I just think it's so blinkin' unfair

[Carla]

That if H and I split up I'll have to sell my home and buy him a place. Rant over. Sorry.

I agree.

{{{hugs}}}

Why will you have to?

To provide him with a home where dds can go and see him.

um... but wouldn't it work the other way round too in different circumstances?

Why can't he provide his own home? Is he a SAHD?

Fair point ?

why is that unfair? why should he be unhomed?

that is the nature of marriage

What are the circumstances (sorry, I remember you posting about problems with him, but cant remember the details)?

Soupy, do you mean if he got custordy? I'd still have to buy a place to accommodate them all.

But if he was having the house you would want him to sell it so you could have a house too, wouldn't you??

Sorry Carla, but that's the name of the game. If you own a house and then marry, it becomes a joint asset (so I understand), regardless of who it belonged to in the first place. You will have to sell the house unless you can afford to buy him out of his half.

SD means that if the shoe was on the other foot and your DH was the major breadwinner with assets, then they would have to be divided on divorce too. It's nothing personal, it's just the way the law works.

The house is mine and was before we married.

But is he working in the cash economy? Does he have independent mortgage potential? Are you assuming he will have care and control of the kids?

I know you're right, NDP, but it still strikes me as unfair.

Caligula, he's just short of 70, so doesn't have to work at all. Although he is.

Carla, I suppose it is unfair, to a fashion, that property you owned pre-relationship should have to be divided upon breakdown. I know I'd be riled if i was in that situation, but unless you set up a water-tight document pre-marriage which stated that H would be unable to stake any claim on your pre-marital asset (ie the house), then I fear you have no choice.

NDP, I do think it's time someone changed those archaic laws.

But for someone to change the archaic laws, they would have to change the whole archaic institution of marriage.

I thought pre-nuptial agreements were not binding in the UK?

I think the law is 'right' if looked at objectively, but I do sympathise with your situation Carla given that it was your house before the marraige. It's rough....

When dh and I were going through a rough patch his solicitor told him that he'd only have to give me half the equity of the time we'd been married IYSWIM.

Really Pixiefish? That's one bejasus solicitor, give me his number. In fact, give Carla his number.

I know of a friend who needed to only give a share of the capital increase from date of marriage. Also wasn't a 50/50 split but 30/70 as based on contribution to household finances and individual circumstance at point of divorce. HTH