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

Permabanned
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Posts
0
Are you sure about that? I'm not so certain.

As long as the non-owning party can establish a claim in equity...this can be infered either by shared household bills or decoration etc..or conduct that implies that a common intention to share the property beneficially existed. If such a trust is established then a court will award a share equal to that beneficial interest.

Another way is if there are children, this means a court can transfer the property to the non-owning partner for sole occupancy. The same can be true if the owning partner is convicted of violence toward the non-owning partner as well, albeit rarely and only in the short term.

There is also the doctrine of estoppel, but I cant recall how that works, it has to do with establishing whether assurances were given regarding occupancy...

There is no legal position regarding the term common-law partnership (wife/husband) but that doesn't mean that cohabitees do not have recourse to rights in the courts.

The OP is worried about his house in a marriage/divorce, has he considered what happens to his pension....;)
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
12 Jan 2005
Posts
344
Location
Norfolk
There are a lot of different views in this thread - some are way off the mark!

To answer the OP, if you are married then it doesn't matter who owns what when it comes to divorce. All assets (and income) wherever they came from go into the pot to be divided. There are three main principles when dividing assets, the most significant of these is the needs principle. Basically this means that the assets will be divided in a way to try and meet the needs of the parties. This typically results in the financially waker party (stereotypically the wife) receiving slightly more of the assets/share of the house (particularly if there are children) to compensate for the fact they have a lower earning capacity and therefore lower mortgage capacity.

There are strong arguments to ring fence certain assets - eg inherited, gifted, pre-acquired assets but the bottom line is that if they required to meet the needs of the parties, they will be divided.

A few people have mentioned pre-nups. They are not legally binding in this country. They are, however, highly persuasive and given significant weight if a number of safeguards are followed (full disclosure to each other, no duress etc). Even if there is a pre-nup, if it doesn't meet the needs of the financially weaker party there is a risk that a court will go behind the terms of the pre-nup to provide the financially weaker spouse with enough to meet their needs.
 
Joined
5 Aug 2006
Posts
11,306
Location
Derbyshire
Don't get married, so when your woman gets into her 40s, trading her in for a younger model with better bodywork is much easier :).
I plan to buy a house on my own soon, but I would only get married with the intention of it being a lifelong relationship.
 

RDM

RDM

Soldato
Joined
1 Feb 2007
Posts
20,612
If i owned a house and then got married id sell my house and invest half the money in a new house with the mrs

that way if you part you only get back what you put in

madness moving a woman in if you own your house 100%

That won't work as all your assets become shared, in fact with a bad divorce settlement future assets after the divorce could also become shared...
 
Associate
OP
Joined
2 Mar 2009
Posts
1,033
Location
Glasgow
Is there such a thing as a fake marriage? Something where everyone gets together in a big place has a party then the couple who are the center of attention put rings on each other then go off somewhere nice and shag for two weeks, like getting married without the legal stuff.
 
Associate
Joined
12 Jan 2005
Posts
344
Location
Norfolk
That won't work as all your assets become shared, in fact with a bad divorce settlement future assets after the divorce could also become shared...

You are right that it wouldn't work as all assets go into the pot to be divided.

However, the ability to claim a share of future assets is limited. Usually there is a capital clean break - this means that neither party can claim a lump sum, property etc from the other in the future. The only situation where a spouse may benefit from future wealth is when spousal maintenance (as opposed to child maintenance) is being paid. The person receiving maintenance, or the person paying maintenance can apply to the court to "capitalise" the maintenance and bring it to an end - this is paying a lump sum in lieu of the monthly maintenance payment. Maintenance would typically be capitalised if the person paying maintenance comes into money in the future, eg sale of business or large inheritance.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
14 Oct 2003
Posts
13,428
Location
South Derbyshire
Don't get married, women are evil, given the right opportunity they will shaft you for every single penny at some point.

Or be like me, have nothing in the first place, can't bleed a poor man dry :D
 
Back
Top Bottom