Married - tenants in common question!

[Homemover2]

I've named changed.

My hubby and I have been married for 4 years.

We currently live in my house which I have had for over 10 years and is solely in my name with a low mortgage. For info, I bought this current house with the equity I had when I sold my flat - I had an equity of 30k.

We are now thinking of moving to a bigger place and I will be using the equity from this house which is about 110k to buy our new house under both our names.

My hubby was actually reluctant for us to use all my equity but we won't be able to buy what we want with just our salaries and I don't want us to have a huge monthly repayment. We will both be paying equal amounts into the mortgage payment.

Anyway, we were advised to go for tenants in common to protect my share.
I have a child from a previous relationship and a child with my hubby, I want both my kids to be looked after if anything were to happen to me and my DH re marries.

Is a tenants in common the best approach? In the event of a divorce (we are very solid, but you never know), what will happen?
I've read I'll need a deeds in trust and will be making a Will.

Any advice will be gratefully received.
Thanks

Anybody....

Me and STBXDH are tenants in common. It made it simple now I'm buying him out because we have set shares in the property so there's no negotiating, it's worth what it's worth and I'm paying him his share of the equity. Happy all round.

Yes, I think tenants in common is best way to go. Just makes everything clear in case there are problems later on.

I really hope there won't be! But if you do fall out, that is one less thing to argue/worry about.

You will be much more likely to keep hold of your original investment if you protect it now. The house will be a matrimonial asset so you could end up having to pay out more, but hopefully this would draw a line under any arguments.

The courts have to make a 'fair' settlement on divorce so provided you were both in good health, with earning capacities etc, it would not be 'fair' to deprive you of your superior initial investment. And both agreeing to be tenants in common at the outset, makes it clear you both understood that.

TBH the fact you hold the new property as T in C won't make much if a difference when it comes to divorce, although it would have an effect on any creditors if his (eg if he's made bankrupt).

Would the courts not take into account what was acquired before the married? To be fair, my hubby was against us using all of the equity he felt this was money I had worked had for and should be able to keep.
Hmmm....

Hard for...

Collaborate what you are saying is a bit different to what Spero has said....

The pre marital contribution is a factor to bear in mind whether you hold as JT or TC. BabyB is right in saying that if you want pre-marital to be a magnetic factor, enter in to a post nuptial settlement.

I don't think we are disagreeing, just having a different emphasis. I am afraid this is inevitable when you have such a hugely discretionary jurisdiction - it is difficult to predict with certainty which way a judge will jump.

I agree it would be a good idea for you to check out the Matrionial Causes Act 1973 and look at what the judge is directed to consider.

Bottom line is the settlement must be fair. Most cases I do are considered 'small money' so I never get much beyond considering basic needs and trying to rehouse the children.

I think post nuptial settlements etc are a bit 'overkill' unless you are talking about millions.

Basically ALL assets that you own jointly or singularly could end up in the 'pot' and be considered for redistribution on divorce but I think it unlikely most judges would consider it 'fair' to disturb an agreed tenancy in common unless one party had quite serious needs - no earning capacity due to disability for eg.

But as ever, if you are concerned about this you urgently need to instruct a lawyer who is a family specialist and who has all the relevant information - don't make any decisions relying on what you read here.