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?

I think it will always be an issue, in any jurisdiction, that, if you really want a divorce but want to hold on to the house, children etc, you just make your other half's life a misery and drive him into the arms of another woman.

Women are pretty good at that kind of behaviour

custardo - you could invest the money in France in your name only. That way your husband can't get his hands on it (don't tell him, though).

People do trace assets abroad but hiding it abroad is very common.

so (coming back to my friend who has a property abroad) do assets held abroad not count as "marital pot" in an English courts divorce?

Yes, they absolutely do count. There was a court of appeal judgment in a case about a Mr Charman only 2 weeks ago and about £50m of the assets are in a Bermuda trust and they count and the lower earner gets some of them. Loads of people on divorce have a house in France say and that's part of the pot.

For practical purposes some people manage to hide money abroad and also in the UK but that's a separate issue.

Sure, the issue is to put your money in a country where you can do what you like with it without your partner's consent. The chances of keeping it to yourself are much greater.

Is it just about property, though? Would your DH be entitled to the legacy in any form, cash, shares etc, should you divorce?

i dunno, this whole "debate" isn;t helping either - i seem to have no answers except that i'm screwed if we get divorced.

custardo - well, surely it is helpful to know the truth, even if it isn't what you want to hear?

Custardo,

I'm sorry that you don't feel your questions have been answered. I'll address your original post directly.

1. Can you protect your investment - no (but see below). The court has the discretion to redistribute any of your property, other assets, income and pensions on divorce. You can have a re-nup or a post-nup, the court will take them into account but the longer it is since the agreement and the more your circumstances have changed the less weight they will put on the agreement. It's not pointless to enter an agreement but it's not a cast iron protection. Moving assets out of the country also won't help.

For the question 'does he get half' I think it's best if I explain how the process works.

2. Orders the court can make - you need to look at the bigger financial picture and not just property. The court can make a wide range of orders e.g. transfer of property, splitting pensions, maintenance payments, order lump cash sums to be paid etc. The proportion of the house that you get is important but you have to consider your wider financial picture.

3. How is the decision made? - We could have a system with a strict fomula (some US states do) but instead we go for a very broad discretion. This has the disadvantage that it's difficult to predict what will happen but the advantage that you don't end up with unfairness becasue the formula doesn't fit your situation properly. A court can make the decision or, ore likely, you would agree something and the court would then give it a quick check to make sure that it is fair.

This is going to be long so I'll start part 2 in a new post!

1. What does the court take into account? The court takes into account a wide range of factors in s25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act. You can look at them here (look esp at (1) and (2) s25

In most cases (outside of the really 'big money' cases that have dominated this thread) the priorities will go something like this:

i) Children - the first consideration is the children ie. do the children have a settled place to live, a parent who is financially secure and enough money to provide for their needs. This will often mean that the parent who looks after the children will also get to live in the house. This doesn't mean that they will own it. For example, I think you said you have teenagers. The court might make an order saying that the parent who cares for the children gets to live with them in the house until the children readch 18/leave full time education then the house gets sold and the proceeds split.

ii) Needs - next they'll look at both of your needs e.g. housing, income, pensions. The court can use any of the assets that you have to meet this e.g. they might want a large house sold and two smaller properties bought.

iii) 'fairness' - if the above can be satisfied then the surplus will be split according to what is fair (if you have loads of money the court will essentially go straight to this stage). 50:50 is the starting point here but it can easily be departed from. Inheritance is one thing that is often used to depart from 50:50 so if you got to this stage then the fact that you put the extra money in would be a good reason for you getting more (but only one of the reasons the court considers).

Oh dear this is long - I'll put a part 3 to conclude!

Conclusion

There is no really certain answer to your question - you would have to take legal advice to look at the exact circumstances that you are in. The most important factors will be: age and needs of children, needs of both of you, resources available, length of marriage (including cohabitation beforehand if significant), earning capacity (including whehter this has been reduced e.g. by being a SAHM), where the resources came from.

Roughly speaking it's likely that you'd get some credit for the inheritance but you couldn't guarantee getting it all back That's true whether it's in cash, UK property, French property, shares whatever.

Finally - never rely on what you see on an internet board, this is always complex and you'd need independent, detailed advice.

Hope that all the above is never relevant to you!

I agree with Catz.
But basically if you put in more the starting point is still 50% so the short answer is yes you may lose more than you put in. Generally the richer party loses out financially on divorce. Never do what I did and marry someone who earns less.

thank you catz ffor being precise.

my personal circumstances are that my children are teens.

dh and i are financially equalish. but my mother died last week leaving a substanstial sum.

so now its just half his? and there is cock all i can do?

if i bought a property outright in my name only

is he still entitled to half?

Have you thought about what happens if you die? About wanting as much as poss of the value of your house going to your children rather than your DH then, if he remarries, to his new spouse and missing your children altogether?

No idea if it's legal here, or would stand up in court, but maybe you could look into putting the inheritance into a trust? (Your dh might have to consent to that though) You would be the beneficiary and could draw an income (monthly, quarterly, annually), but the principal would be protected. You'd need to look into whether or not a spouse could claim against trust income in a divorce though.

My grandparents did something similar and were very specific in the legal documents that created the trust that the money was for the named beneficiary only and could not be considered/attached in a divorce, bankruptcy etc. There was also a clause that said while the principal had to remain 'intact' for the length of the trust, the trust could do things like purchase a house for the beneficiary's use etc.

Not sure if you could be the Trustee and the beneficiary (probably not), so you'd need to think of someone you trust to handle that responsibility. OTOH, some people have a bank/lawyer (rather than a family member) be their trustee - though a fee (usually annual) is charged for that service.

This is all stuff that was done in America, so not sure what is possible here.

thank you

yes sue - i am going to get my first will.

earlybird - interesting wondre whether is doable over here?

Following on from SueW's point, the document my grandparents used was very specific that if the named beneficiary died, the trust principal passed to their siblings not a spouse. It was their way of keeping the money 'in the family', and used for the person they intended.

If you consider a trust, you should find out about the tax implications though. I handle a trust for a family member (and there is tax return/taxes paid each year), but need to look into the tax liabilities for principal once the trust expires. Don't want any nasty surprises, but I imagine it depends on how the money has been invested.

custy IMHO not know that much about the law is that I would look at trusts held in your childrens names, this way you tie up some of the money at least that no matter what the kids will get. As they are teens it won't be long before they need this for house deposits etc.

You question is important and one I would like to know about as (not that dh and I would split) but I have joked if we do he would get the dog and a TV - nothing else

The house was bought by me, with money I got from a flat owned by me, the mortgage and all bills are paid by me (they always have been) the costs oft the children are borne by me. So I wonder if a judge would do as they did in Xenia case??? or what would happen in Cust's case?? My parents are wealthier than his, BUT he is the eldest boy which may mean something at a later date. Hopefully my parents are ring fencing money for my kids!!

It s a difficult one, I am totally sure about dh, but as Custy says you never know, luckily I am not as well off as Xenia nd if he wanted half the kids would suffer, so I cannot imagine a judge saing that, but I guess you never know

Custardo - how long have you been married if you don't mind posting it? That's usually a key factor in working out what happens to inheritance/money owned before the marriage.

Also, you say that you're financially equalish - does that include being roughly equal on pension provision? (That can become a huge issue esp if you've taken time out when the children were younger)