Skint Wife and Rich Husband

[TheSkintWife]

I have name changed for this thread.

My husband of 3 years is in a much stronger financial situation than I am. He earns a little bit more but has a lot of savings thanks to a large inheritance. The house is in both names but we're in a fairly low value area so not worth a big sum. We each pay half towards all bills and mortgage. He is earning a decent amount of interest every month on his savings whereas I'm getting into debt to try and make my share of the monthly costs.

We are married but it's been a short marriage so far and I don't want to split with him for this. Even if we were to split at a later date I wouldn't be entitled to his inheritance. We don't have children and both work.

He is really quite tight with his money and he has designer labels on all of his clothes and drives a nice car. I'm in Sainsburys clothes and knackered old Fiesta (which I love but that's not the point).

Is this how marriage should work? We were equal when we married for all those thinking I married him for his money I didn't. He inherited after marriage and I didn't know about the wealth of this relation.

His inheritance has nothing to do with you but if you're overspending you need to cut back on your joint budget which should be split percentage wise depending on your wages.

This is just the worst thing ever. I can't believe what I'm reading. It would be one thing if he was frugal and had squirrelled away the inheritance and was pondering what to do...but to spend money on himself and not you, is not a relationship.

My DH received £300,000 and promptly topped up my pension and ISA savings to ensure that we had exactly the same amount of savings. I have just received an even larger sum and I am doing the sensible thing and paying down our mortgage. Haven't bought a thing for myself and if I do buy myself something nicebto remember the family member by, I'll get something for DH too.

We have separate finances but have similar incomes and outgoings. If one of us had way more we’d be discussing it! This isn’t right. Sorry.

How did you end up with this financial arrangement of totally separate finances?

Only if you have a very poor understanding of statistics.

I thought marriage was about sharing your worldly wealth. At least it's selfish if he is decked out in Ralph Lauren and you're getting into debt to pay bills. Very selfish.

The issue, to me, is that neither the OP nor her husband can see that marriage is a legal contract meaning that everything is shared.

@mydogisthebest, short marriages are viewed in divorce differently from longer marriages. Childless marriages are viewed differently from marriages which produce children. It's all to do with the law.

Not very romantic! I would have hoped that most couples believe they will be together for life.

Maybe my view is skewed as there is literally no divorce in my family. Never even crossed my mind when we got married that it wouldn't last

I think that most couples hope that they will be together for life, but “believe” clearly makes no sense, as the evidence is that a fair fraction of marriages do end in divorce, and each of those couples likely hoped just as much as anyone that theirs was for life too.

But it isn’t a legal contract that says that. You’ve just made that up.

If you divorce him are you sure you wouldn't be entitled to some of his wealth/inheritance?

What I will say is that this doesn't sound like the way a healthy marriage should work. You're beginning to resent him. I will also add though that if I came into a large inheritance I wouldn't be supplementing my husband but again, yanbu - not even a little bit.

I had to scroll back to check you said you were married.

You've lost me there, @CloudybutMild. I'm not aware of 'making anything up'.

If a couple stay together for any length of time, all the assets they brought into the marriage are regarded as jointly owned. In the case of a long marriage with no children, it would probably be 50:50 on divorce unless there were a very good reason for it not to be (such as the party who had no assets having a huge salary and pension). In the case of a short marriage with no children, both parties would probably end up with what they started out with. If there are children involved, it is infinitely more complicated.

My point surely is that if you decide to marry someone, you have to assume that you will be sharing everything with them, including inheritances/pre-existing savings or assets etc. If the marriage then breaks down, the law comes into play. But if a couple don't want to pool resources, then why get married at all? I have been there and done that, and I would never, ever marry again (though would happily co-habit).

@CloudybutMild

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/

Scroll down to the Financial Support section:

Each married partner has a legal duty to support the other.

If your partner won't support you, you can ask a court to order them to support you. Your ex-partner may have to continue to support you after your marriage has ended if you have made a legal agreement or if there is a court order.

You and your partner can make an agreement that neither of you will support the other.

So of course you can BOTH agree to some shonky arrangement if preferred but if you don’t BOTH agree then, we’ll, see above.

I don't wish to cause offence, but I don't really see the point of marriage if it isn't the joining of two units into one. You might just as well stay as partners if you are not sharing all your assets and talents.

We were married in a church so I don't know much about the requirements for a civil ceremony, but we committed in front of God (which matters to me) and in front of all our friends and family that 'all that I am I give to you, and all that I have I share with you,' and 'till death us do part'. To me, it's a joy-giving part of being married, both the receiving and the giving.

That’s some rowing back that you’ve done there, but you’re still completely wrong, and still seem to be making it up as you go. Where are you getting this rubbish from?

If a couple get divorced then a 50:50 split may be the starting point for a division of assets, but your claim that the marriage contract legally gives each partner an equal share during the marriage is just not true.

You are trying to claim that the situation on a split / divorce also applies while still together.

I’ll drop out now, I can’t be bothered to correct such clearly ridiculous claims.

This thing is you won't even be able to claim benefits if you're with someone like that because even the government don't believe your spouse should treat you this way. It doesn't sound like much of a marriage to me. At least, certainly not a happy fulfilling one.

I mean, if he's willing to see you skint while he has nice things and financial security, then does he really even love you? Or does he basically see you as a long-term roommate with benefits?

Am I going mad?

This doesn't sound right at all OP.

If I inherited any amount of money, be it £500, or £5 million, it's OUR money. As would be the same if it was the other way round.

The financial imbalance here is not a partnership. Your his roommate who he has sex with. Sorry to be crass, but that's what it is.

Do you feel like he loves you and wants you to be happy and fulfilled in your marriage? Because of not, it isn't a marriage. It's an arrangement. That suits only him.

Personally, if I inherited anything it would be shared equally with my husband, but I understand many people don't share finances 100%, so let's hypothetically take the capital sum of the inheritance out of the equation.

One option would be to contribute towards expenses relative to your INCOME. So if he earns 60% of the total household income (keep in mind interest earned is also part of his income) then he could pay 60% of the expenses while you pay 40%. It doesn't seem fair to contribute 50/50 when his income is higher and you are struggling and getting into debt.

This is an interesting thread. My marriage has always shared everything. We have a very large disparity on both (1) earnings (one earns 10x the other) and (2) available non-work time to child-wrangle (one is full time, one very sporadic part time). We take the view that we're both doing what we can to make things work. Not putting money into a shared pot would create a power imbalance that neither of us would be happy with. We've got free rein to spend on ourselves up to a certain amount, and stuff over that gets discussed -- we don't have a formal rule on this or anything, it's just what happens.

(By the way, sharing doesn't mean splitting everything 50/50. The higher earner has a larger pension pot because they get more tax relief, so paying into that is hugely more tax-efficient. But the other earner shares the proceeds, so that's more a matter of making sure you maximise overall returns while each partner still gets half the end benefit.)

Maybe what makes this work for us is that we have pretty similar appetites for spending? Anyway, other people clearly go off a different dynamic than sharing outcomes 50/50 - good luck to them, and all that. But I would personally recommend sharing if you can. I doesn't have to be the way that marriage works. But viewing each other as equal partners is a big win, if it can be managed.

I guess the main question is whether people can find an agreement on this that they are both happy with, rather than one way being "best"? It sounds like maybe OP @TheSkintWife needs to talk through this with their partner. Personally I don't reckon it's at all unreasonable to put all money into a shared pot, pay expenses out of it, and both partners get to spend equal amounts out of it, even if one earns 10 times more than the other. Whether you have kids or not.

I'm not sure if it's been said, but as long as he keeps the inheritance money separate from any martital assets, it would not be a marital asset in divorce, I think. For that reason, it wouldn't make sense for him to pay off the mortgage, or otherwise put it into the house.

The fact that he has an inheritance is a red herring, the problem is that the marriage now has unequal incomes, which is exposing the shortcomings in sharing expenses equally. They need to change to a proportionate split, based on his investment income being included in his total income figure.

OP, you've said that you understand your DH ring-fencing his inheritance and taking his time to decide what he wants to do with it. You don't expect him to automatically use it to benefit both of you (e.g. by paying off your mortgage). I respect your position here.

But, like lots of pp, I don't understand why you are paying half of the joint household outgoings when your earnings (even without the interest your DH is receiving) are less than half of the joint household income, and when you can't really afford this 50:50 split. Does your DH know full well that you are struggling to pay half, that you are in debt because of things like an unexpected high dental bill - and he just doesn't care? Or have you kept quiet about this, so he is simply oblivious (because he thinks you'd let him know if you're struggling financially)?

I have to add that, either way, I think it's sad that it seems your DH hasn't even thought about wanting to do anything nice for you as a couple, or for you personally (the person he loved enough to marry) - e.g. booking a brilliant holiday for you both, buying you something special, or putting £X in your account and telling you to buy yourself something you'd like.