?m aware of the risks if we broke up, but this is more to do with fairness in the current relationship. Whenever the discussion comes up, he can?t see why, with the sole exception of secretly planning a divorce (which I genuinely really am not ? it?s not a factor in this), it makes any practical difference to me to change the status quo. i.e I have all the control I want now, and all the access to the money ? why do I need to niggle at him about putting my name on the company books. Why does this matter to me, when I?m not planning on a divorce?

But it DOES. Just the same as it matters to HIM to be the sole owner even though he?s not planning on denying me my share. It just seems to me fair to set the record straight and recognize our joint input. But I can?t seem to make him see this . It?s really bothering me..

[howdidthishappenthen]

If it were a male friend and work colleague, and that friend hadn't been ultra-aggressive about getting proper share allocation on day 1, he would def not give him shares now. If you don't do your negotiating right on day 1, tough titties to try and come back and do it again from a position of no power 4 years later.

But there would be SERIOUS implications if the same position was taken with the wife and mother of children..

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

Just to repeat what I said, put the ball in his court: "It's not about trying to denigrate his role, but about him trying to lower you to the level of an employee. Rather than him asking why it's important for you to be co-owner, ask him why it's so important to him that you don't have that status."

Job titles are important, as is getting credit for work done. Would he like to be called the Tea Boy? Probably not. It's for the same reason that you would like the status you deserve, this is YOUR CAREER after all, not a hobby. What if you wanted to get other work? E.g. if you [he] sold the business and you needed to find a job, or if you went through tough times and you wanted to get in extra freelance or consultancy work.

[Yama]

Agree with all that has been said on this thread. Of course it matters. I can't add to any of the advice already given but wanted to lend you some moral support.

[howdidthishappenthen]

I agree, this is about ownership, and I want my name over the door in the business I have spent 4 years of my life building up.

Madly (is this relevant?) we sold some other assets recently and all of the cash from these is in a bank account with my sole name on it. And I'm talking about twice the sum that our business is worth on paper. This doesn't bother him. Recently we looked at buying another company with the money and we were going to put in my sole name because it was more tax efficient to do so. And he was OK with this. The deal fell through for other reasons, but the point it that his controlling thing seems to be just about this company,not about other assets. It's v emotional for him. Unfortunately, it's a pretty big deal for me too..

[Yama]

So it's about status then?

If you are doing more than him and if you have the credit you deserve then he fears he will indeed be denigrated? Possible?

[squeaver]

If I were you, I'd go and see a lawyer, explain the situation, get some paperwork drawn up and then present it to him for his signature.

[minipie]

Right. It sounds like you are not arguing for equal ownership in the company (which I think would be a more difficult fight tbh), but only for a job title that reflects what you actually do.

This is clearly reasonable - if anyone else was doing the job you describe they would definitely expect to be called MD.

Why not suggest that you are MD and he is Chairman or President or something like that. That would reflect his role as ultimate owner/controller, but not active day-to-day manager, of the company. Would you be happy with that?

[howdidthishappenthen]

There were no actual funds put in - he had a company (proper set up, staff, office, finance team etc) and we set aside one desk which one employee sat at and worked on this separate venture. The nominal 'second' company paid recharges for utilities, rent etc that were invoices from the original company. Wages for the person were paid from income - the company was self-supporting in that respect from day 1. So nobody wrote any cheques. But the company that provided the initial client list, and paid for the first desk and the recruitment fee for the first person, belonged to DH and was his sole venture with no practical or finanical contribution from me. I got involved only when we were setting up the 2nd company.

[garlicbutter]

As you said, all assets are jointly owned while you're married. So it doesn't matter whose name is on the bank account some money went into. It does, however, matter what status you have wrt the companies - both now, from a credibility pov, and in the event of a divorce. HIBU.

Like your other respondents, I'm very cross with him for insisting on this and for turing it round to make you look like the unreasonable one! Either it's unimportant (in his eyes) - in which case he may as well give you equality to make you happy - or it matters like hell to him, in which ccase he's purposel;y trying to block you out.

Worth a major row, imo. Good luck!

[howdidthishappenthen]

OK - so one more factor that may/may not be relevant (hope you all don't mind me using you as a sounding board, but I want to get my own frame of mind straight about this before I bring it up with him - you are all being very helpful )

DH's original company - the one that funded this little offshoot - went into receivership in 2009 and it lost everything. It was the income from this offshoot venture that saw us through those dark-days, even though it was only one tenth the size of his original company. It has grown a bit more since, and we have a couple of other new ventures doing interesting things (these are the bits he runs now) so there's now plenty of money to sustain our lifestyle. BUT this offshoot company is the last vestiges of the 'empire' (in his mind) he set up and then lost. He had an awful time coming to terms with the fact he'd lost it all, and found if difficulty status-wise being a SAHD for a couple of months straight afterwards when we had no childcare or money to pay for it, whilst I went in and ran company b. All of this is def a part of why he won't handover shares to me - these shares are the last tiny bits of the big company he made and lost. But I've been being sensitive about this for two years and I think now he should just GET THE FUCK OVER IT, look happily at the new things we've built since and recognise that we did it together and can both give each other public credit for that.

AND breathe...

Can you see I'm psyching myself up to tackle him on this later and trying to get my stresses out on you lot now so that I can be calm and constructive with him and not get all RANTY.....