What % would I be entitled to after a short marriage?

[Llush]

I have been married for under 2 years but was in a relationship the 2 years prior, so 3.5 years altogether.

I have 2 children, aged 6 & 8, but no joint children. I am a full time stay at home mother and am dependent on his salary. His family pay the school fees.

We live in his house, but it's is held in family trust.

Op what do you think you should be entitled to? You’ve basically contributed nothing

it’s. Short marriage ( and rejationship) with no joint children. What did you do before you met him ?

Op what do you think you should be entitled to? You’ve basically contributed nothing

it’s. Short marriage ( and rejationship) with no joint children. What did you do before you met him ?

You'd be entitled to whatever you went into the marriage with.

Impossible to say, you will need a good understanding of the finances first and the advice of a lawyer. Generally you cant go around marrying people and having them dependent on you and then expect to dust your hands of them if it ends, no matter how short lived it was. And Courts dont want to create state beneficiaries when there is someone else who can pick up the bill. That being said, the money may be structured in a way that he owns and earns nothing much, in which case there is nothing to share.

I know of a short marriage, no shared kids or property, where she got half his savings. Married at 23 and divorced at 26, she was unemployed and planning to travel, pathetic of her really. But in that case he'd be entitled to half your savings too.

This place confuses me. There is a trending thread right now where an OP's new husband is into BDSM stuff and everyone is advising her to kick him out as it's her house and they've only been married 3 weeks. Apparently, because it's a short marriage, he has no right to her home (I agree).

So what's different here? This is also a short marriage (albeit 2 years vs a month) and no joint children. Why is OP entitled to anything, especially when her DH was also paying living expenses for her and her kids and their school fees? If anything, she owes him.

Oh bloody pathetic, you've had a free ride for 3 years now time to pay for your own children, get some self respect and set this man free from such a greedy golddigger

It depends to an extent on what the total assets are. If the house was acquired by the OP on the other thread and there are no other assets (and assuming that that OP and her DH have similar incomes) then it’s unlikely any financial provision would be made for the husband.

Here, the OP has been a housewife and looked after the home. She is financially dependent on her husband. Her children have been treated as children of the family by her husband. I am not sure (I could be wrong) but it sounds as if the DH is wealthy. The OP would be entitled to a share of any increase in asset value that has taken place during the marriage plus the court may make an order that goes towards meeting her housing needs.

You may not agree with it but that is the law 🤷‍♀️

Oh no, let me clarify. I may not agree with the legal side but I understand how the OP may get something depending on how the courts judge her financial situation and dependence on her spouse. Morally, I completely disagree but that is not the question here.

When I say this place confuses me, I am more referring to the posters. Everyone agrees the DH in the other thread is entitled to nothing while some posters here are inventing scenarios of abuse and other mitigating factors to justify OP getting a payout.

It's the MN double standard that I am questioning. If the OP was the wealthy partner and her DH was a SAHD with 2 kids that OPs family paid, you can bet he'd be called a cocklodger or worse and everyone would be questioning the gall, audacity and the gumption of him to expect more from OP and her family if they were divorcing.

Okay. I’d say the majority of the posts agree with you though and are making lots of derogatory comments to the OP about getting a job and being a gold digger. So I cannot see a huge double standard to be honest.

A lot of wealthy men want and actively encourage their wives not to work and depending on their career, sometimes need to have a wife at home to deal with life admin, entertaining etc. The children are not biologically his but he has taken them on and I’m not sure people would generally call SAHMs with primary age children lazy but feel it’s okay here because the kids are from a previous relationship. Who knows why the relationship has broken down. He might have cheated, he could have been abusive, he could have just abruptly ended it and the OP is panicking about what will happen now.

People need to understand that marriage is a contract and part of that contract is sharing of finances. If you don't want to share finances then don't get married. Or get a pre-nup and hope a court will recognise it.

That's an interesting situation. They've left property in trust, to protect it from going outside the family (?) but are paying school fees for other people's children. Do you know the thinking behind that?

I can't see that legally you'd be entitled to anything. Unless the school fees are paid by a trust, when it would depend on the terms of the trust, I think.

If you went into the marriage with no assets you'll leave with no assets as no joint DC. You could ask if you could have one terms school fees so you can give notice to independent school before first day back at school in September. Your stbx might give you rental deposit so you can rent accommodation. You won't be looking after him any more do you need to get a job pdq so you can support your DC.

That's pretty much literally what every post is saying here too, that she isn't or shouldn't be entitled to anything.

Getting married in England as a wealthy man is seriously the most insane decision one can make.
OP deserves nothing of his assets. But I suspect she will get some.

Wow!

Entitled or what!

You get nothing.

You are very confident about your claims of what the OP is entitled to, but so much so I can tell you are not a lawyer.

There is nowhere near enough information here to make any judgements about what she will be awarded after a short divorce. It doesn't help anyone to give overly optimistic expectations.

For example, the property in a family trust is not his property, the trust structure may be one that can be challenged but that is unlikely. The parents are paying the school fees not him, she is divorcing him not his parents. Courts are not inclined to impose obligations on parties who are not involved in the case before them. Can you imagine if your child was divorcing and suddenly the court started to demand you paid for things your ex-in law considered themselves entitled too?

The HNW divorces that you were referencing were where the husband was wealthy, they were not where the husbands family were wealthy and the courts started awarding against the wider family. Perhaps the wealthy family are very dumb and have terrible solicitors and will have committed themselves to all sorts of liabilities, but on the balance of probabilities they probably are not.

The OP should go in with very low expectations as is perfectly possible that she is walking away with not much more than some payments that would allow her to be get herself a job and support herself.

Marriage is a contract between the parties involved, not the wider family. English law does not assume a clan system.

The House and the school fees are not related to the Husband so OP will be asking a court to make rulings to place obligations on parties not subject to proceedings. Not a lot of chance of that happening. If that was even on the cards the parents ad the trustees of any trusts involved would suddenly become parties to the case and the legal mess would be quite significant.

I suspect the one terms school fees is the one area OP will be ok on. If the in-laws have been paying then the school probably considers them the liable party and the contract will require one term so they will pay and notify of the intent to not continue.