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. Angilion

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 5 Dec 2003

    Posts: 19,751

    Location: Just to the left of my PC

    Yes, it was simplistic. Partly because I was cutting it down for a forum post and partly because I was talking about the law as it was written. You're talking about the law as it was often implemented in the middle ages, which is less relevant to more modern implementation of law based on written medieval law. Your statement is also simplistic - implementation of the law varied considerably as there was a lot more scope for individual judges (and other people with the power to implement law) to make their own decisions. It was almost always true that the husband was treated as the senior partner in the marriage, but not almost always true that he was treated as owning the marriage. For example, he couldn't sell marital assets that had belonged to her. Also, the husband was usually treated as being very strongly responsible for his wife, which included financial support for life. That responsibility even extended as far as criminal responsibility, i.e. a husband could be punished if his wife broke the law.

    The reality of gendered roles and sexism in general in the past was a lot more complex than can be accurately summed up in a couple of sentences on a forum.

    I think that applied to annulment, not to divorce.

    Not always. There are records of property being assigned to the widow regardless and in practice property owned by the woman prior to marriage was usually treated differently. Strictly speaking, it should have reverted to her. There was also a legal requirement for support of a wife to be arranged if her husband died first - a dower. Which usually meant property in wealthier marriages.

    There was plenty of sexism and women could get screwed over by rulings, but it wasn't always the case.

    But some of it dealt with freedoms. One of the freedoms explicitly stated in it was the freedom of women to not marry. So it was illegal for anyone, including the king, to force any woman into marriage in order to put her lands (or property, or whatever) into a favoured family.

    Here's a translation of the two most relevant sections:





     
    Last edited: 14 Oct 2012
  2. Orion21

    Gangster

    Joined: 20 Feb 2006

    Posts: 332

    All this divorce stuff sounds ridiculous unless it is being exaggerated. You would hope people could mutually agree like adults a fair situation rather than an asset grab and still try and maintain some resemblence of friendship and caring for the wellbeing of their ex-spouse. How hard is it to use common sense in the unfortunate event of a breakdown of the marrage.

    That is to say the starting position is you get what you put in so if you owned the house 100% before marriage then you'll own it 100% after marriage (now obviously if you lived together and contributed to home improvements say a conservatory this may need to be considered, on the other hand unless you're charging your spouse rent on the house you own, then unless it was a really short term marriage it could be 'written off' against that). But if bills are split equally then surely these should also be ignored as they don't contribute to capital.

    If children are involved sure it would get more tricky, but only if they're your own, and also it shouldn't involve you losing your capital more just a consideration of contributing fairly towards your childrens living costs (not your ex-spouse).

    It should be irrelevant who is the weaker / stronger financial party other maybe contributing extra towards children which I would think is a moral thing rather than something that should be required (after all shouldn't people want to do their best for their children). Only case where the financial situation should possibly be considered is a situation where one party gave up / hindered their career for family life (i.e. children) which should come out of wages of other spouse not property. Of course this would depend on them giving up a job for the needs of the children rather than because they didn't want to work or indeed if they weren't already working this would be irrelevant unless it stopped them getting a job.
     
  3. Xordium

    Capodecina

    Joined: 8 Apr 2009

    Posts: 12,702

    You would hope this would happen but unfortunately (from personal experience) no matter how equitable the people want to be the law bods will advise them to be far more ruthless. This is where you need to have thought ahead - have everything tied up out of your name and into a trust fund and then you can call the shots. Then you can negotiate the settlement and protect the assets you can't tie up in the trust fund with a fair release of the ones inside. (I am not advocating being a complete and utter **** - just not being taken to the cleaners).
     
  4. jamoor

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 22 Jun 2005

    Posts: 8,824

    Location: Nottinghamshire

    This is a genuine case of how long is a piece of string.

    If it's a short childless marriage and you owned the house before you got married, then no chance.

    If its a 15 year long marriage with two young kids, then yes, it's possible depending on your financial circumstances.
     
  5. Ev0

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 13,928

    As has been said, depending on the circumstances yes you could potentially have to sell the house, or buy the ex out, but I doubt you'd lose it 100% and come out with nothing. Unless I guess the house is in negative equity and you get the option to just walk away.

    When my dad got divorced once the woman tried to take half of everything even though everything was 100% his, she had never worked and was on benefits etc before him.

    Think in the end in court they awarded her something pretty measly relatively speaking like 3 or 4k.
     
  6. Craig1981

    Capodecina

    Joined: 2 Feb 2011

    Posts: 13,257

    I cant see myself getting married, but if I ever did meet the right person I would insist on a pre nup. If she refused to sign it, then to me thats a pretty clear indication she doesn't think the marriage will last.
     
  7. bhavv

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 14 Nov 2009

    Posts: 13,639

    My parents always taught me that the only reason a *Caucasian woman would ever want to marry me would be so she can divorce later and take 50% of everything I have.

    Looking at the real world, this statement seems partly true, only that women of all races seem to be into doing it.

    *IRL a much worse racial term was used.
     
  8. LordSplodge

    Capodecina

    Joined: 28 Nov 2004

    Posts: 16,024

    Location: 9th Inner Circle

    You do know that not all women (or men) are blood sucking leaches? You do know that if there are children in the relationship then their well being outranks your rights to keeping your assets. You do also know that marriage provides extra legal protection for the children?

    I'm going to assume the "OMG lolz I'm never getting married" responses comes from the younger members on here? Don't rush into marriage, that's my advice. Personally I think that's the problem with a lot of marriages rather than the system per se.
     
  9. Lokai

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Jun 2008

    Posts: 17,088

    Location: Wakefield

    And a great way to show your wife to be just how much you trust her....
     
  10. jamief

    Soldato

    Joined: 23 Sep 2005

    Posts: 5,420

    Location: Dundee

    Yeah - you'll never get married.
     
  11. bhavv

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 14 Nov 2009

    Posts: 13,639

    Never trust anyone. You will just be easy prey to having half of your assets stolen.
     
  12. bhavv

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 14 Nov 2009

    Posts: 13,639

    Ok if a man is rich and his wife is not and they have a divorce, what's to stop the kids from staying in the mans care?

    The entire issue is that the courts and society always discriminate in favor of the woman above the man or the kids, even if its the woman wanting to divorce, all she has to do is cry her eyes out, bat a few eyelids tell a few porkies, and she automatically gains custody of the children and 50% of their marital assets, even if the man is capable of looking after and paying for the kids upbringing.

    After most marriages, men have to struggle for years to gain custody of their children even if their ex wife is completely unfit to be a single parent in comparison. See the thread right here somewhere where someones kid was forced to drink his own urine.
     
    Last edited: 15 Oct 2012
  13. Lokai

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Jun 2008

    Posts: 17,088

    Location: Wakefield

    I'm glad im not as paranoid as a select few members here. Although to be fair, i moved into my wives house, she earns more than me, has more savings, a better pension........
     
  14. Wolfie1990

    Associate

    Joined: 15 May 2012

    Posts: 15

    Location: Birmingham

    maybe
     
  15. mr.bond

    Hitman

    Joined: 16 Jan 2006

    Posts: 637

    Location: Surrey

    Not sure if already mentioned, you also lose half your current pension value ;)
     
  16. Narj

    Capodecina

    Joined: 19 Feb 2010

    Posts: 13,126

    Location: London

    How about if you are married and divorced more than once? How do they split things then... if ex-wife #1 got half of your pension, would ex-wife #2 get the other half? :eek:

    Anyways, no way will I be getting married, got close to being engaged twice but I'm glad I saw the light and escaped. A couple of my mates really got turned over by their exes, and I'd have said that their ex-wives never seemed like the money grabbing type while they were together. :)

    Why do you need a bit of paper to prove that you love someone?

    The only people that benefit from a divorce are the lawyers.
     
    Last edited: 15 Oct 2012
  17. englishpremier

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 15 Feb 2003

    Posts: 8,630

    Location: Europe

     
  18. smelly_legend

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 24 Sep 2012

    Posts: 1,670

    Location: edinburgh

    Say you already own a pimping home, you could just ask your wife to give you half of the house worth if she wants to move in. Then there is no bickering when you get divorced :D
     
  19. CircleFaust

    Mobster

    Joined: 1 Dec 2003

    Posts: 3,451

    i take it it's the same if you marry or partner with a woman who has bought their own home
    can you try take monies from them
     
  20. Energize

    Caporegime

    Joined: 12 Mar 2004

    Posts: 29,180

    Location: England

    I'd have a significant proportion of assets in cash, gold or other physical commodities so there is no record of their existence, after all, what doesn't exist can't be stolen from you. Doesn't just protect you from marriages but also other potentially nefarious entities like banks, the government or the police.
     
    Last edited: 16 Oct 2012