Marriage vs Living in Sin

[Bahco]

My friend purchased a house 12 years ago when single. He subsequently got married (lasted 6 yrs and had a little girl) and when divorced had to split all assets 50/50 even though his ex bought very little to the marriage.
My question is would this apply to couples living together as I have heard many conflicting views as to what happens in the event of a split. Surely you only get out (as with anything) what you put in
Your thoughts please fellas and ladies of course

 

[waran]

couples living together have less rights legally than married couples so for example if your partner owned the house you were living in and then passed away the house would then go to her closest relative and not you...unless she had drawn up a will.
If you owned the property and she was contributing to the mortgage then she would have some claim to the rise in property value in the event that you split up. These cases are invariably quite complicated though to contest. A lot of mortgage companies make co-habitees sign a waiver relinquishing any future claim on the property.
If you bought a property jointly then you could enter into a tenancy in common and aportion the property into whatever share you wished (e.g. 30/70) depending on how much each contributes. You can also stipulate what to do if you break up etc.
On the whole most co habiting couples tend to walk away with what they put in but I guess the problem arises when there are children involved and one partner doesn't work to look after the kids. Marriage often works out best for the non working partner or the person who eventually has custody of the kids. Overall though in my opinion no-one really wins these things only the lawyers!

 

[AdamW]

I think there are proposals to try and sort this out. This will help unmarried couples, but seems to be geared towards bringing the rights of same-sex couples in line with those of married couples in the event of splits or death.

There are some good schemes on the continent, where you make a pledge to your partner and vice versa when you get engaged. This usually brings a lot of the benefits of marriage, but only lasts for a year or two. The idea being, you get married before it expires.

My experience of this: my (unmarried) neighbours split up a few months ago. The house was originally bought by the man, but when she moved in she paid 50% of the morgage each month for a few years. When they split up, she wanted to carry on living there so offered to buy his half. She wanted to pay half of the original purchase price (which would have been £20K), but he wanted half of the current value (which is £60K). Last time I spoke to either of them they were having some expensive legal wranglings over it, he now wants the whole caboodle. In the meantime the house has sat empty for nearly 6 months.

So, you can see both of their sides of the story. He paid £40K for the house, so she only wants to pay him for half of that. But, if they were to sell the house, he would get 3 times as much so why should he be out of pocket £40K? I am on his side, personally!

 

[ohmygodwhathaveyoudone]

what about prenuptial agreements as they have in the states.

 

[AdamW]

Marriage often works out best for the non working partner or the person who eventually has custody of the kids. Overall though in my opinion no-one really wins these things only the lawyers!

You're right on the lawyers there!

The parent who retains custody doesn't always win. I know someone who divorced her husband. As part of the agreement, he pays for the mortgage on the house so long as his sons still live there, as well as reasonable contributions towards their upbringing. There is a stipulation that she isn't allowed to have anyone else sleeping in the house (her kids having friends over is of course allowed). Now she is in a longterm relationship with her nextdoor neighbour, but he is never allowed to sleep over because if ex-hubby finds out she loses the house. But, he has remarried, got new kids etc. I can appreciate he doesn't want his sons getting a "new dad". However the woman can't properly move on because she can't afford to keep them without these contributions from him. If you ask me, he has all the aces there.

 

[AdamW]

what about prenuptial agreements as they have in the states.

According to several mates who've recently got married, those still aren't very common over here unless there is a big difference in what you earn and what she earns. I read that divorce rates in the UK exceed the US now...

I think I would consider one, but how do you bring this up?

"Darling, will you marry me? Subject to terms and conditions stipulated by this contract? With me reserving my right to end the agreement at any time without financial loss?"

 

[waran]

pre-nups sort of take the romance out of marriage don't they?

Although Ray Parlour wishes he'd had one.......

I suppose if you make a lot of money then you might think that someone is just marrying you for the cash.

However if you are incredibly successful and your wife enables you to concentrate on your work and is very supportive etc. Then perhaps she does deserve some of the monetary wealth that you've accrued. After all you may not have been able to do so well at work without her support.

 

[waran]

The parent who retains custody doesn't always win. I know someone who divorced her husband. As part of the agreement, he pays for the mortgage on the house so long as his sons still live there, as well as reasonable contributions towards their upbringing. There is a stipulation........................

Gosh how did he manage to pull that off with the CSA??? I can't believe that some judge awarded that stipulation. European court of human rights appeal me thinks......

 

[AdamW]

Well, the agreement is 10 years old... Is that pre Euro human rights?

 

[waran]

It can be applied retrospectively, I believe.

 

[Diyisfun]

Can only talk from bitter experience..My divorce cost £35k, house was valued at £245K (I was not & could not be involved in the valuation) Its now being sold £305K. The divorce settlement was on division of assets so it was in her interest to have house valued low. (There was no need to sell the house as assets exceeded the value).
She was also looking at maintainace, this she never got but does have a hold over me for 5 years, where if I earn more she can go to court for extra..So this was a divorce that was supposed to be amicable unforttunatly EX didnt know the meaning.
Apart from the ££££ I have never been so happy with my new partner, but yes this has had to be a legal document, revolving around death & who's off spring benefit..