Home split/Finances

[Welcomeking]

Looking for advice please based on the below.
Married 14 years. One DD age 15. Together for 17 years. Prior to marriage husband had own mortgage for 2 years. I contributed when I moved in. Had DD. Married 3 years later. Bought house together 6 years ago and my name is on mortgage/deeds.

My question is on divorce in terms of splitting of finances because we only jointly owned a property 6 years ago will I only be entitled to the share of this?

The property my husband owed 2 years before we met was solely in his name even when we Married.

I have had a look at Wikivorce and it reads as though anything owed before marriage i will not get a share of which means the home even when we married.

I am going to seek legal advice but in the interim can anyone help?

Assuming you are in England the equity in the house will be a marital asset. Which will be included in a long list of marital assets and liabilities that need to be split up as part of the divorce.

How those assets get split will depend on circumstances and your joint and individual situation as a couple. For the average middle income family with two working parents the most likely basis for splitting assets is based on need. You will both continue to be parents and will need a home for that. You will both need some pension provision for the future.

Your future housing need will be the same. But your ability to afford that will depend on your respective incomes (look at potential net income taking account of benefits and deductions not gross salary). If these are about the same then your affordability is the same. Equity will be split 50:50. If there is a difference in income then one of you might need more equity.

Pension need is assumed to be equal. But can be a point of negotiation if one of you wants to keep all of it or is willing to forgo entitlement for more equity. What you need to remember is many pension values are not the same as ready cash available here and now.

You question as to whether assets can be ring fenced if they were owned pre marriage. This is dependent on length of the marriage. In a short marriage without dependents and in England the answer is yes. In England a long marriage without dependents children then no. In Scotland the legalisation is different and assets accrued outside marriage are treated differently.

The online guides and advice are most helpful if you provide some detail on your circumstances. The more average and generic your situation the more relevant the advice will be. If there is any complexity you should see a solicitor.

Thank you @LemonTT . We are in the UK. I will be able to afford less as I earn less despite now working full time as I worked part time when my DD was younger. Both have pensions although his is substantially more. We've been married 14 years.

If you've been married 14 years the basic assumption is you getting 50% of everything. It is irrelevant that the name on the deeds of the previous properties was just his - if you had divorced 7 years ago they would still have been marrital assets despite your name not being on the deeds.

If a marriage is SHORT, and if the two individuals brought significantly different assets into the marriage, then the courts are likely to rule for an unequal split with the party who brought more into the marriage getting to take more away. After 14 years it is definitely a long marriage and it is very unlikely that he can stop you from claiming the half that is legitimately yours.

The legal effect of marriage is to tie together two people's financial futures. This gives you the security to make life decisions knowing that you aren't on your own. Although it hasn't worked out as a permanent relationship, the legal effect of the marriage is supposed to be that if you split up you will both be on reaasonably a reasonably equal footing financially, with the same capacity as each other to house yourself using the assets you have assigned to you when the pot is split.

His (large) pension and your (small) one are also part of the pot that will be divided 50:50 as well as the property.

It won’t automatically be 50:50 split of assets. It could be more or less in total and could be more equity less pension or other combinations of different assets to reach overall ‘fair’ split

Thanks @millymollymoomoo and @HappilyUrbanTrimmer for your replies. I will seek legal advice which is free for the first 20 minutes (not sure how much I'll get out of 20 minutes). Good to have a bit of knowledge before I have the chat. On another note friends have said not to say anything to him and play cards close to my chest. At what point do you mention separation? surely no right time?

Why do you think you should get a share of something that he owned before the marriage?
Im not asking about the law. Why do you think you should be entitled to it?

@Coolio900 i didn't say I should be entitled to it it was more a question as to considering the length of the marrisge I should be. Just the same as I have funds I was left from a will which he would be entitled to. It all goes in one pot.

based on the length of marriage it will all be in the pot

not clear on your op - is there 2 houses or 1, ie did he own his own house for a few years, then you move in and contribute but not on mortgage , then that’s sold and buy joint house together? Or dud he buy a house you move in, then after a few years you both buy a joint house while he keeps that in his name?

either way they’d both be in the pot. If the former it sounds like he owned it only for a few years prior to you cohabitating plus long marriage means it’s a joint asset

@millymollymoomoo thanks for your reply. There is just one property. He owned a house around 18 months before I moved in. I contributed fairly to the mortgage and bills at that point. Had DD one year after and even when on maternity leave I still contributed. We later moved bought a property together which is our current one and I am on the mortgage/deeds, work FT and pay mortgage/bills etc. All money goes in one pot the rest we have left over is for savings, own spending money, overpaying mortgage etc.

I am happy not to get a share of his pension due to him putting down a good deposit on our first home as we were not together then. Would that seem reasonable? I am wanting when I approach this to be as fair and amicable as possible. Whether he chooses to be is a different matter but I suspect he will be.

The pensions ( any thstveithervif you have) should be in the pot. This is a long marriage so all finances are considered in the pot for division. Doesn’t matter who financially contributed more. You may end up deciding to take less pension but you must have them values and declared so you can both reach a fair outcome.

in my own divot e we agreed to each keep our own pensions - because we were both high earners, I worked fulll time throughout, no gaps in work period or contributions etc . But that was because we knew what they were and was a conscious choice that we agreed to,

to don’t say whether you had work gaps or went pt etc but the pension is a key asset and should not be ignored or overlooked

@millymollymoomoo I worked part time for 9 years and in my DD junior/nursery and infant education I was very much part time and worked my hours around her. Obviously this saved money on nursery fees and after school fees as I was always there for her. In fact we both made sacrifices for her in terms of work but I was always the lower earner and still am and purposely didn't look to increase my earnings as it meant she/we/i would miss out. It would have been different had I always been a higher earner but to seek that after having her would in my opinion not have been ideal. It seems from what you're saying I'll need to get a solicitor involved? I was hoping to do this amicably, without too much cost and look at a legal separation.

Sounds like you were never a high earner. You say you didn't seek to become one after your child. But before that you were also not a high earner. Most likely child or not you would have never been a high earner.

It's just funny how people on here usually blame the fact that they don't achieve much in their careers on having kids.

Op may not have been a high earner, and she’s recognising that. But she still went pt to look after their joint child and as a result her pension contributions will have taken a hit While her husband’s have not.

op needs levelling up as a result.

you should get a solicitor and correct valuations of all assets - only then can you work out a fair split.

Stop thinking of what is "fair and reasonable"! How will you ever be compensated for the money you lost working part time when your child was younger. You working part time enabled him to work full time and advance his career.

Take the 50% equity in the home - half is pension. For the love of GOD think about your own retirement - do you want to live in poverty? Let the courts decide what is fair and reasonable. He'll probably want to see you penniless and homeless when he realises you want to leave.

@Coolio900 not blaming my child at all I just never wanted to follow that passion of earning lots of money. I am a nurse that is my passion rather than earning lots of money.

Thanks both for being the voice of reasons @LoveSandbanks and @millymollymoomoo..