Can I lose my house?

[Domingofromltoakley]

My DH is currently trying to get a financial order with his ex, I know he should have done it years ago, but she's always made life so difficult it's taken years to get this far. He's had to go to court twice already to get her to engage at all, she has form for this as she refused to engage with divorce or return papers etc and cost a fortune to eventually divorce.
Anyway he is now at the second lot of mediation, he's paying for his, she's on legal aid, he's returned his form E which shows he has nothing of value but a 10 year old car no savings really and we're living in my DG house which she kindly let us use when she moved in with my parents until she dies and its sold for the beneficiaries.
I own a house, well its got a large mortgage and a massive loan attached to my parents they lent me money in order to buy it. It's in my name only as I lived there before I met DP, he has never contributed to the mortgage or upkeep that has always come out of my personal account, and now the mediator wants it valued. Surely this isn't a marital asset of theirs that he has to share? Mediator hasn't even asked for the equity(little to none) just the value. Why do I have to get it valued when their FO has nothing to do with me?

Yes this essentially. The whole point of getting a financial order BEFORE you get divorced is to prevent them being able to claim on assets you might have in the future, such as a future inheritance or a marital asset in a new marriage (yours!). You need the own solicitor OP otherwise you really are up shit creek here, why on earth did you marry him when he was not financially separated from his ex? Marriage is first and foremost a financial arrangement.

Not any more, not for years. People are only automatically entitled to legal aid where the local authority issues care proceedings, they are entitled to legal aid when they need a criminal defence and cannot afford their own lawyer and in family law where there is evidenced and recent domestic abuse

Thank you for correcting me, and I apologise for going misleading information.

.........you really are up shit creek here, why on earth did you marry him when he was not financially separated from his ex?

Why did you marry him when he had been abusive to her, actually?
Or didn't you know about that?

Where is the actual evidence that he was abusive to her? OP thinking she has legal aid isn't evidence at all. As the couple have been separated for a long time, even if he was abusive to her she wouldn't get legal aid on that basis as it was too long ago.

It is absolutely insane to enter into a financial contract (marriage!) without confirming details like this.

How can that possibly be definitely true in the same jurisdiction where Standish v Standish was heard in the Supreme Court and found that assets literally gifted from a husband to a wife (albeit for tax purposes and for the children) weren’t marital assets.

A house DH has never lived in, has no ownership of and has never paid toward seems even less of a marital asset than some shares gifted between spouses that is intended to be for the benefit of the children of a marriage.

Why would you need that when they are divorced & have both remarried. What could she possibly hope to claim anyway?

That's why I said length of marriage matters. The longer you are married the more the distinction between marital and non-marital assets fades and becomes marital.

Well obviously if she genuinely does has legal aid (which I very much doubt to be fair) that means he has recently been abusing her. Which is entirely possible despite him being married to someone else

But you said definitively that it was a marital asset. I don’t think that’s all certain, and there’s good reason to believe it’s not a marital asset at all based on previous divorce cases.

Non marital assets can be brought into divorce settlements, and that’s where length of marriage and financial independence of each party can matter, but it’s incorrect to definitely say this house is “a marital asset the same way a holiday home or boat would be”.

Exactly my thoughts. Something doesn’t add up here. Although I think she could choose to engage with mediation anyway? Although that doesn’t sound like the case based on what the OP has said?

I feel I may have been unintentionally misleading. "Legal aid" were the words she used however I now realise she must have meant benefit exemption. My husband has never been abusive

Legal aid and benefit exemptions are entirely different things.

@BringBackCatsEyesi understand that however I used the words she used to us. As my DH has always had to pay, it was something that we knew nothing about. I know now you cannot get legal aid for financial issues

@RoseField1you can get help exemption from mediation and court fees based on income. This is often referred to as legal aid. ‘Real’ legal aid for litigated cases is only available for those able to evidence DV. I got ‘legal aid’ for mediation and court fees but not legal aid for representation in court. But the OP refers to legal aid for mediation. This is perfectly possible.

But it matters really, because you have framed this as her getting free legal advice to come after your house and to exhaust your hard up husband who can’t afford the same.

in reality mediation is pretty cheap, and him having to pay his half of the mediation doesn’t disadvantage him at all.

Presumably your DH did not get a financial order as the same time as divorce as neither him or his ex had assets to split so it was not thought necessary. In a FO assets, housing costs, earning potential, pension accrual etc are all relevant in determining division. If, through subsequent marriage, DH now has legal entitlement to assets, reduced or absent living costs, increased ability to save or accrue pension (even if he doesn’t) etc this may impact on FO if his needs are met but ex is unable to meet needs without support. Length of marriage, existence of DC, contributions - care as well as financial are all very signifiant.

Both parties have to make full disclosure. Your assets are now your DHs assets (unless legally ringfenced) through marriage so he will have to disclose them. They may or may not impact materially on FO but you have a legal obligation of disclosure.

If you were divorcing your DH and it was a needs based case the fact that you bought the property before marriage, DH had never contributed, wasn’t on the deeds etc would be irrelevant.

Well tell that to the husbands ex wife then. Op is only repeating what she’s been told. I would also make the dem mistake as I also didn’t realise legal aid was only for domestic abuse victims

Everyone saying everything I own is now considered his and :up for grabs",why doesn't he have to include my pension, personal accounts, other assets or list my financial outgoings, liabilities? That doesn't make sense

Steady on, because it could 🤣 presumably they it haven’t asked for it.

The main issue is that DH will be seen as 'adequately housed' which will lower the amount awarded to him in the devorce as his 'needs' will be lower.

My hope is that if there is little to share then it won't matter much but if the ex is seen have have more 'need' then they will be seeking a fuller picture of DH assets which as his wife will include yours.

From what you say that isn't much legally in your name either so hopefully won't matter materially?

Get it sorted asap or this will come back to bite you again later when you have more to lose!

Your assets brought into the marriage are not up for grabs. But it may reduce his ‘needs’ if securely housed and outgoings are reduced etc.

What settlement is ex suggesting? 50:50 of no marital assets. Ongoing maintenance. 50:50 of assets acquired after separation/divorce. What? Whatever there is still a requirement of full and frank discosure.

You will have to get a FO at some point. It will only get more complicated. Full disclosure does not mean unfair sharing.

In the context of divorce it is (I was also mistaken, thinking you could get legal aid for mediation if you were on a low income).
You can get legal aid for other sorts of legal cases (criminal, housing etc).

It still doesn't make sense though because the ex having benefit exemptions means certain benefits (e.g. disability) are not included when calculating her income, which isn't relevant (in this case) when it comes to paying mediation.

Yes I understand that
benefit exemption is not legal aid and I've never heard anyone describe it as such but I accept some people may do so. In any case, that's not what she has and ergo people assuming the DH must be abusing his ex wife are barking up the wrong tree.