Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Legal matters

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Original poster

How to ensure I keep my house after divorce?

34 replies

WhatsGoingOnEh · 30/09/2014 15:00

I'm buying a house all by myself :-) very soon. I also have a lovely fiancé who I'm marrying next June.

Because I've got kids, and my fiancé isn't contributing any money to the house purchase, we've agreed that I will keep/own the house in my sole name.

If we get divorced, will he automatically have a right to a share if it? If so, is there anything I can do to ensure he doesn't? Any kind of legal paperwork?

Thank you!

OP posts:
babybarrister · 30/09/2014 16:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AcrossthePond55 · 30/09/2014 17:06

See a solicitor asap before the purchase is finalized and definitely before you marry. Perhaps the house can be titled in trust for your children with you as trustee with life-tenancy?

Greengrow · 30/09/2014 18:39

As bb says pre nups are not always binding so no matter what you do other than put the house in the name of trustees for the benefit of your children I suppose (but then there is a new annual enveloped property tax which may apply) then you are better off not being married.

Eg if you do not do this and divorce after say 7 years together and assuming you earn a lot and he doesn't there is a good chance he might get more than half the value of the house. Indeed if he stays home with any more children you might have together he might get 100% of the house.

If he just stays a finance none of this applies.

Original poster
WhatsGoingOnEh · 30/09/2014 18:50

He earns more than me. :-)

Thanks for your replies. I've asked my solicitor for a meeting ASAP to find out what we can do to ring-fence the house. If we can't, then I guess I'll postpone the marriage. :-/

Awful to go into a marriage with an attitude of "hands off my house!" but I have to protect it for the kids.

Thanks all :-) xx

OP posts:
prh47bridge · 01/10/2014 00:08

If you divorce the court's first priority will be to ensure everyone has a roof over their heads. If he was awarded a slice of the house he may have to wait until the children have grown up before he gets anything assuming they stay with you in your house.

Greengrow · 01/10/2014 07:49

That's true but even him getting a share of the house when the children are 18 or she remarries is not a great result (and I feel the same about women getting men's assets or income on divorce too - I am very gender neutral on this).

You could always have a blessing or (in some religions only) just a religious but not a legal marriage. One my clients has a wife who thinks she is married but they only married religiously - hindu I think rather than muslim in this case - and all the property is in his name so if things go wrong he will be do better than had his wife had the sense to know she did not have a marriage. Jerry Hall was similar - she "married" her ex on a remote island abroad and thought she was married. When they came to divorce she discovered it was not a valid marriage in the first place which affected her entitlement to her richer husband's assets.

I have not moved a man in here since my divorce (same issue, children, a house I paid for etc and having paid a lot out to my ex husband and ending up with a £1.3m mortgage on my house to pay him off). I am not going to be giving money to yet another man on a second divorce.

Suzietwo · 01/10/2014 07:58

Prenups may not be bonding but they're pretty bloody close these days. Partic when just dealing with pre marital capital as yours would be. Law commission has set out guidance now.

Your solicitor who practices family law will probably be more helpful than say, oh I do t know, an intellectual property lawyer, even if they have been divorced once.

Original poster
WhatsGoingOnEh · 01/10/2014 09:37

You're all so helpful!

Greengrow - a million-mortgage? Ouch. :-(

I'm going to go and see the solicitor who did my divorce about this. She's great. And she knows me, and my fiancé (she's helping him with his custody battles with his ex). Oh wait - if he's a client of hers too, can she still help me with this (separate) issue or does that open a conflict-of-interest can of worms?

OP posts:
lostdad · 01/10/2014 10:40

As others say - pre-nups are not binding. That said they have carried weight in some cases.

When you get married EVERYTHING goes into the `matrimonial pot'. Everything. That includes everything you own. Doesn't matter if it's a gift from someone, an inherited property that has been in the family for 500 years or stuff you've earned while your ex did nothing but spend cash.

babybarrister · 01/10/2014 11:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SanityClause · 01/10/2014 11:27

Okay, OP, the idea of marriage is to give financial security to the parties, and any DC of the marriage. The reason its "romantic" is because it shows that you both care enough about each other to ensure their financial security, as best you can.

In your case, marrying him is taking away some financial security from your DC. Is this really what you want?

Greengrow · 01/10/2014 13:02

And even if you do go for a prenup and even if you both have separate lawyers, total disclosure of what you both own and earn and it is entered into months before the marriage (which are requirements which make it more likely but not 100% certain to be enforceable) as bb says it is still not 100% water tight. You might have triplets with your fiance after marriage, he might stay at home with them for ten years and give up all work, your other children may not be around and your then new husband might get all the assets as that might be the only way to house him the non working spouse and the children for example so in that case the pre nup might be ignored as the only wayt to house and keep those triplets is if they stay at home with their father whilst you move out and support them all.

The safest solution is not to marry.

Original poster
WhatsGoingOnEh · 01/10/2014 14:03

We're in our 40s and he's had the snip, so sorry, triplets - you're not happening. (((((Triplets)))))

But otherwise - Hmm. So I can never marry anyone again ever, if I want to ensure my kids have a home in the future? This seems a bit backwards. It's weird hi think that I'm more secure single. Confused

I need my solicitor to return my call!

OP posts:
Mini05 · 01/10/2014 14:24

Hi
I had my own house (divorced) then I met current partner. We bought a house together, as I had money from previous house which I put down as deposit on new house.
The deposit was ringed fence(incase of parting etc)

If we split the ringed fenced money would be deducted from house price, then anything left would be 50/50

In your case though, the house is in just your name and you are paying mortgage?
But what will he be contributing? If any repairs, upkeep of property he may have claim(so be careful) defo ask this question

Before you go solicitors make a list of your questions with enough space between for answers
As when you come out you may have forgotten what was said to you.

Don't miss anything out, people change look after your kids and yourself first

prh47bridge · 01/10/2014 14:51

So I can never marry anyone again ever, if I want to ensure my kids have a home in the future

As I said above, if you divorce the courts will want to be sure everyone has a roof over their heads. The children come first in that regard. The courts will not accept any settlement that leaves them homeless. So if you divorce and the children stay with you it is quite likely you will be able to stay in the house until they are grown up. However, it is possible that you may have to sell the home at that point in order to give him his share. Whether or not that would be necessary depends on how big a slice of the assets he gets. If he only gets a small proportion of the assets you may be able to give him his share without selling the house.

If you want them to be able to continue living in the house as adults and inherit the house when you die you should not marry. You should also be very careful about cohabiting.

If any repairs, upkeep of property he may have claim

That is only relevant if the OP cohabits with her partner. If they marry he has a claim regardless of whether or not he makes any financial contribution to the property.

AcrossthePond55 · 01/10/2014 14:56

people change look after your kids and yourself first

Yep, this to the Nth degree. If you can't be 100% sure that your house is completely protected then seriously consider whether or not you want to marry. I can see where someone could sincerely promise that he would never dream of touching your house, then if things don't work out BAM emotions run high and it's 'I'm gonna take you to the cleaners'.

Viviennemary · 01/10/2014 14:57

I don't think you can protect your asset 100% especially as you won't have owned it very long before you get married. Because it could be contested in court. And also if he is contributing to household expenses this must also be taken into consideration.

Suzietwo · 01/10/2014 15:59

baby barrister havent we gone down to actual needs not generously assessed?

MarcoPoloCX · 01/10/2014 16:34

Along the line of the OP.

One of my friends is going through a messy divorce.
I have never got on well with his wife and to many people, she is just a scheming manipulative selfish person.
She earns a high salary and the husband is a stay a home house husband looking after the kids.
The kids have left home now.
To cut a long story short, while they were separated, she sold the family home on the cheap to either a close friend or a member of her family.
Where does the husband stand in terms of dividing the marital assets?

MarcoPoloCX · 01/10/2014 16:35

Oh, the house was in her own name

prh47bridge · 01/10/2014 17:29

If the courts agree that she sold the home cheaply in order to reduce any financial award to her ex they can set aside the sale. If he starts his claim for a financial settlement within 3 years of her selling the house the court will assume that the sale was intended to reduce any financial award. If it has been longer than 3 years he may still be able to get the sale set aside but it will be up to him to prove that it was sold cheaply for this reason.

AcrossthePond55 · 01/10/2014 17:58

Since you haven't purchased yet, would a joint purchase be possible with each party's contribution 'ring-fenced' & any equity split 50/50 in the event of a divorce? It may be easier to protect your investment that way rather than trying to 'ring-fence' an entire home since it sounds as if that's nearly impossible.

Before getting specific with the solicitor I'd ask whether or not it would be a conflict of interest to advise you re protecting pre-marital assets since fiancé is also a client. I'd say not since he/she isn't advising your fiancé about that specific issue nor advising him on anything regarding your marriage. I'd say it would be a conflict if you divorced and THEN he/she advised your STBX regarding a settlement. There usually has to be a common issue for conflict of interest to occur.

Greengrow · 01/10/2014 18:13

The bottom line as bb says you cannot ring fence anything under English law if you're married which is why English is the divorce country of choice for those married to a richer spouse. It is always good news for the lower earner. Nowadays when many women are higher earners that means women paying out to men even if their children live with them (as in our case).

In divorce law it does not matter whose name assets are in.

If you are not married it is utterly different and rightly so.
I suspect mini above has a partner and not a husband so her position will be very different.

The simple answer for the original poster is don't marry.
The other answer which many women go for is always marry someone who is a lot richer than you are and earns more. I am the example of someone who did not do that and paid the price.

babybarrister · 01/10/2014 18:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Greengrow · 01/10/2014 19:38

I've never liked needs. I think if the low paid nurse or teacher, whether male or female marries someone who ends up earning a lot so they got used to expensive hair cuts or expensive golf club memberships if the marriage ends they should revert to the usual nurse/teacher standard of living rather than being elevated to some really well off type of standard of living just because during the marriage their spouse happened to get richer. They have sacrificed no career for their spouse. They have carried on working full time as a teacher and they were never Head material so why do they get a life long bonus of a standard of living based on their rich spouse's income? Need ought morally to mean a roof over your head and food, not the same level of £10k skiing holidays you got used to when sponging off a richer partner. The law of course does not agree with me.