Ask a Family Law Question, Get an Answer ASAP!
Hello, thank you for the question.
Your husband now has a legal ownership of the house and you own it in shares. If he were to agree to leave his share to you should you divorce, there should be a separation agreement drawn up to this effect. Once divorce proceedings are commenced, you can ask the court to agree to a consent order which reflect the terms in the separation agreement. The shares of the house mean there is a mortgage and I presume you are both liable for the mortgage payments. You can take him off the mortgage although the mortgage would need to be paid back (redeemed) to do so.
As there are no children, the house would be split between you both but if your husband agrees to it, you can have it on a 100% basis although as I say, the mortgage company still retains their interest in the property and it would need to be discharged.
I hope this helps to answer the question - if you can accept the answer and give me a star rating, I can offer unlimited follow up Q&A's at no extra charge
As soon as you are married, the court looks at all assets in one "pot" including the matrimonial home. Your husband would have fewer rights not being married to you. Once married, he can ask for 50% yes and any other assets you might have. Same for you - if he has assets you can claim a share of those too
Hi there, yes, he could claim 50% regardless of the length of the marriage
if you divorce, he can ask whatever percentage he wants (if for example you have many more assets than he does, he may want to ask for more to help him financially).
No, the law says the assets go in to one pot and it depends what the court thinks is fair given both your financial circumstances
If you have a child then yes the court will not order the house is sold and you could stay in the house until baby reaches age of 18 after which (if there is a share of equity in the house)
So you are saying that as soon as someone gets married, one party cannot possibly claim more than 50% of the other's share of the house?
Here is some guidance (and I will opt out so you can ask for another opinion):
Hello, my name is*****
I see that the previous expert opted out. I will try and help you
Firstly do not get bogged down on the ownership and % presently attributed to the house.
Following the breakdown of a marriage if you cannot agree then the court can determine how the assets are divided. Therefore my guidance is based on the principles applied by the court.
As it was a short marriage the court would provide you with your contribution i.e the value of your contribution with the iniitai purchase of the property. Any equity that has accrued during the marriage would be divided equally as this element would be considered 'marital'.
The court are not bound by your respective % of legal ownership and can and often do depart from them.
So you need to identity what is marital and non marital equity. Non marital is your financial contribution and the equity at the date of marriage - possibly the other party could argue date of re mortgage - marital equity is the equity that has accrued since the remortgage. The othe other parties interest would be 50% of the marital equity only.
Hope this helps.
What did you do with the £35k from the re- mortgage.
You are right in that he technically owes you. However in reality the court are most unlikely to order him to pay you a lump sum unless you can prove he has the means to do so.
It will just be a case of him not getting anything else. He should just transfer the house back into your sole name.
On that point would you be able to take over the existing mortgage and secure his release? If you cannot do so straight away would are most likely to be given time to do so.
If you had not remortgaged then you would have preserved you £50k contribution.
However as you introduced the £35k into the marriage i.e spent majority on marital purposes it does complicates matters a little.
Technically yes you could argue he owes your £17.5k however in honesty it is unlikely the court would order him to reimburse you. The court would only consider doing so if he had the funds available to do so.
The most likely outcome is 'drop hands' being you get the house transferred back to you and he has already had more than his fair share.
You are most welcome.
I would be most grateful if you could kindly rate my answer.
Hello, thank you.
If you have any questions in the future please do ask.