Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Relationships

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently or expert advice, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide. Many Mumsnetters experiencing domestic abuse have found this thread helpful: Listen up, everybody

What are his rights?

22 replies

Lissy332 · 08/12/2020 08:52

I’m married and really considering divorce. Before I got married my father put a property that has no mortgage on into my name, which is the building that my business is. It is a shop and me and husband live above in the apartment.
Husbands name isn’t on it, but if we divorce is he entitled to anything? Thanks

OP posts:
FelicityPike · 08/12/2020 08:55

He’s entitled to at least 50% unless you come to an agreement.

notapizzaeater · 08/12/2020 08:55

How long have you been married ?

Lissy332 · 08/12/2020 08:56

Notapizzaeater

Less than 2 years

OP posts:
FelicityPike · 08/12/2020 09:09

@Lissy332

Notapizzaeater

Less than 2 years

Oh well then I might be wrong. Please seek legal advice.
PaterPower · 08/12/2020 09:18

Yeah, you need to go and see a solicitor to be sure.

KylieKoKo · 08/12/2020 13:20

Please seek legal advice. I have seen people on Mumsnet advising posters to do things that are definitely illegal and a lot of misinformation.

Berthatydfil · 08/12/2020 13:27

See a solicitor now.
Nobody on here can give specific advice without knowing all the details.
However if you have been married a short time and don’t have children then you should both be looking at being put back in a similar position as you were pre the marriage.

lunalulu · 08/12/2020 13:28

'After the first day of marriage, all property is marital property and may be divided 50/50. There is no minimum length of marriage that will guarantee a 50/50 division of anything'

Accordingly to online lawyer

I'm afraid. Sorry.

MrsVogon · 08/12/2020 13:29

See a solicitor, don't ask legal Qs on MN.

YoniAndGuy · 08/12/2020 13:34

See a solicitor asap. Short marriage does mean something, no matter what 'online lawyer' (!) says, but every case is different.

I'd suggest possibly looking in to putting the property back into your dad's name in a way which DOESN'T look like deprivation of assets. Could he come into your business? Could there be a reason he put the property into your name and now it should go back? How long ago was it transferred into your name? Set up a trust?

I would use a solicitor to investigate that possibility first. But also the short marriage, business not personal property thing. He may be entitled to very little, especially if he has nothing to do with the business and has not contributed to its growth in any way.

RollneckJumper · 08/12/2020 13:44

I always read posts about women leaving themselves open financially by not being married to their partners.

So now I am confused.

Wouldn't OP have been better off in this situation if her and her DH weren't married?

I am a home owner and my partner isn't. We aren't married. He lives with me, in my house and contributes towards the bills etc. If we were to separate now, I am assuming he has no real legal right to my property?

boymum9 · 08/12/2020 13:51

Like others have said I would just seek advice from a solicitor, but I'll put in my 2 cents seeing as it's a process I'm currently going through but in reverse.

Differences are we were married 4 years and have 2 young children; I'm a stay at home mum and sacrificed a career for his prior to us being married.

(Also note that I'm not actually asking for any of the properties in question or any of his business when I talk about what the lawyer has advised me to seek and what she is telling me the courts would award me if it ended up in court)

Any property which is in his name, partly his name, any of his assets, earning potential, the value of his business, mortgage potential is considered when it is determined what I would be awarded. His family own a properly business with him and there are properties that are in his name, this shows the courts that further down the line he would be in a better financial position than me, the fact he owns a business that is doing well and has a good income shows that he is more likely to be able to house himself, etc etc, so therefore considering that and considering that I don't want to "take" any of his business (as I'm named as a shareholder and joint owner even though I have never technically worked for him, but looked after children so he could) and I don't want anything to do with the properties he has in his name and the business with his parents, my solicitor is advising me that I will be entitled to 100% of the equity of the family home.

Maybe that gives an idea of how things would be weighed up, it would depend on both of your working situations. It's a lot less straight forward than i thought. There is also no point moving things into someone else's name or moving things around, because everything is found out and the courts require FULL disclosure of everything from both parties. But if you can come to an agreement regarding the property in your name, there is no reason he needs to have any of it, it depends on what you can agree on.

mycatlovesmenotyou · 08/12/2020 14:21

OP. You need proper legal advice. Every situation is different. You may need to pay him something, but it might not be 50%. Judges are taking more into account nowadays if one party has entered the marriage with more than the other, especially if it was a very short marriage . It is not just always automatic 50/50 any more.

BillMasen · 08/12/2020 14:24

@lunalulu

'After the first day of marriage, all property is marital property and may be divided 50/50. There is no minimum length of marriage that will guarantee a 50/50 division of anything'

Accordingly to online lawyer

I'm afraid. Sorry.

Not correct Someone else had it. After a “short” marriage it’s likely that both parties will go back to how they were pre marriage

Hard to really define but definitely get proper legal advice and don’t act on anything said on here without checking with an actual solicitor

BillMasen · 08/12/2020 14:27

@RollneckJumper

I always read posts about women leaving themselves open financially by not being married to their partners.

So now I am confused.

Wouldn't OP have been better off in this situation if her and her DH weren't married?

I am a home owner and my partner isn't. We aren't married. He lives with me, in my house and contributes towards the bills etc. If we were to separate now, I am assuming he has no real legal right to my property?

I think it’s more that lower earners, those without assets, or savings, are better off being married. Those in a stronger financial position are probably worse off.

It’s just that higher earners are normally male. Not exclusively though and you do read threads where the higher earning woman / woman with more assets is disadvantaged by having to split assets.

RollneckJumper · 08/12/2020 14:30

@BillMasen

Thanks for clarifying that for me.

YoniAndGuy · 08/12/2020 15:00

@RollneckJumper

I always read posts about women leaving themselves open financially by not being married to their partners.

So now I am confused.

Wouldn't OP have been better off in this situation if her and her DH weren't married?

I am a home owner and my partner isn't. We aren't married. He lives with me, in my house and contributes towards the bills etc. If we were to separate now, I am assuming he has no real legal right to my property?

Yes you are right.

The common theme on here for women to protect themselves through marriage is for a very simple reason. When partnerships produce children, in almost every scenario it is the woman who, from maternity leave on, then makes choices (or is forced to make choices) which limit her career potential, career as it stands, and usually associated things such as pension provision, because they take a step back in order to make childcare work. SAHM, part time, job with school hours. Not so the men.

So if you have a family, and you're not married, and you split... off goes Smug Man with his full pension which he doesn't have to share with you, his lovely strong career which has never slowed down and so he's earning 3x your salary now, and his presumption that life will continue as it is with his now ex-partner doing most if not all of the childcare. In this case - he'd walk off with the house too.

Meanwhile the woman is left managing the kids alone on that lower salary with 20% of his coming in, if she's lucky, as maintenance. No rights to that pension she helped build for him by providing all that childcare and drudgework so that he could stay late and do the business trips. Her pension? Hahahahaha don't think so.

It's not always like that of course. But if you have kids, marriage provides financial protection for the partner who loses out on earning power because their time was skewed towards the kids. That is why. It's almost always women.

WellIWasInTheNeighbourhoo · 08/12/2020 15:08

If its a short marriage with no kids there is unlikely any claim on pre marital assets. You'd split any assets bought or saved while married and both parties walk away with what they had to start with as well. But do get legal advise as husband might try his luck and go after it anyway. Could be worth paying him off a small amount in that case to avoid Court. Either way, unless he is being agreeable, you need a lawyer.

BillMasen · 08/12/2020 15:14

Yoni we’re saying the same but it’s not always about kids. Marriage advantages the lower earners regardless of whether they give anything up to have kids.

Agree it’s usually women who do this, and who probably earn less regardless of kids.

Not sure I like “smug man”, and have seen a few men massively disadvantaged by marriage/divorce when no kids involved. I would never talk about “smug woman” in those circumstances though.

YoniAndGuy · 08/12/2020 15:18

@BillMasen

Yoni we’re saying the same but it’s not always about kids. Marriage advantages the lower earners regardless of whether they give anything up to have kids.

Agree it’s usually women who do this, and who probably earn less regardless of kids.

Not sure I like “smug man”, and have seen a few men massively disadvantaged by marriage/divorce when no kids involved. I would never talk about “smug woman” in those circumstances though.

Yes, absolutely.

Smug Man was a bit of a shorthand there to make the point, and I do see what you're saying. However I would then probably say Smug Woman! Also not sure really that it's 'probably' the women who are the lower earners if no kids. In my experience, it's kids what make the divide.

BillMasen · 08/12/2020 16:00

Yoni I don’t disagree. Suppose I’m saying I acknowledge there may be structural/societal reasons why women start off being paid less. One for a whole other thread...

Aprilx · 08/12/2020 17:00

I took legal advice on a similar scenario before I got married as I brought significant assets and DH none. After two years, assuming no children, upon divorce we should have expected to be restored to our financial position before the marriage. Over time, this would start to move towards a starting point closer to 50:50, again assuming no children.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page