is my dh entitled to half?

[Tortington]

if i buy a proprty. i have 3/4 deposit if we divorce does he get half - or just half of the equity? is there any way i can protect my initial investment?

yes he is entitled but that doesn't mean he'll get it as there is still a duty to the children

you can try to draw up an agreement with a solicitor but they're not binding in the UK I don't think (although I think I'm thinking of pre-nups)

hope you're doing ok custy

Joint marital assets, he may well be entitled to half. If you really think there's a possibility of divorced I'd take legal advice first. But sorry that you're asking this question Custy.

The starting point in England is half the assets less all the debts each. If that is enough for a clean break and children are housed adequately then you each walk away (and the if the children stay with each of you half the time no maintenance even for the chidlren needs to be paid although usually they spend more time with one and the other pays some child maintenance).

If you sign an agreement before marriage to try to agree something else that might be examined by the courts but it is not legally binding and would be totally ignored for example if the only asset were the house and he got the children and they needed to be housed. It is certainly worth getting a lawyer to draw up an agreement like that but don't assume it will definitely work if you split up.

If you buy a property and put in a greater part of the deposit, you should ask to be registered as tenants in common with a separate trust deed detailing the different contributions.

However, in the event of a divorce, the court will consider needs and resources (what are each party's needs and what are the resources available to meet those needs). All assets may be considered as part of the marital pot.

Freckle, does that apply if there are no children? (all assets part of marital pot, I mean?) Only my friend's seperated-but-not-divorced H is telling her that he's entitled to half of a property she owns abroad (bought before she married him), plus half of her current business, but she's too scared to go to a solicitor to find out for definate one way or the other.
(sorry for hijakcing btw).

Yes, all in the pot unless it's a very short marriage even if inherited and even if you worked hard and earned it all during or before the marriage and even if she saves every penny for 20 years and he drinks the same amont away (or vice versa) you still split it 50/50. Welcome to the wonderful fair world of English divorce law where lower earners flock to claim their pounds of flesh.

aah, that's not great then . How short is short? Less than two years?

..it's even in the marriage vows.. "all that I am I give to you, and all that I have I share with you"...bestowing all your earthly goods on each other.

It used to be you met the reasonable needs of the other until we decided it would be 50/50.

Probably about that but I'm not an expert, just a victim. 2 years no children. If there are children then it's not counted as a short marriage. If it's short they try to put you both back into the position as if you hadn't married. mind you Ms Miller in one case in a short marriage got £5m but she was blonde and gave up work to decorate his houses for him and a job earning £75k a year.

I think you can draw up an agreement about how the property is divided if you divorce or one of you dies - afaik it is binding (well my mum has got one and she knows all about wills). You need to see a solicitor and ensure dh gets legal advice too.

thanks Xenia - she's actually quite happy not doing anything about a divorce as she doesn't want to marry her new bloke, just she would quite like to sell the house abroad/business and move to the coast and have babies, but is worried about arse of an ex getting his hands on half of everything. Looks like I'll have to drag her to a solicitor to find out the exact position.

(yes, sorry I didn't think - the agreement might be overrulled where children are involved)

Pre nups in England are not legally binding although the court can have a look at them and might decide to apply them if children etc aren't harmed but they can just as easily be overturned. Amazing anyone marries really.

Government is consultaing at the moment in giving cohabitants in England and Wales similar rights to those married so if you live together say for 25 years, wife gives up her career to bring up the children and then you part she will have smilar rights to if she were married. Yet they chose not to marry. Looks like you'll have to turf any man out every night before the clock strikes midnight to be safe.

In theory yes but with children involved it may not be evenly split, most likely in your favour.

Is he putting up the other 1/4?
Is the mortgage joint?You can get the solicitor to draw up an agreement saying who gets what proportion.Hope you are ok If you need any help with this you know I am around.Anything you need atm let me know xx

Yes, but the agreement is worthless if you're married and in England is my point. It's 50/50 unless that leaves children homeless etc and even then it may be 50/50 but house not sold until you cohabit or remarry etc and only then he gets his half etc. Of course sometimes when there's hardly any money it's not 50./50 each but that's the starting point. Always marry someone much better off than you are and give up work as soon as you can and live off his earnings may be.

Can I just say Xenia that my husband thinks your fab - completely agrees with your posts - ROFL re your synopsis of the miller case

Thanks. Ms Miller did have a miscarriage although I'm not sure if that added to the pot. Mr Charman if you believe his PR has been ordered to pay his wife £48m which I think is 100% of his UK assets so he;'ll have to sell his business and lose his livelihood unless he can persuade the Bermudan courts to get him access to the chidlren's trusts she and he set up years ago which the English courts think should go to the wife. Really the most profitable thing you can do in the UK is give good sex and keep a husband and then get rid of him at just the right time, much easier than building up £200m like McCartney and then having to give it away.

The mc one is interesting - I think that there is always a certain degree of human element that goes into these judgements (whatever the law being free of emotion etc). Even if its unconscious there may be some degree of sympathy for childless mrs miller v. mr miller who is now with someone else and I believe has kids. Now this is obviously just my opinion and clearly not the way law should happen but judges are only human so even subconsciously you do wonder if there is a degree of influence due to various human factors there.

Wasn't mr charman a beneficiary under the trust which was partly why the court counted his income? Really must read judgement as it is interseting/scary if they are looking through properly set up legal structures.

Is anything actually happening on the review of divorce law-I know it was mentioned in charman but is it just an idea or something that is gong to happen.

Also the sooner they make pre nups legally binding the better -if you take teh emotion out of it isn't this just akin to planning a will (in fact less emotive as there is a change you won't divorce but little chance you won't die).

thanks very much. my dh is being wonderful at this time. however our children will be legal adults in 4 years. i am assuming out lives will change dramatically. and i am eternal pessimist. i love dh i do. just want to know the story.

so with no children to consider - i am still non the wiser.

legal advice?

thank you for all your messages

custy prices are dropping a bit down here so maybe you could wait a little before you buy and get something better for your money.I am glad your dh is being good to you at this awful time.How are your kids?