Short marriage no children divorce

[H90]

Hello,

Sorry for reaching out on here but I am in a bit of a situation and wanted some guidance if possible.

I was in a short marriage around 1 and a half years and my husband decided to file for divorce. We have no children involved. He has since moved out of the property and I am the only person living in it. I am a low earner so he is still paying for the full mortgage payments.

He has multiple property’s bought a long time before we were married. We bought one family home prior to our wedding which we both lived in (for around 20months). We bought the property in joint names and the mortgage is joint also. He paid a large deposit of £110k whilst I did not pay anything towards it.

His income is reasonable of around 50k per year and mine is around 15k per year but I have some health issues where I need time off work and not really much of a mortgage capacity to help me house myself in the future.

What is the best solution for me? Currently I am asking for 60% of the equity in the property which would be around £160k, which would help me with my housing needs for the future. He is not accepting this and has now filed for court.

What you believe you are legally entitled to and what you will get are not necessarily the same thing.
Your ex will be able to show the origin of the deposit, likely that it was a loan, so has to go back to his parents, that you have contributed nothing financially, that you have no dependents etc.
Of course a solicitor will say you are entitled to more, because they won't have done full fact finding yet.
Remember he has a solicitor also telling him the other extreme, and reality is somewhere in between

I have been to the brink of divorce, after 20 years and two kids, and got a lot of legal advice as a result. And I would be unlikely to get the type of split you are asking for.

Think carefully about how much legal fees are likely to be and whether it is worth it.

Think carefully about how much legal fees are likely to be and whether it is worth it.

This is what it boils down to!

The OP may have already decided that lots of her ex-husband’s money should be given to hers.

The court will probably decide that a small amount of the money will go to her.

What will be interesting is how much of that final amount ends up in the lawyers pay packet. I suspect it will be a huge amount, leaving the OP with far less than the husband has already offered!

For those saying the parental input of £50k was a loan that needs to be repaid, that's a moral issue. Legally the parents will have ticked a box and signed a document that says it was a gift which does not need repaid. DH did this for ds1 just a few months ago, the agreement is that it will be repaid at £x a month but it's not legally enforceable.

@H90 to be honest, you are not being fair to him! it was a very short marriage with no children involved. Morally, you should do the right thing and walk away with what you came with!! it is not even as if you would have managed to save anything off a £15k way. It makes you look like you only married him for his money and his ability to keep you in the way you were never accustomed!! not very nice.

I disagree with the joint tenancy it will be on him to prove that the intention was for the deposit to be ringfenced and for it not to be a 50/50 split ( joint tenancy doesn’t matter who pays what). Certainly for the latter it is going to be tough to prove anything other than a 50/50 so his 30/70 I can’t imagine holding water.

as for the deposit - depends if he can prove it was a loan designed to be paid back or a gift to both of them or just him. Without proof it will be seen as the intention to be joint tenants because that is what they did

its why if one person puts in more deposit you make it v clear that the intention is to claim back that deposit upon any split - it’s not hard or difficult to legally ring fence it and had he done so wouldn’t be an issue
or to buy as tenants in common if he wanted the 30/70 split.

and that for me is key - what he wants now would have been very easy for him to achieve (and given the properties he owns not outside of his knowledge area to argue he wasn’t aware he should do so) so therefore the intention at the time would be for it to be split 50/50

the other potential argument is that he was unaware and was unwitting in creating a 50/59 split - as I said from what she says of him with a property portfolio I can’t see that holding water either

i agree with her solicitor 50/50 seems likely as that was the intention when it was bought

@H90 Thank you all for your responses and I appreciate all your replies. I’m not being greedy in this, it’s literally my entitlement being a 50% joint owner on the property with a large equity. I will contact another solicitor for advice tomorrow and see what they have to say. Oh but you most certainly are being greedy!!! you came with nothing at all!!!

@H90 you are the worst type of money grabber!!!! you are the kind who give women a bad name!

What you’re missing op is that you own the property jointly but you don’t own 50% of it, and under the rules of divorce a court can decide to award it in completely different %

that will be determined on

length of marriage
ages
housing needs ( can rent)
children and ages ( none)
what was brought In pre marriage

all of these go against you and reduce your ‘claim’

I don’t think it will though because they bought it jointly together and both own all of it the default splitting of it will always be 50/50 unless there is clear evidence it was never suppose to be a joint tenancy

the fact that they got married after the joint tenancy doesn’t effect anything they bought it before they were married so if they weren’t married it would still be a 50/50 split unless there are documents regarding the ring fencing of the deposit

all of the factors above do have a huge implication on the assets they brought into it as strictly speaking once married all assets go into the pot (including the properties he bought before marriage). A court I imagine would take short shrift about her rights to them as they didn’t live it in

this though was the matrimonial home, bought jointly together 2.5 years lived in so yes I can imagine she may well be given 50% of it.

joint tenancy is really quire absolute in a legal sense morality doesn’t come into it

The equity in the property is around £270,000. Even though I have not contributed towards it, I am asking for 60% equity which would be around £160,000. This would help me with my future housing needs in buying a 1 bedroom flat.

Is this a reverse? Your phrasing is odd.

I feel sorry for the chap really, you really saw him coming didn't you....by your own admission you barely worked and lived with your parents. But then again more fool him for buying a house "jointly" with you.
You're lucky he is even paying the mortgage - he is under no obligation to.

And this is why I will advise my son not to marry!

Isn’t it 50% as a starting point and then determined based on other factors?

I can’t see you getting 50% after 18 months. Where did the deposit come from? He obviously had it saved up. I’d take the 50k I doubt you will get more than that and more than likely will get less

If he buys a house with someone it would still be the same for this asset bought before marriage. He assets before marriage aren’t in play only the one they jointly bought together

I would always take legal advice before buying a house if deposits are in play but also marriage has an awful lot of positives you need to make sure you are aware off

Thank you. Having had a family member taken for a ride I’ve already told him any family money given will be tied up and will seek legal advice. It’s really sad and something I’d rather not do but having witnessed the aftermath of a grabby and nasty woman, I’m taking no risks.

@Strictly1 absolutely if one person gives more deposit than the other or puts in fsmily money you should always get it documented and ring fenced

that said the reverse is I would never recommend anyone move into a house owned by another person and pay towards it and most importantly have children with someone without having their legal situation sorted - often through marriage

but here in this example the marriage actually doesn’t make much difference as she isn’t after his previous assets just the house they bought jointky

Did you buy in tenants in common or joint tenants? I think this is likely to make a difference.

It absolutely isn’t split 50:50 unless evidence that it wasn’t meant to be joint tenancy. Yes If not married. In divorce a judge will have complete jurisdiction based on a bunch of criteria. He could award 50: 50, 90:10, 10:90 and anywhere in between and will look to a range of principles as deemed ‘fair’ in the eyes of the law.

either way doesn’t change the fact op is complete gold digger who completely saw this guy coming and has zero morals at all. Pity the next guy to come along

It was purchased as joint tenants.

I haven’t read the full thread. So he put down a deposit of £110K so I presume the rest was mortgaged? He’s paid mortgage payments for two years? How the hell is there £320K equity in the property?? Once the mortgage and his parents have been repaid you might be entitled to 50% of the equity but that will be nowhere near £50K.

Where have you got 320k from? That’s not what she said

Sorry I must have misread. I thought she was after £160k?

This is why it’s best to read the OPs posts if nothing else.

Sorry it was 60% of £270k not 50% of 320. My question still stands. If he borrowed the ‘deposit’ what funded the rest of it? Or was the deposit not an actual deposit?

So what have you actually contributed to the marriage, mortgage, life together?!

I'm embarrassed for you, your attitude is pathetic.