Would you expect your spouse to share their wealth with you

[JollyQuail]

Just wondering, if your partner was considerably wealthier than you, would you expect him to share all his wealth with your after you’re married?

Name added to houses; joint bank accounts, name added to BTL properties.

I would feel very uneasy doing this.

https://www.farrer.co.uk/news-and-insights/what-are-matrimonial-property-regimes/

This might be an interesting read. It certainly seems that in the UK, once married property and assets are assumed to be jointly owned and split 50/50 in the case of a split.

If you are considering marriage, maybe you need:

1. A very clear and open discussion with your partner about who owns/earns what and what a "fair" split looks like to both of you.
2. Legal advice on whether it is possible to ring-fence assets/savings that you have before marriage.

There is no such thing as a legally binding pre-nup in the UK, but I fully understand that as an adult who has earned/saved/invested and created a certain level of comfort/security, one may wish to preserve this. If you are able to put in place deeds of trust with a solicitor and set up wills that reflect what both of your believe (jointly) to be fair, then perhaps this would serve as an indication of the initial position of each partner and their intention before marriage.

Also, in the case of a separation (without kids) there is leeway in how courts decide the split of assets. If you are both 40+, no kids, and own 70/30 - then divorce after 2 years, I doubt any court would split it 50/50.

HOWEVER, after all of that musing, if you wish to protect your assets/investments/savings as the higher earner and there are no kids, you may wish to consider a civil partnership and legal advice on deeds of trust and wills and just have a party instead.

Scenario to consider: friends mother (who I’ll call Marigold) married a man (Arthur) with few assets (no house, little savings) but one child. All children adult at point of marriage.

Marigold believed in marriage, so made will leaving all to Arthur and trinkets only to her children, unless Arthur died first, in which case then all to Marigolds children. ‘All’ was a lot- property and savings.

Two years into the marriage Marigold died, then tragically Arthur died a week later. Arthur’s daughter successful claimed all the assets (large house and money) as Marigold had left all to Arthur if he outlived her.

Did my friend feel his mother’s intention was for all her hard earned assets to pass directly to her stepdaughter who she didn’t particularly get on with? One would imagine not. Can you blame Arthur’s daughter for claiming a half a million pound house and healthy bank account? Also not.

True story with names altered to add weight to all those who have said the game changes if the marriage is in later life with children involved.

Yes of course it does! There aren’t different rules for men and women. What people choose to do in order to protect themselves against divorce is another matter, but the whole point of marriage is the merging of assets to strengthen the position of BOTH parties, surely?!

It depends if you get married or have kids.

If you are older and have no plans to start a family with him/her, then I would not get married and keep finances separate.

I would however, pay a much larger proportion of the bills/let him live rent free in my home.

If you are planning to start a family, then it will have to be shared.

You don’t need joint bank accounts but your income needs to be shared and this includes money from rentals etc.

I would look at trying to protect some of your assets and maybe have your future kids inherit them directly.

As much as I feel bad for her, the situation is partly her own making. Same as I would think if the man had been out having a career while the woman was at home loafing around (not saying sahms loaf around but purely switching this scenario) and walked out.

Marriage is a legal contract and brings with it certain financial agreements upon divorce. It's lovely to be all romantic and doe-eyed a out marriage but at the end of the day if you're not willing to have the ramifications at the other end should the marriage finish then you shouldn't get married.

That is why I said be very careful. She trusted and loved him. With hindsight, trust and love left her in a mess.

My husband earns a lot more than me, we have our own bank accounts plus various shared accounts. We contribute the same percentage of each of our wages to our house/mortgage/ various savings/shares and the rest is ours ( individually) to do as we wish with. It works out that he contributes a lot more but it makes it fair because he also has more left over. Different people have different ways of organising their combined finances but it's important that it feels fair

to both parties and both have some financial independence. I do the 70% of the caring/household duties, I work 28 hours per week, he works around 45/ 50 hpw. We both feel we each benefit from this arrangement, so it works well.

Prenup

I believe that wealth accumulated during a marriage should be shared equally. However, it seems reasonable to protect assets acquired before the marriage. No one enters a marriage expecting it to end, but it happens and it’s not unreasonable to want to protect what was yours before the marriage.

Marriage shouldn’t be about financial gain. However, I think factors such as the age you met, the length of your relationship, and whether children are involved also play an important role in how assets should be divided if you divorce.

If your question is should you go into marriage expecting to share all your assets I’d say yes. That is the essence of the contract. However people’s finances are complicated if they come to marriage later.

What I think is important is to be completely open about your finances with each other.

I fully understand the need to keep financial independence but it seems sad that people now enter into marriage with the expectation that they need to protect themselves financially.

I'm 2nd time around, however we will not get married. One of us widowed, the other divorced
We both have assets/income but one of us much more than the other. We also have differing responsibilities, 3 children Vs 2 children (all now adults). 1 of us has a child with SEN who will always need to be cared for.
We also have an age disparity which further complicated things.
One of us holidays more than the other (obviously also holiday together) but it's not actually the wealthiest one as it's the caring responsibilities that restrict things for the younger parent & the need to still work.
We live together very happily but no we will not get married it is far too complicated. Do we live the same lifestyle wise yes & are we happy YES

Marriage is about becoming a unit. If you don't treat it as a sacrament and two becoming one then lawyer up and protect yourselves. Or don't get married.

I think this is the best way to do it.

Each person contributes a percentage to the joint account.

It means the higher earner has more disposable income but they also contribute a lot more, so it’s fair.

If I wasn’t planning on starting a family then I would not get married and also have a similar arrangement.

I would. We were skint during our first years, but things improved considerably later, and all money from whatever source has always been ‘ours’.

First marriage for me, at the time came with 2 young children and my own home. We became a family unit when we married. I would not have married him if he wanted to keep financially separate. We are committed to each other and each other's families. I cut my hours to help care for his parents, we have a healthy amount saved ( in joint accounts) to get my boys on the property ladder when the time comes. We are a team, I couldn't settle for anything less.

We've been married for 11 years and been together for nearly 20 and everything was separate (I owned my house and he had a BTL) until last year.

As we got older, we realised that it would be much easier if one of us died for us both to be on the deeds of both properties and also to be on each other's bank accounts so everything is now joint.

@itsallsohard I'm still a little confused by your response. Are you saying that your husband believes he should have a say in who you leave your assets to post divorce? If so, who does he believe should benefit under your will and what's his thinking?

But you're not giving half away, you'd only actually lose it if you split up!

After being married for approx 2 years your spouse would be entitled to half anyway. And that's even if names weren't changed on deeds, savings accounts, investments etc.

Yes, one partner having g DC does make a difference.

Part of me thinks if you don't want to share with your life partner, you're not that into them. Just a thought.

Goes against what marriage stands for if you don’t, but each to their own.

Hubby and I have been together. Since we were teenagers - we are now mid 40’s. We share everything. We have had inheritances left to each of us and we split them. Houses are in joint names etc. but we are very much happily married and we have never had any emotional attachments to wealth, objects etc.

Personal property mostly a yes. Mostly because every situation is different.

Business property, (income producing) NO. The monthly income from those interests yes.

Yes of course

I think it depends on many factors, such as how old you were when you got together (if you both contributed to the building of wealth, even if one is a bigger earner than the other), if you have children (together or separately), if you have similar lifestyles and spending habits (neither blows through money or has trouble saving), cultural/religious/personal beliefs regarding divorce (no guarantees, but some are more likely to split than others), and so on.

The answer will be different for every couple. I've never been in a relationship with separate finances. We've always shared ownership of all assets, but we got together young. Neither had much to start with, and we've supported one another to build what we have now. If he died and I remarried, I wouldn't feel right about risking everything I earned with my first husband, even with no kids in the picture. But also I'm not certain I'd want a marriage without that level of sharing and trust (and to be frank, I don't believe I'd want to marry again, anyway).

If I had children from a previous relationship, I would prioritise leaving everything I had to them. Anyone new in my life would just have to accept that.