Inheritance within a marriage

[OneDreamOnly]

When you are married and have been so for more than 15 years, if one the partner receives some inheritance, will that all go into the common pot?

ie in case of a divorce, half of the inheritance is going to the partner
I case of death, half of the inheritance is owned by the partner so you can only give half of it to someone else in a will for example?

Or is it treated differently than any other assets own by the couple and the partner who has received the inheritance has the only 'owner' if that makes sense?

[fedupbutfine]

that's a how long is a piece of string question, I'm afraid.

Inheritence can be ring-fenced in divorce but usually only if there are enough assets (money!) to house both parties and for both parties to have a reasonable standard of living. If you receive an inheritence today and say, use it to pay off your mortgage and then divorce in 10 years, the chances are it's gone and there'll be nothing to be done about it.

[OneDreamOnly]

Thank you.
For me it's clear that if you have used the inheritance to buy a house, then it has gone into the common pot. No doubt about it.

The situation I will be in (hopefully in a not too close future!) is my parents leaving me what they had in effect build to create their own pension. So that would give me (us) some income that I think should be part of our common money. However, the assets are much bigger than anything we have so I'm feeling uneasy at the idea that in effect my parents will give half of it to my DH rather all to me to do what I like with (eg I would be very keen to leave some of it to our dcs in a will).
What can be done to ring fence inheritance? Does kit have to be done before the death or after?

[thecuntureshow]

in the same position OP and not sure how I feel about it

Found this from www.warners-solicitors.co.uk/individual-services/faq.html

Broadly the Family Courts now catagorise assets into:

matrimonial assets – those that have been built up during the marriage that are products of the marriage partnership (e.g. the matrimonial home); and

Non-matrimonial assets – assets brought into the marriage when it began or assets inherited from one or the other’s family.

The distinction between types of assets can be important in endeavoring to persuade a Court that the assets should not be divided strictly equally. It is however important to point out that this distinction is far more likely to be relevant in cases involving larger sums of money. In cases where the parties’ needs in terms of re-housing cannot or can just be met from the available capital, it is unlikely that a Judge is going to be persuaded by contribution or inheritance arguments.

Meeting the housing needs of the parties and children will be a priority no matter where the money or property has come from.

This can lead parties to feel that the law is inequitable particularly if for instance one party feels that the likelihood is that the other party will inherit a significant amount of money at some point in the future.

If an inheritance has not yet been received, it cannot be assumed that the money will arrive for the benefit of one party. By way of example even a wealthy parent may significantly deplete their capital asset before death by way of nursing home and care costs.

And something on www.familysolicitorsharrogate.co.uk/inheritance-divorce-legal-advice.html