Divorce ando Pre Marital Assets

[stargazer2030]

Hi. I owned a house before getting married 15 years ago. I (stupidly) got a mortgage for my parents to buy their ex council house as they couldn't get one.
Parents have always lived in it. I did for a while (with them as I had from being a child not as the owner) then bought a house jointly a few years later with now ex husband. Parents always lived in the house but it always stayed in my name. They paid the mortgage, all bills as if it was there's just never got round to transferring it.
Currently doing financial settlement and ex is now getting nasty. Can he came back and claim half of this house? He always said he never would but am terrified my parents are going to be made homeless. He has never contributed towards it and it was several years before I even met him.
I have got a solicitor but she hasn't been very clear or particularly helpful. I have just received a letter from his solicitor completely going against the financial agreement we made in mediation. It also has the vieled threat that he may go for a share in that property if I don't agree.
I am going to go back to my solicitor can't do anything until Monday at the earliest.

In theory all matrimonial assets are joint assets. You would have to get it valued, as it's in your name, and establish how much equity there is in it. It's not really a case of claiming hàlf the house. If it went before a judge he might well decide on a proportion of the equity and that it be put as a charge on the house, which would be sold when your parents did not need it any more. Don't worry too much. The judge would decide what is fair and equitable in all the circumstances, and it would hardly be fair and equitable to make your parents homeless

It's all equity as the mortgage was paid off years ago. I have never thought of it as my house, always my parents (so do they). They were planning on selling up at some point but that's all on hold now. I wouldn't have seen a penny as it's their house.
We should have put it in mums name years ago but just never got round to it and I feel sick with worry now.
He hasn't asked for anything yet but it is threatened if I don't agree with his latest proposal (which I intend to negotiate).

No, the court definitely looks at what you came into the marriage already owning. Please consult with a lawyer to put your mind at rest and to check exactly how you should list it.

I have got a solicitor but she hasn't been very clear or particularly helpful.

For all the services you have to pay for in life, legal advice is perhaps the most important. Not to be used as a counselling service, but to make you you feel you understand what is going on, that someone has your back.

Maybe this isn't the right solicitor for you,

It sounds like you own legal title for their benefit but without any evidence supporting that of course H is going to have a pop. It’s not a good argument on his side but depending on value of everything else I can see why he’s making it.

Your other problem is that if he’s adamant about a particular settlement and keeps coming back to this house as a negotiating tool you will be on the back foot throughout negotiating unless you use court. I think I judge would be w you.

So if it were me, and going just on what you’ve said here, I’d issue.

It sounds to me as if your parents are the beneficial owners of the property, not you, and as such the property is not available for distribution in divorce. If this is disputed by H your parents may have to be joined as intervenors but on what little you’ve posted it seems quite clear cut to me.

You could perhaps transfer it into their names now ( I not sure unless he got some kind of freezing order -unlikely - he could easily stop that transfer although I suppose it might look bad but it is only regularising the legal arrangement) and then he cannot even say it is in your name to avoid inheritance tax when the parents die. The parents have paid the mortgage so people say above it is likely they have a beneficial interest in it perhaps even in 100% of it. Mind you if you put it into their names and they leave it to the dog's home you will lose out and 50% of it might be better than 0% of it.

Sorry on premarital assets in England (Scotland can be different) in most divorces there is not enough money to house both people in a couple without looking at all the assets. However for rich couples particularly short marriages then assets only expanded or acquired in the marriage may be the main ones looked at.

Your parents should seek legal advice themselves.

Thank you for the advise. I will ring my solicitor tomorrow but this came over the weekend and really upset me.
The letter is increasing his original demands (which he came up with) and just threatens he may go after the house if I don't agree. Will know more tomorrow hopefully.

I think it is a mistake to try to argue this as premarital assets, other than as a fall back position. This is an asset to which you have made no financial contribution, as I read it, beyond lending your name to the mortgage. It belongs to a third party who should intervene to claim it.

DO NOT transfer it to their names now though. That looks like guilt, and will easily be undone by his solicitor (at the cost, to you, of a few thousands in extra legal work,)

To be honest, I think (like a lot of these cases), all depends on which judge you get on judgement day.

No. Not in this case it doesn’t. There’s actual law n stuff to apply

The only person I know who faced a similar situation did have to sell the house in question, sorry not helpful but that was the reality - so the elderly parent was forced to move.

I agree with the poster who said it sounds as if although you hold the legal title, you hold it on trust for your parents who are the beneficial owners. Your solicitor may need pointing in the right direction with this, but you may need one who is a bit more pro active if she doesn't pick this up. You should fight him on this.

I am sorry to be the bearer of bad new but is there enough equity and assists to give both of you fair settlement if there is very little in the pot other then your parents house (aka the marital home does not have a lot of equity) The judge is more then likely going to force the sale of the house or give you less of the other assists.

It is not as clear cut as collaborate says I have had cases of similar circumstances (aka 1 party owned a 2 houses / deeds where in their name but the parties parents lived in them and paid the bills ) Parents of party A were divorced so each lived in 1 of the homes. Houses were pure equity at this point no mortgage left to pay. Party A soilcetor tried to argue that Party A parents were beneficial owners of the properties, but the problem was it was a long marriage and there was little else in assists the family house had little equity and neither had any pensions.

The judge ruled that they were to be included in the settlement as otherwise one party would of got to keep 1 million pounds worth of assists and the other walk away with nothing figuratively speaking as it was less then 10k. (the two houses were roughly worth 500k each) In the end the parents of party A bought the houses off Party A for the full market value and was sorted that way.