Historical property re divorce

[Ineversignedupforthis]

It has been suggested to me, that after a certain number of years, whatever property/wealth a partner brings to the relationship is discounted as being 'historical', and just in the family pot as it were. Is this in fact correct, and if so, how many years. Doesn't seem fair on someone who entered the relationship with an entire house, v someone who entered with nothing.

Isn't that what pre-nups are for?

When considering a divorce settlement each case is treated separately and the overall circumstances have to be considered. Modern marriages are seen as a relationship of two equals with the financial and non financial contributions of both parties generally being deemed as equal. With divorce settlements the aim is to achieve equality by leaving both parties on a similar financial footing to start independent lives.

With a short marriage there are arguments that each party takes away what they brought to the marriage. However, the duration of the marriage is only one factor in a checklist of factors and the needs of one party, particularly in relation to children, may out trump that. Where assets originated from matters less over time.

A prenup setting out how assets are to split should the relationship fail carries considerable weight but still has to balanced against the checklist to ensure a settlement is "fair" ie complies with the law.

Although with a really short marriage you won't get as many of your "needs" met as with a longer marriage.

Ok, thanks all. V useful.20 yrs, so not short. Bit late for a pre-nup Lil, but thanks for your input.

Thanks. Need to get it sorted then. Moral issue at stake here, even if not successful in the end.