To say getting married to protect your finance is a joke

England is not such a jurisdiction. There is clear, regularly used legislation that allows the OP to get what she would have done on divorce.

I accept if she had far more money than him, she may get nothing but he certainly can’t leave her penniless.

Edited to say: And because the law is clear, the beneficiaries of the will are usually advised to settle before the case reaches court so it’s not that expensive to make the argument.

You’re welcome.

Your situation shows getting married to protect your finances is the right thing to do. In this case it was the right thing for your husband.

In your situation, a more appropriate thread title would be “Never add your new spouse to a mortgage for a home you bought yourself” because that’s the real issue here.

Legally, she can if she makes a claim against the estate. Whether or not she will is dependant on whether a divorce court would have awarded her more than half the house.

Did he give you notice he was severing the joint tenancy? He must do this and inform land registry. Although one person can cancel a joint tenancy there is a legal process that must be gone through.

if you have proof of your contribution to the house purchase you can argue for bigger share if the joint tenancy has actually been revoked it does sound like he hasn’t had time to do that.

I’m assuming the solicitor’s letter the OP mentions was the required notice.

Does anyone know if the severance is back dated to the date the document is signed or if it is after the land registry has processed it? I know it sounds cold but if OP’s husband is sinking fast, the difference might change whether she gets the whole house or not.

It's a lot more nuanced than that. The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 is the one that provides for a child being able to claim for financial provision. However, successful claims are difficult to make unless there is some other pressing factor than just merely being an adult child who was excluded from a will.

An adult child does not necessarily have "a right to reasonable financial provision" unless there is some further factor or special circumstance. Adult children who are capable of earning their own living will usually struggle to succeed in such claims.

In contrast, if she wishes to contest the will, that would mean saying that the will was invalid in some way eg he lacked capacity or he was under undue influence from the new woman or it was a forgery etc. That is quite a high hurdle to achieve.

Are there not two different things going on here.
Him protecting his property assets by severing the joint tenancy so half the house will go to his estate even if he dies before the divorce is complete.
What his will then says he wants to do with his assets once he is dead.
The property assets would be split if you ended up divorced so it makes no difference. It just means that OP doesn't keep them if they are still married.
Surely his will was going to be the same if the divorce was finalised.
Is dissolving the joint tenancy only for the property assests, if he dies before divorce you are a widow with all the rights on pension that brings.
The main issue is what his will does, but that would be the same if you are divorced.

I agree that the solicitor's letter was the required notice. The severance is legally terminated the moment the notice is validly served. It is not backdated to the date it is signed, nor is it after the land registry has processed it.

However, the date on which the tenancy is severed is irrelevant. The divorce has not been finalised and there is no financial settlement. Whether the house is owned as joint tenants or tenants in common makes no difference to the financial settlement. And if OP's husband dies before the divorce is finalised and a financial settlement is put in place, she will have a claim against his estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The courts will award her at least as much as she would have received in the divorce settlement.

But in this particular situation, the OP and her DH own their marital home as tenants in common.

I would suggest that, barring any other features about the OP's marriage that we don't know about, that a divorce would likely lead to each of them retaining their half of the marital home.

This is what the OP is faced with now, keeping just half of the marital home.

I think she will be able to contest the will given the short space of time he appears to know the ow the speed of the situation and the amount of financial contribution the op has provided for the property

"DD has chronic fatigue and is on medication for mental health issues."

I'm sorry to hear this. However, on a practical note, this may strengthen your DD's chance of being able to make a successful claim against the estate.

Just being an adult child isn't enough. However, an adult child who has a disability or illness that restricts them working, may be more likely to succeed in a claim for provision.

He can't just leave your share of marital assets to someone else in his will. So even if he's changes his will, first it has to be established what is HIS to give away, and what is a marital asset. So yes, you need a solicitor, and asap, but no, you're not going to lose out completely.

Let’s hope so, but idk. Or maybe you can get the will overturned if he’s just written it op.

Which region do you live in, OP?

You need to speak to a solicitor.

Some of my relatives are separating (in awful unfriendly circumstances) and the DH has severed the joint tenancy on their home in order to protect his half of the house as the wife has moved out. He sought legal advice and was told it was fine to do this without any input from the wife i.e he didn’t need any kind of permission from her as it’s half his property.

I had no idea this was even allowed until he was telling me about it.

I'm sorry, but what maintenance? The DD is an adult and, unless he was earning significantly more than she was, it is unlikely that there would be any spousal maintenance.

You can’t contest a will just because you don’t like it. As long as he was in sound mind your ex could leave his money and his half of the house to the cats’ home if he wanted.

If the divorce and financial settlement are not finalised then he may well be giving away assets which aren’t his!

Surely the financial settlement will have to be done before the Will is followed?

But if a divorce is being gone through, “his” money, car, pension etc, may not be all his!

I think the key here is that OP stays put, the OW would have to get a grant of probate (which you can block with a caveat) and then apply to the court for an order of sale.

In the meantime you can do a forensic analysis of the assets of both parties, get a likely outcome of what the split on divorce would have been, join your daughter as a claimant under the provision legislation and hopefully agree a settlement with the OW, if she is sole beneficiary.

The pension trustees will look at all the potential claimants and their needs. They will come to a fair
solution and wishes aside, a short term girlfriend will not trump a legal wife and child who has additional needs.

You need a solicitor firm that handles both contentious probate and family law. Add all your assets and his, and the starting point for the provision legislation is an equal split. Would that change if he has no future needs and you bought the house into the marriage? It should.

You can contest a will if you meet the criteria in the 1975 Act though. As has been pointed out several times, in those situations the courts typically consider reasonable provision to be what the spouse would've got in a divorce.

It's possible OP would only get 50% of the house and of his cash assets in a divorce, but we don't have enough information about that. It's also possible OP will decide it's not worth the fuss, particularly if she also gets the pension as well, but this is why she should speak to a solicitor before trying to make any more decisions.

Of course you can. Doesn’t mean you’ll win but you could do it. A good solicitor can get you off with murder lol.

Yes you can. You need to serve the other owner with notice of the severance so you need a solicitor to act on your behalf and obtain evidence that the other owner has received the notice.

Slight empathy fail there I think.

Op I’m sorry you’re going through this. All of it, it must be hard to wrap your head around x