Inherited house

[SJMummy50]

Hi, bit of a unique one this, so not sure if anyone has similar experience. A few years ago my husband's parents transferred their house into his name but still remain living in it. It has no mortgage but husband obviously can't do anything with it whilst they still live in it (both in their 80s) but would it be counted as an asset as part of a divorce in any way? Thanks.

@Randomperson99 is back to mandsplain to us why we must be nice girls, there there and accept our sad little lives if we get screwed over. Bollocks @Randomperson99
you keep calling the OP grabby and you are persistent in this. OP I think you have had 90% of us support you here and the other 10% just don’t have the capacity to feel empathy if sense. I personally look forward to the day you secure your kids and then watch the kid’s dad’s affair fizzle out to no excitement in the bedsit they get to share. Whilst you and your kids live it up with the freedom this will give you. You did not just walk into this man’s life and held him to ransom. This guy made a conscious decision to marry you. He’s just lost the plot later on, but you don’t have to suffer, thanks to English Law, yes @Randomperson99 the good and gracious English Law that takes care to ensure the kids are kept to the lifestyle they are accustomed to.

I wonder if OP's parents in law have been paying their son rent - presumably not. I also assume that he has not secured debt against that property already?

It is unfortunate that the inlaws presumably did not understand when they gifted the house that it would be legally owned by their son with his spouse entitled to half of the value in the event of a divorce - because under German rules the asset would not be a marital one.

As this is being used as a threat such that OP will be able to buy her ex out at 40% of value of the home and not 50%, there is no implication of the inlaws being required to move. Although if something is being used as a threat in order for it to be effective the ex will need to believe that this is a real bargaining chip. There is always a risk that threats make the divorce more acrimonious and therefore longer and far more costly in terms of legal fees.

It sounds like the difference between having to buy out 40 rather than 50 percent of the family home represents a significant sum.
In terms of the ex being able to house himself at a similar standard to OP which I believe is what the courts may look at - there is a valid argument that he could possibly raise more debt with the in-laws property as security (and indeed he could charge them rent - though that would be highly contentious!!)

The house is in Germany . Maybe read the whole thread before issuing abuse?

German here. It'll be about inheritance tax, which indicates it's worth a tidy bit, certainly over half a million euros since that would be near the threshold for tax to kick in if the legacy comes from both parents.

Certainly won't be to protect against the cost of care in a German context. A big chunk of that is covered by compulsory social insurance in Germany. And if care home costs exceed insurance plus the parents' own assets then children above a certain income level can be held liable to cover the difference for their parents.

OP - important to ascertain whether or not your PILs retained a usufruct (Niesbrauch) in the house when they transferred it. In that case, the value of that usufruct will need to be deducted from the value of the house. My sibling and I had been given a usufruct in our parents' house, which at the point they sold it to move into assisted living would have amounted to roughly one quarter of the property's worth for each of us (it's dependent on the age of the beneficiary though so probably lower for your in-laws.)

It's actually not about male or female. It could be that a woman receives an early inheritance. Husband has affair and he could be grabby. Main point is that the asset has nothing to do with OP and she is being grabby if she goes after it. If that is not grabby I don't know what is.

I will certainly never make the mistake of making the conscious decision as you say to marry someone poorer than me in England.

Thank you, I will look into this.

I think you have made your point RandomPerson and I respectfully disagree with you. You possibly have not been in my position so probably can not empathise. I wish you well.

@Randomperson99 poorer than you? What are you a narc or something? You seem to perceive your imaginary status as being significant. Random indeed.

Lol so you disagree that the house has nothing to do with you. Ok.

@Randomperson99 i also disagree with you and I have no skin on this game. You are in the minority on this thread.

Why am I a narc? All I am seeing on here is that people always find some reason how they justify grabbing anything they can should things go wrong. As in this case: going after someone else's parents home.
This is immoral in my view.

@Randomperson99 what if the OPs parents had already died and their wealth had already been passed to the OP and been swallowed up over the years? Would the OP still be grabby in your view?

That's a fair intellectual point. In general I would take out whatever is left of any inheritance. I would find it immoral to go after inheritance as presumably OP may have her own inheritance that OPs partner can not touch.

If someone's parents die and someone uses inheritance in the marriage that is their own choice. But if they keep the assets seperate those should not be at risk to be grabbed by a grabby party.

@Randomperson99 marriage is a union of everything including money, there is no option to “keep assets separate “. Maybe it is different in other countries but here once you marry everything is joint.

How can you possibly claim that the house has nothing to do with the lady this guy chose married and had his kids with? His Wife. If he had a prenup, yes sure, but without prenup any fortune or misfortune is shared.

Do you know that your husband plans to live with his affair partner? And apologies if I’ve missed this but how many nights pw will he have the children? You might not have to even bring up the parent’s house if he is effectively re-housed with her (her income should be taken into account) and if he doesn’t have them 50:50 then there isn’t any reason to keep the financial split 50:50. The children are always priority no 1 for the courts and they don’t like to uproot them unless it’s essential - for example to release enough cash for both partners to rehome. If he raises a ‘needs’ argument, they will look at where he’s living with the affair partner and say he doesn’t ‘need’ 50% because he’s already rehoused. Similarly if he has them, say 30/70 then you have a bigger ‘need’ for housing than he does.

Get legal advice but I do wish you luck and I hope you get to stay in the house.

@Randomperson99 post n a thread where it’s the women with the inheritance. You’d get support on that one

He has told friends that he will live with her but as soon as we went into mediation he claimed he would live alone (I guess to strengthen his case). He currently works at her place during the day (as he can work remote) and spends about 1 in 3 nights there. Despite the clear intention, I understand that her income/home can not come into the equation.

I find it immoral to shag someone else while married then ditch your spouse and kids while you swan off with the other woman, leaving them to move out of their home, lost their security and live in relative poverty.

If someone did that to me, like hell would I be all nice and sweet and moral and say oh no I couldn’t possibly touch this or that asset. My children come first and the gloves would come off to do whatever was needed to protect them and keep them in their home near their school, which they did nothing to deserve losing.

But we all have different priorities and perhaps being ‘nice’ is yours 🤷‍♀️

I agree with this.

I would go after it. You’re not forcing a sale or his parents to move out. You’re after you’re allowed 50%; it’s half yours as an asset. I’d want it valued and then would want 50%-he can raise a mortgage. And fuck being nice-my kids would come first.

Forgive typos and autocorrect

This involves assets outside the U.K.? Get legal advice.

His parents have transferred it to him to avoid tax so just as immoral perhaps. They would have been informed of the risk of it being included as a marital asset on divorce

So yes it would be counted for value purposes as a marital asset. It is up to your soon to be ex of he wants his parents to sell up or whether he will accept a smaller share of equity in the property to compensate.