To say getting married to protect your finance is a joke

[bebanjo]

Been married 20 years house fully paid for. He’s divorcing me, his moved in with new partner. He’s severed the joint tenants, refuses mediation now has about 2 weeks to live.

It’s the entire point of the post. She doesn’t know for certain until the will is read but it appears to be his intention

Hope you managed to speak to someone OP.

Is he still alive OP? Any updates? 😅🫣

Hope you ve made some headway re the pensions OP.
In your case ie owning the house before your marriage getting married wasnt going to be a financial protection for you re the home, but it was for him. This advice is usually given to SAHMs and in their case getting married is a protection

Get your daughter to contest the will as his only descendant. I would use his rapid decline in health as evidence they he may have been coerced. You and your daughter shouldn’t have to share what you essentially built up with a random woman he just met. Fight it ! He doesn’t sound like much of a father. Is he still alive?

OP does not need her daughter to contest the will. His rapid decline is not evidence that he has been coerced. If he has made a new will, OP will need more than that to contest it.

As I have pointed out previously, if he has left everything to his new partner OP has a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act which will give her at least as much as she would have got in divorce. However, as she already has half the house, that may not be much.

He hasn't stolen a house from the OP - she retains her share, he retains his.

Go onto the Courts of Chancery website and read the grounds for overturning
Read them
Come back and apologise, I'll wait

Of course he stole it. He had no claim to the house. OP gave him that joint tenancy for his protection and he untethered it for his own ends. Had the agreement been left to stand she would have inherited his half of the house automatically on his death. What else would you call it other than stealing ?

I hadn’t thought of it like that. But I agree.

He didn’t steal anything.

The OP could have simply willed her house to him, or given him the right to live in it for life if she died and then it would pass to their child. But she didn’t do that. She gave him ownership. He didn’t need ownership for protection at all. They were married so he would have had security if they divorced and a will would have given him security without ownership. He owns half the house because the OP gave it to him. He can do what he wants his with half. He didn’t steal it.

The OP made a mistake. If she wanted to retain full ownership then she should have done so. She’d only have potentially lost some in a divorce. She gave it away before that.

As harsh as it is, that's the reality. No-one expects their husband to betray them, yet we see it happen time and time again on these boards.

Marriage does not benefit financially independent people.

He was a joint owner with OP. The default position is that if the ownership is severed into distinct shares ( which joint owners are entitled to do at anytime) 50:50 is the starting point. Obviously that percentage can be challenged if OP paid for house solely out of her resources , but severing ownership is certainly not stealing. He already ownec his share.

At least OP has 50% secured on her name, and can challenge his will ( assuming she is his legal widow) over the other 50%. We don't know the values at stake here to know whether OP as his widow has been adequately provided for. OP, if still married at time of death may get a spouse's pension as well, if her husband had an occupational pension., and usefully inherits any unused Inheritance tax allowance.