Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To want more in a final settlement from ex

118 replies

Nosocksevermatchup · 28/10/2016 09:50

We have split up, sold the house and we will get half each.

I want more than half as my ex has three other houses,vehicle he owns outright, a business and a pension which I am not entitled to as we weren't married. All of these were bought while we were together with 'his' money. This is one of the main reasons we split
He says I'm not entitled to any more than this as I received some inheritance when my mum recently died, this equates to less than the value one of his houses.
I know by law I'm not entitled to any more as we were never married.
Am I being unreasonable to ask? He has always been financially controlling. Or should I just walk away?

OP posts:
Coffeegivemecoffee · 28/10/2016 10:40

You need proper legal advice not strangers on the internet, if you wish to argue for more.
You weren't married so it won't be easy, just be sure your mental health can cope as is it could go on for a fair while and his not just going to hand it over lovely.
Make sure you can afford it a decent solicitor isn't cheap

Personally I'd walk away, I'd go and find some happiness. Let him and his money go to fuck

MrsLindor · 28/10/2016 10:40

Lots of woman unfortunately believe in the myth of "common law wife", and don't understand the legal protection you get from marriage. In my opinion, any woman who's a SAHM in a long term relationship needs to be married or have a decent legal agreement, it's not romantic but neither is ending up with the thin end of the financial wedge in a separation with children to support and no job.

You need good legal advice OP.

Me2017 · 28/10/2016 10:50

If only your home is in joint names and you are not married he is right.
I earned 10x my ex husband but as we were married he had claims on all sorts. Had I been sensible like your partner and never gone up the aisle I would be much much better off now - more fool me.

SheldonCRules · 28/10/2016 11:04

Very patronising to say he could only work as she was there. I'm sure he was very capable of working as a single person as he was when living with another adult.

Lots of women have children and careers, not everybody sees children as an excuse to do little or no work.

You can't expect the protection of marriage when not actually married. Nobody forced the OP to stay, have children etc, she knew the risks and went ahead anyway.

thisisafakename · 28/10/2016 11:06

Agree that you should see a solicitor.
The position in England and Wales is that you are not entitled to anything that you do not already own. There is no provision for allocating assets to you on the basis that it is a long relationship and you have lost out on the chance of acquiring assets yourself.

If the house is in joint names, the presumption is that you get half each. It sounds like this is what has happened here. In relation to the other properties, if they are owned by your ex, the only way you could claim something is if you can prove that you have a 'constructive trust' in relation to those properties. Essentially, a constructive trust means that you are entitled to the property despite not being the owner. It is notoriously difficult to prove a constructive trust in relation to a property owned by another person. You have two ways: firstly that you and your partner had an express agreement that you should have a share AND that you relied on that agreement to your detriment (by doing something that you would not have done had it not been for the agreement). If you cannot point to an agreement, you have to show that you have made direct financial contributions to the properties, either in the form of mortgage payments or contributions to the deposit when they were bought. If you cannot provide either of these things, you will not be successful.

The law in this area is hideously unfair, behind the times and in dire need of reform. If you are in Scotland, there is legislation allowing transfers between former partners. The lesson is NEVER become financially dependent or become a SAHM when you are not married. You are taking a massive financial risk and will be screwed over if the relationship breaks down. You can mitigate the risk a bit by insisting that EVERYTHING is held in joint names.

All of the above is on the presumption that you have no minor children together by the way...

needsahalo · 28/10/2016 11:06

a de facto relationship has all the legal rights as a marriage when it comes to this sort of thing. See a lawyer and get proper advice

No. This is not the case. There is legal protection in marriage that does not exist without that piece of paper.

OP - see more than one solicitor on a free half hour basis. The reason for this is some will tell you what you want to hear and have you undertake expensive court action you don't stand a chance of winning. Even if there is a chance, weighing up the e xtra you might get vs. the actual solicitor's bill and cost to your mental health probably mean it's not worth it.

And all the ladies out there who aren't married, have taken time off work etc. to raise a family, PLEASE understand that should the worst happen, there is little to be done to protect you. Don't rely on your currently lovely, decent partner doing the right thing because they very rarely do.

shovetheholly · 28/10/2016 11:09

I have no practical advice, but I just wanted to say I'm so sorry you are going through this. Ending a longterm relationship is so very tough. I would definitely get as much professional legal advice as you can, and don't feel bad at all for taking the maximum to which you are entitled. It is not grabby, but prudent - you have the rest of your life to think of.

needsahalo · 28/10/2016 11:12

You can't expect the protection of marriage when not actually married. Nobody forced the OP to stay, have children etc, she knew the risks and went ahead anyway

Few people understand the legal protection that comes with marriage until such a time as they need it. There are many benefits to not marrying as well. Much depends on how life pans out.

Not everyone earns enough in their own right to make working a sensible option with young children. Illness and disability have major implications on how life pans out. Few people enter a relationship expecting it to break down.

thisisafakename · 28/10/2016 11:13

You can't expect the protection of marriage when not actually married. Nobody forced the OP to stay, have children etc, she knew the risks and went ahead anyway

Seriously, life is not that simplistic. The law currently allows men (usually) to profit enormously at the expense of women who undertake the unpaid caring work. What if a partner makes vague promises that they will marry you and never follow through? What if you have an unplanned pregnancy? What if you don't have the financial resources to leave?

I did say above that women should not consciously become dependent on a man they are not married to. However, I would never say that it is their 'fault' and that the law should not protect them. Most other common law jurisdictions like Canada, NZ, Australia etc have extensive legal protection for cohabitants. By failing to provide for cohabitants who have undertaken childcare work and suffered financially as a result, society is essentially endorsing exploitation of unpaid care workers. I don't want to live in a society like that.

Marynary · 28/10/2016 11:15

Hope you can get some more but just wanted to say that some people are jumping to conclusions. The OP doesn't say she was bringing up children and so had no chance to work/start a business. For all we know they shared bringing up the children and she had a great career.

I think people are saying that if she did the majority of childcare and that enabled him to work more hours/build up his business to a greater extent than he would have done if childcare had been shared then she may have a case and it would be worth seeing a solicitor to find out.

thisisafakename · 28/10/2016 11:18

I think people are saying that if she did the majority of childcare and that enabled him to work more hours/build up his business to a greater extent than he would have done if childcare had been shared then she may have a case and it would be worth seeing a solicitor to find out

If she lives in England and Wales, that is unfortunately not the case. Unless the other properties are in joint names OR she can show an express agreement or direct financial contributions to mortgage or deposit, she will not have a case I am afraid. I think what people are saying (or what I am saying at least) is that it shouldn't be like that. It's very unfair, but our current government doesn't really care very much (and nor did the previous one or the one before that or before that..)

harshbuttrue1980 · 28/10/2016 11:47

We haven't got a clue what contribution the OP made. If she stayed at home when the kids were little, then I think she should be entitled to compensation for this. However, if she was a "stay at home mum" with a nanny, cleaner etc and essentially just wafted around lunching like some rich wives, then I would have less sympathy, as she hasn't really contributed anything. Likewise, if the OP hasn't worked for 30 years even when the kids didn't need her at home anymore, I wouldn't say he should be obliged to give her more. Having a child doesn't mean a route out of having to do any paid employment forever. All of this is conjecture though, as we don't know what contribution she actually made.

TheNaze73 · 28/10/2016 11:59

I love it, how so many people become Judge Rinder & talk with authority about something they know very little about, with hardly any facts.

Get some legal advice & stick to the facts

Me2017 · 28/10/2016 12:04

Thankfuolly the state in England has not made legal changes. I think the law would be hideously unfair to hgierh earners like I am if they gave live in lovers marriage rights.

There is a reason we don't marry these men (or women) - because we want the sex and chat but we don't want them getting their grubby little mitts on our hard earned gains.

Leave the law as it stands and if you are a lower earner don't move in with anyone until you have found someone who loves you enough to marry you. It's very simple.

thisisafakename · 28/10/2016 12:06

Leave the law as it stands and if you are a lower earner don't move in with anyone until you have found someone who loves you enough to marry you. It's very simple

You sound lovely

Me2017 · 28/10/2016 12:14

Once you move in if you're a lower earner the man has the sex he wants without having to commit so he has no incentive to propose in many cases.

GladAllOver · 28/10/2016 12:21

I hope this thread will be taken note of by anyone who thinks marriage is not important.

It is a vital protection when you are in a long term relationship.

TheNaze73 · 28/10/2016 12:28

Harsh but true me2017 There's no real incentive to get married

Marynary · 28/10/2016 13:02

If she lives in England and Wales, that is unfortunately not the case.

I appreciate that it probably is not be the case but I think it is worth seeing a solicitor be certain.

Marynary · 28/10/2016 13:07

Thankfuolly the state in England has not made legal changes. I think the law would be hideously unfair to hgierh earners like I am if they gave live in lovers marriage rights.

It don't think it would be "hideously unfair" at all if someone has lived with the higher earner for 30 years and brought up their children..

PeachesAndCream1 · 28/10/2016 13:14

Actually that's not rubbish @imperial. In NZ, fluffy is right - de facto relationships of 3 or more years (living in a state of marriage, but not married) are entitled to half of everything owned during the time of relationship.

Mother86 · 28/10/2016 13:22

Is it worth the hassle of fighting for it? Are you financially stable without it?

sofato5miles · 28/10/2016 13:28

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

atticusclaw2 · 28/10/2016 13:36

I'm not sure outing a poster is a fair thing to do sofa. Whilst the poster in question is not difficult to spot because of her very particular circumstances, she clearly name changes for a reason. I'm not sure you would like it if done to you, particularly since that poster has been identified in RL.

thisisafakename · 28/10/2016 13:41

I appreciate that it probably is not be the case but I think it is worth seeing a solicitor be certain

Yes, of course she should. I did recommend that, but I didn't want anyone to give the OP false hope, especially based on the position in other jurisdictions. (Should also clarify that I am a (currently non-practising) solicitor specialising in family law. I occasionally post over on the legal board and OP, you should ask to have this thread moved over there as you will be able to get more advice).

Swipe left for the next trending thread