1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We recommend you enable 2FA on your OcUK forum account. Please see the thread here
    Dismiss Notice

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

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by MaxP779, 13 Oct 2012.

  1. Castiel

    Perma Banned

    Joined: 26 Jun 2010

    Posts: 0

    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: 13 Oct 2012
  2. Resident

    Mobster

    Joined: 10 Mar 2012

    Posts: 2,729

    Save all the hassle completely. Just find a woman you hate and buy her a house.
     
  3. Dolly

    Gangster

    Joined: 12 Jan 2005

    Posts: 343

    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.
     
  4. OpenToSuggestions

    Capodecina

    Joined: 5 Aug 2006

    Posts: 11,086

    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.
     
  5. reilly

    Hitman

    Joined: 9 Jul 2010

    Posts: 533


    lol made me think of this

     
  6. One

    Soldato

    Joined: 24 Aug 2011

    Posts: 6,162

    Location: ABQ, NM

    It was supposed to.
     
  7. sigma

    Capodecina

    Joined: 13 Nov 2006

    Posts: 19,243

    Why else would you get married? Isn't that the whole point?
     
  8. OpenToSuggestions

    Capodecina

    Joined: 5 Aug 2006

    Posts: 11,086

    Location: Derbyshire

    You'd like to think so. The sheer volume of divorces these days seems to suggest otherwise though unfortuantely.
     
  9. Castiel

    Perma Banned

    Joined: 26 Jun 2010

    Posts: 0

    Beat me to it....I suspect that everyone, or at least mostly everyone gets married with the intention be staying married.....defeats the purpose otherwise.
     
  10. RDM

    Capodecina

    Joined: 1 Feb 2007

    Posts: 20,607

    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...
     
  11. Castiel

    Perma Banned

    Joined: 26 Jun 2010

    Posts: 0

    Just ask Ray Parlour....:eek:
     
  12. MaxP779

    Wise Guy

    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.
     
  13. Dolly

    Gangster

    Joined: 12 Jan 2005

    Posts: 343

    Location: Norfolk

    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: 13 Oct 2012
  14. Will21st

    Hitman

    Joined: 25 Jul 2011

    Posts: 894

    Location: Hove

    Indeed,and when you read the article it's clear she feels shortchanged.... says it all really. She wanted a piece of her Husbands bonuses on top of the regular maintenance from his base salary. :rolleyes:
     
  15. Locky

    Capodecina

    Joined: 14 Oct 2003

    Posts: 12,712

    Location: Leicestershire/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
     
  16. MaxP779

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 2 Mar 2009

    Posts: 1,033

    Location: Glasgow

    Says the guy with a 3930k tri-fire beast in his sig :p
     
  17. Moothead2

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 23 May 2011

    Posts: 9,976

    That's why he's so poor :p.
     
  18. wazza300

    Caporegime

    Joined: 11 Jul 2009

    Posts: 27,049

    Location: BenefitStreetBirmingham

    shouts "the pre nups are on me"!!!:D
     
  19. Cupra

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 12 Feb 2007

    Posts: 8,658

    Location: Teesside

    that and he refuses to work
     
  20. Locky

    Capodecina

    Joined: 14 Oct 2003

    Posts: 12,712

    Location: Leicestershire/Derbyshire

    Agreed.

    I spend all my money on my pc :D