Can you lose your house in a divorce if its 100% owned by you?

Associate
Joined
12 Jun 2003
Posts
1,180
Location
Inverness
well that just put me off marriage, although tbh its not something that ever seriously entered my head in the first place, seems an old and outdated idea that made sense at some point but seems to have no meaning these days. always seen it as something other people do and end up regretting.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,997
Location
Just to the left of my PC
Divorce judgements have always seemed rather sexist to me. Then again marriage as a whole has always seemed a rather pointless venture but what do I know :p.

That's because they're based on marriages between wealthy people in the middle ages. Obviously, gendered roles were rather more of an issue back then (and divorce didn't exist). I say "wealthy people" because people who weren't wealthy didn't have much influence on the law a thousand years ago.

Norman law on marriage was that all assets of both spouses bar minor personal possessions were owned by the marriage itself, like a company owning equipment, etc. That remained the law until the married women's property acts in the late 19th century, which gave married women (and only women) the power to own major assets seperate from the marriage. This is the origin of a wife saying "What's mine is mine and what's his is ours". That wasn't a sexist cliche - it was an accurate statement of the law. I'm not aware of any law explicitly changing that situation.

So it's no surprise that settlements after a divorce are the way they are - they're based on vastly different circumstances of a thousand years ago, modified in a completely one-sided fashion ~130 years ago. A thousand years ago, marriage was for life and gendered roles made it practically impossible for a wealthy woman to work for a living. If she was very wealthy she could get an income from owning large businesses and hiring men to run them, but that was rare. It wasn't unusual for an unmarried woman to own and run a small business, but not a big one. Also, dowries were common in wealthy marriages, so the husband would probably have been paid to support the wife. For life, since divorce didn't exist.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Jun 2006
Posts
11,102
Location
Somewhere in Bristol
One of the times my parents split up (he's an alcoholic, long story, they're currently back together) Mum went and got legal advice, and she was told whilst my brother was still in full time education (he was at uni at the time) she could force him to pay the mortgage, and she and my brother were allowed to stay in the house as long as he was at uni.

The most recent time he buggered off, she went and got legal advice (its now 6 years since that time) and was told as there were no dependents, everything would be split 50/50 and he would also be entitled to half of her pension, which is in a lot better state than his is. She'd be worse off financially if they split up now.

They're back together again though.
 
Associate
Joined
12 Jan 2005
Posts
344
Location
Norfolk
Incorrect. They've been legally recognised by UK law since October 2010 when the Supreme court ruled that they were legally binding.

Source: Guardian, Wednesday 20th October 2010

No, it's correct. The Supreme Court did not rule that pre-nups will now be legally binding. However, since the Radmacher case, as long as certain safeguards are followed (full disclosure, no duress etc) then parties are likely to be held to the terms of the agreement, as long as the agreement meets the needs of the financially weaker party.

I am afraid there was a lot of inaccurate reporting around the Radmacher decision at the time.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 May 2007
Posts
7,004
Location
On the wagon, sorta
wow, people have so much faith in there relationships :o:D

I have been with my partner for thirteen years, we have worked through many issues together both small and large, with this in mind and such a large amount of our lives invested in each other i feel confident that marriage would be as safe a bet as it can be all things considered.

This in mind im in no hurry to get married, not for financial risk reasons but i just see it as an expense we do not need, we are happy and committed to each other and have no need to spend a large amount of money and have a legal document to solidify this statement.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
12,298
Location
Vvardenfell
No, it's correct. The Supreme Court did not rule that pre-nups will now be legally binding. However, since the Radmacher case, as long as certain safeguards are followed (full disclosure, no duress etc) then parties are likely to be held to the terms of the agreement, as long as the agreement meets the needs of the financially weaker party.

I am afraid there was a lot of inaccurate reporting around the Radmacher decision at the time.


Exactly: pre-nups are covered under the same rules of any other "unfair" contract. That is, you cannot sign away rights that the law gives you. The law says that the wife is entitled to a proportion of the wealth (it's not always half, and can be rather less), and no pre-nup can negate this. It can be taken into account if the wife has previously agreed to a settlement which would allow her to live reasonably comfortably (itself open to a lot if interpretation), and cover the upkeep of any children. But it remains, and is likely to remain, a guidance for the courts at best.

As for Norman marriages, my understanding is that Angilion's summation is simplistic: the assets may have resided with the marriage, but the marriage was effectively owned by the husband. Divorce was only possible for those who could successfully petition the Pope, and in each case the division of lands etc was likely to be ad hoc. In the event of death of the husband, property remained with the wife only if there was no son old enough to run the household. Once old enough, he then took control. In England at least, the King could and did seize control of assets of widows, or force them into marriages to put the lands into a family who were friends of the monarch. Contrary to popular opinion, the vast majority of Magna Carta dealt with issues of inheritance, not freedoms.
 
Back
Top Bottom