Does he have a fair claim?

[thegirlfromthehill]

Hi

I'd really appreciate opinions on this please, and the benefit of anyone's experience, if you have had dealings of this nature re: divorce.

Since 2012 I have owned a third of my mother's house worth approx £90,000. It was gifted to me by my parents. My father died two years ago and my mother is 86 and happily still living independently in it. She owns the remaining two-thirds share.

AS part of divorce settlement STBXH husband is trying to claim £50,000 of my third of my mother's house, arguing that it is a matrimonial asset. Marriage broke down in 2014 after 18 years.

Would you love to know what everyone thinks? Does he have a fair claim or not? Should this be regarded as a matrimonial asset or a non-matrimonial asset? Thanks for your thoughts.

[caroldecker]

Legally it is a matrimonial asset.

[ChicRock]

I think it absolutely should be regarded as a matrimonial asset.

Legally, I couldn't say for sure.

[CactusFred]

If you were together at the time of the gift then yes he's legally entitled even if not morally. Sorry if that's it what you wanted to hear.

[Costacoffeeplease]

I believe it is a matrimonial asset, however, why does he feel entitled to more than 50%?

[meditrina]

Yes, it's a matrimonial asset and you need to take legal advice in the light of all aspects of the financial settlement.

[Wishforsnow]

Not sure why he would want 50k not 45 as that's more than half

[ChicRock]

Costa I'm guessing it was worth £90k in 2012 when op inherited, so he's assuming the property has risen in value since then.

[FinallyHere]

This is an argument in favour of family assets being put into a trust, instead of outright gifts.

How was it gifted? Could you fund a solicitor willing to back date the relevant documents, with a convincing story why the land registry was not informed of the trust?

[ThisIsStartingToBoreMe]

Yes. It should be regarded as a matrimonial asset

[Blistory]

Presumably you are in England or Wales ? In Scotland it wouldn't be considered as a matrimonial asset at all.

I think you have a strong case for arguing that it should be subject to an uneven split to better reflect the true position of the parties. That supposes that the remainder of assets are split fairly in the context of your marriage.

[user1485703469]

It's a matrimonial asset as what's yours is his, you would be entitled to the same if it was the other way round.
If you are worried about losing assets then try and work on your marriage and reconcile, marriages are supposed to be for life, even when things get hard. It's not too late to stay together.

[DPotter]

User.......69 - inappropriate comment re reconciliation. We have no information on the reason for OP's marriage breakdown. It may have been OP's husband who instigated divorce proceedings. Unwise the jump to conclusions

[DPotter]

Unwise to jump to conclusions

[user1485703469]

Comment was completely appropriate, both parties in a marriage agree jointly to stay together for the rest of their lives for better or worse. Both sides have a responsibility to do all they can to remain together, regardless of the situation and regardless of who instigated the divorce proceedings.

[DPotter]

We will have to agree to disagree User.

[donajimena]

Utter tosh user

[user1485703469]

That's what a marriage is, that is fact, did you not realise this is what marriage means? If you cannot keep your vows then marriage isn't for you.

[throwingpebbles]

Ignore user

You need to seek proper legal advice thegirl .

[throwingpebbles]

You have no idea why they split user. Stop derailing the thread

[pullingmyhairout1]

The op asked for a factual answer on the question she posed. She didn't ask for the meaning of marriage. I suspect most people enter marriage believing 'until death do us part'. If only in some cases!

[user1485703469]

OP does not want to lose her matrimonial assets, one solution to this is to stay married, how controversial...(!)

[understandnothing]

'If you cannot keep your vows...' So a woman should stay with a spouse who breaks vows to love and cherish by being abusive or unfaithful or a gambler, liar or alcoholic? If one person decides to act badly why should another person suffer until 'death us do part'?

What is it like, back there in the 50's User?

Sorry to derail your thread OP.

[user1485703469]

Both parties commit to working on the marriage, no marriage is perfect and sometimes can be one sided, but working on it is a reasonable option and means not losing marital assets.

[RandomMess]

Bit odd that he is demanding more than 50%... yes it's an asset of the marriage, I would get 3 valuations and then deduct selling costs and then it's 50% of that third share so less than £50K!

[understandnothing]

Do you not think most couples 'work on it' before deciding to separate? You talk like this an option most people haven't considered. Separating and divorcing is the last option in a long line of decisions, not the first option.

And a successful marriage really can't be one sided. Both people have to want to be in it.