DB married but his name is not on the deeds to family home

[Lamu]

Just that really. They've been married 10 years or so, a few years ago they bought a house however SIL and her mum decided they'd purchase the house together. Db contributes to all household bills including the mortgage although his name isn't on the deeds. Would he be entitled to a part of the equity on the house on divorce?

i would imagine so, if he can prove he has paid towards the house.

why don't they just put it in his name as well though?

They're on the verge of divorce having had a rough year of it. Long story but I think it was always his MIL intention to not include Db on the deeds. And he's always assumed he'd have no claim to the equity.

As they are married it doesn't matter whether or not he has paid towards the house or is on the deeds. It is an asset of the marriage and will be taken into account in arriving at a settlement. He is entitled to a fair share of the assets.

Did his MIL contribute towards the purchase price of the house?

Thanks prh. Do you know if this still applies if he signed a document saying he had no financial interest in the property? He had to sign this prior to getting the mortgage, at the banks request apparently. YY she put up half of the deposit.

Did he sign a form of consent?

That's used where there's a long term tenant (e.g. a lodger) and I don't think it would be enforceable where he has been contributing to the upkeep etc. It will make any resolution very long and drawn-out though.

If he's always assumed he's have no claim on the equity (i.e. he was happy with that when he signed the papers) what's changed?

Yes he signed document stating he had no rights over the property. As far as I understand the bank wouldn't allow the mortgage to go ahead without it. And without MIL's help they would have had to continue renting for the foreseeable future.

"What's changed?"

SIL has moved out of the house. And they're both set on getting a divorce which i think is for the best, however any talk of the house is met by "it's not your house" etc. Db cannot afford to rent a place big enough in order to have the children 50/50 so it puts him in a rather difficult position. Tbh it's me who is pushing the issue as I don't want him taken advantage of. He's so laid back he's willing to walk away from it.

Hmm, well, it's not his house...

Is he actually worse off? If they'd stayed renting, much of what he's contributed to this house wouldn't have gone in rent anyway, wouldn't it?

Is there much equity there, if they only bought in the last few years? At best he's only entitled to half his wife's share. (i.e the assets of the marriage)

would have gone on rent...

IIRC (am not a lawyer) if they weren't married but he'd been paying towards the mortgage he'd have an equitable interest in the house. Given that they are married then any of their joint or individual assets are up for grabs in the divorce and the fact that the property isn't in his name will make no difference. He needs a good solicitor (as does SIL, as she seems woefully misinformed).

The document the mortgage company wanted is between him and the mortgage company, not him and his wife.

If he's getting divorced his solicitor will deal with all this. On the nicest possie way, I appreciate that you are concerned for your DB, but its probably best not to start wading in.

Yes AnAdventure is right - he doesn't own the house but he is entitled to his share of the assets of the marriage. In the same (more common) way that a wife still gets her share when all the assets are in the husband's name.

However, only half the house is an asset of the marriage. (could be argued that MIL should have been advised to put the whole thing in her name)

The document he signed was to protect the mortgage company if they forced sale. He could have no claim on any proceeds until the MIL and DW's debt was repaid.

It may not be his house on paper but when his been working 6 days a week to over pay the mortgage and repay the deposit to MIL when lovely SIL goes goes out sleeping with every Tom, Dick and Harry, it rankles a little. There's a VERY LONG back story that I won't bother going into.

The document the bank asked him to sign is almost certainly the standard form they use whenever one of the occupants is not named on the mortgage. It ensures they can repossess the house if necessary. It does not affect his claim on the equity in the property in a divorce settlement. MIL may own part of the property which reduces the equity but he is entitled to a fair share.

If the court thinks that MIL's involvement in the property was purely intended to reduce any divorce settlement they can treat the house as belonging to his wife alone, so all of the equity would be available for splitting between them. The court is more likely to come to that conclusion if the house was purchased within the last 3 years. If it was longer ago than that it would be up to your brother to prove that this was his wife's intention and that his MIL was not acting in good faith.

LoveandLife - It is not clear that only half of the house is an asset of the marriage. As per my last post, if this was a deliberate ploy to try and reduce any divorce settlement the court can take the view that the house is entirely an asset of the marriage and that MIL doesn't own any of it.

Doesn't this go against the advise on the other thread which stated that as OP DH's could get a better mortgage on his own (rather than joint) her name couldn't be on the deeds, so a deed of trust thingy should be signed and set up saying she had rights to the asset?

But here if there is no deed of trust and his name is not on the mortgage, then he has no rights over the asset.

Mind you its been a long day...so I could have read things wrong!

He agreed to the arrangement on the basis that "he's always assumed he'd have no claim to the equity." So it's not like they tried to pull the wool over his eyes. I think he will get something (half, or thereabouts of his wife's share of the equity)

In any case, does he want his Dc's home to be sold? Especially if he stands to gain relatively little from that sale. How much equity are we talking about?

If they're "on the verge of divorce" I imagine he has many more pressing things on his mind and that you're not helping TBH.

He's not necessarily going to want his Dc's home to be sold, LoveandLife. He might, for example, be going for 50/50 shared residency and want to stay in the property with the children. He certainly does, from what OP said, want to make sure that he ends up living somewhere where there's at least room for overnight stays with the children. What happens to the marriage's chief asset is potentially going to have a material impact on all sorts of "more pressing matters". And all the OP has done is to ask here whether it's true that he has no claim at all over it.

poorbuthappy - You are confusing advice for unmarried couples with the situation for married couples. A Declaration of Trust is needed if the couple is unmarried as otherwise the person not named on the deeds may have trouble proving they have a claim on the property. It is not needed for married couples.

LoveandLife - Have you ever been through divorce? Whether or not you will have a roof over your head and will have enough room for the children to stay is one of the most pressing things on your mind. And things you have agreed to when you hoped the marriage would last forever may look very different when the marriage is falling apart. I fully agree with the OP that her brother deserves to know that he has a claim on the house and that it may be for as much as half of the equity.

He will need qualified legal advice through the divorce. Really best to stand back and let them advise him as to entitlements, OP.

Thank you adventure that's exactly what I'm concerned about. He will move out of the home imminently to allow SIL and the children to move back in and have some routine and normality back.

Yes he may gain relatively little but it will go some way towards helping him purchase or rent elsewhere. The last time they separated contact was limited due to Db not having adequate space for the children to stay the night. He is trying to do the right thing in a very difficult situation.

FWIW I have vented my opinions to other family members and been nothing but supportive to DB. So this idea that "I'm wading in" really is far from the truth. I do wonder if some of the comments here would be the same if I was posting about my sister.

Mine would be. It is vital to have appropriate legal advice for anyone going through separation and divorce, and any solicitor would want to know precise details and exactly what documents have been signed regarding legal status over the house before offering any opinion.
The courts require fair settlement to be demonstrated.
Well meaning advice on the internet should not be anyones guide to the way forward, other than in the most general terms.

I am not unsympathetic, OP - just very wary of opinions being offered without having all the legal facts, and which may lead to expectations which are not then fulfilled.

If she's living in the family home with the children, though, there's every chance that she won't have to sell or pay him his share of current equity until the children are adults. So he'd probably be unwise to rely on having that money available to him any time soon.