Non-matrimonial assets?

[WTF202333]

Can anyone offer any advice / experience of how non-matrimonial assets are dealt with in a divorce please.
My Mum and I own a bungalow (inherited from my Grandfather) my vulnerable Uncle with learning difficulties lives in it.
My Mum is absolutely past herself that this asset could be called into question.

Well if you own it, then the proportion you own is likely in the pot yes

It will mostly likely be in the pot for division. The only way you can really safeguard it is by offering that equity from elsewhere. So, a larger percentage of your matrimonial home for example goes to your ex. Are you on speaking terms with your ex? Can you discuss this with him?

First point is that you have to declare it for consideration.

then you or your solicitor can make arguments as to whether it should be kept separate from the asset split. Essentially that the asset has never been used in pursuit of family life. You didn’t live in it or use income from it to fund your life when married.

Even then you may not exclude it from the negotiations. Because it is still an asset that you could benefit from different but like a pension. It may then significantly reduce your needs. Indeed it can be argued that it is a home you can live in with your brother. Unfortunately there are lots of arguments for and against this being treated as part of the negotiation.

It’s not a matrimonial asset if the income from the property hasn’t ever been mingled. In addition you have a vulnerable relative living there so it’s not as if you can easily sell it, and you are not the sole owner. I think solicitors advice is essential, as I think the needs argument could trump any other arguments. Do you have enough in the ‘pot’ that you can each get enough of a deposit to rehome? Any children?

It is an asset and will need to go in the pot. Remember you are essentially sat on £x hundreds of thousands potentially.

But it doesn't really end there, because it's not simple. Is he a decent person? Do you have kids? How big a difference would selling this house and him getting a quarter make to everything?

I would argue that this is a similar scenario to a situation I’m in.
My DM died last year and her husband, my stepfather had just gone into a home. Their house was owned as tenants in common with an 80/20 split to DM. Her 80% was passed to me and my siblings in her will. So SF owns 20% of the property. It cannot be sold as yet because he doesn’t have capacity to agree.
The local authority completed a financial assessment for SF, and decided to disregard his part of the property because on the open market, a 20% share can be calculated as being worth Zero . That’s because no one would want to buy 20% of a house!
In your case, you own (I presume) 50% of a property where a vulnerable adult lives. As your 50% of property cannot be sold, and the occupier cannot be forced to leave, it could be deemed to be of no value therefore disregarded in the financial settlement. This is what I’d argue for rather than agreeing to reduce your share of the remaining assets to offset the ‘value’ of the property.

@Soontobe60 thank you for this little bit of reassurance. It’s making my Mum really worried - she has just recovered from cancer and the stress of my divorce and being brought into the family pot is causing some strain. I feel really bad about things.

We have two teenagers, STBXH earns three times as much as I do, I have 100% care of the DC as he can’t be bothered. He has closed down limited companies, lied on form E re his income, expenditure and assets where as I have been completely transparent.

Apparently morals don’t matter in divorce, but I’m hoping that being the better person will somewhat go in my favour.

If your case is needs based, it will be considered as partly meeting your needs and offset against other assets. Given you are not going to have access to the money immediately, you could probably offset it against your STBXH's pension or savings (e.g. if you have a £40k stake in the bungalow, he keeps £40k of his pension or savings in return).

@BetterFuture1985 thank you. Can you explain ‘needs based’? Sorry if I sound stupid.

I can't believe you're not allowed any assets of your own when you get married! No wonder people don't bother. Mumsnet is forever telling us marriage = protection!

Marriage = protection if you are the lower earner, have no assets and/or have child(ren) from a previous marriage living in the home.

If you have assets and/or are the higher earner then there is no protection.

Yup. Biggest mistake I made.

Anyway OP, if this house has always been in your name (with your mum) and has stayed completely separate from the matrimonial finances, then it can be ringfenced - unless, that is, your ex can’t be adequately housed with whatever he gets from the split of the matrimonial assets. In that case he may be eligible for some of it.

Needs - what do you both 'need' to live off. So for you, if you have your dc 💯 of the time, you need a 3 bed hoise and enough money to live off, he needs a one bedroom house and enough money to live off. Your uncle needs somewhere to live.

When my ex amd I got a divorce we went ti a mediator and asked them to split our assets fairly, and they told us it wasnt about fair it was about needs. But I think that was a lot to do with my youngest being only 9 at the time.

And, if you know he lied, can't you tell your solicitor?

‘Needs’ refers to what each of you needs from the pot to adequately rehouse - taking into account any children, pension, other assets, mortgage capacity, other debts and income capacity.

This might have been what your mediator said but it's not quite right. Needs of the children will trump fairness but - and this is very important - the courts would seek to ensure fairness in the end. This might be in the form of a Mesher Order if one party has to stay in the FMH for example. Or allowing the party with less immediate needs to keep a larger proportion of pensions (the party receiving more current assets can downsize). Etc.

If a settlement is unfair in the long term one party can easily appeal.