[Closed] legal advice needed - separating from partner - housey stuff

[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/divorce-how-much-maintenance-is-a-former-spouse-entitled-to ]http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/divorce-how-much-maintenance-is-a-former-spouse-entitled-to[/url]

Not as simple as that 50% bollocks.
No rights to anything "pre" and only a possible percentage of "post".
Also if after kids she "chose" not to return to work at the point she could have with childcare/school she forfeits any rights, etc.
Business landlord is a specialist family lawyer and there's been quite a number of law precedent cases over the last 3-4yrs that aren't being widely publicised due to the fallout

It's she a partner as in wife or partner as in have lived with for years but not married.

If the latter legal rights and recourses for her I think are extremely limited but definitely one for a lawyer. It's completely different to being married and getting divorced so the other thread is largely irrelevant if this is the case.

There is no such thing as a common law marriage regardless of what people think.

Same principles apply tho - she is entitled to half the assets built up in the time you were together.

That's just not in the slightest bit true is it tjagain?

[url= https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/09/cohabiting-women-rights-marriage-financial-security-legal ]Guardian Article explaining why[/url]

Not married means you each get what you own. That includes half of any joint assets.

Your relationship is irrelevant and there is no special consideration.

But don't screw the kids over.

See https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/relationships/relationship-problems/ending-a-relationship-when-you-re-living-together/

I think there is the legal thing you can do and then perhaps the right thing you should do. If indeed you are not married and she is subsequently not legally entitled to anything, then you might still take the view that she has nevertheless enabled you to build up the house and assets and therefore the right thing to do is split them.

I assume she was the care giver for your children while you worked? To illustrate the point, ostensibly she has done significant unpaid employment (the going rate for that kind of full time child care is around £25k pa).

One other thing to keep in mind; have a look at what the custody arrangements are in your situation. I am sure other people on here will know whether her lack of entitlement to the assets is mirrored by your lack of entitelment to see the kids. Either way, the last thing you want is to do the wrong thing morally with the assets and then expect her to do the right thing (both legally and morally) with seeing the children.

You do not have the same legal rights no - but the same principles will be used by a court to divide up the assets ie 50/50 of all assets built up during the time together is my understanding.

You put her name on the deeds and mortgage. It would be hard to argue that the house isn't half hers. As for any other assets, that's likely a different matter.

Do you hold the property as joint tenants or tenants in common?
If you are joint tenants then as gonefishing says it would be hard to argue she isn't entitled to half the value of the house, if you are tenants in common arguing a non equal split in the beneficial estate based on contribution should be easier.
If joint tenants consider 'severing the joint tenancy' asap.
(ianal)

You do not have the same legal rights no - but the same principles will be used by a court to divide up the assets ie 50/50 of all assets built up during the time together is my understanding.

Nope. One of the great common myths about long term but unmarried partnerships. An injustice imo but that's how it is. The courts are irrelevant except for custody-you're simply two unmarried people parting ways. If kids aren't involved why would it even go to court? There's no legal dissolution of the relationship required.

An injustice imo but that's how it is

A problem easily solved by this thing called marriage....

Why would it go to court? If someone has a claim on the assets the other denies. Her name is on the deeds

Of course avoiding court and lawyers completely is the best advice. Binding arbitration is by far the best way to go.

You could always just do the morally right thing and split the asserts built up over the 16 years 50 / 50 and then avoid all lawyers costs. Getting lawyers involved will only reduce the total amount you have to split.

A problem easily solved by this thing called marriage...

However plenty of people both men and women do not believe in marriage for many good reasons so why should they be penalised. Even gay couples can get recognition of a committed partnership without going the whole hog.

And yes I do understand why that was originally the case but why can't heterosexual couples have their partnerships recognised and achieve some legal recognition and rights without getting married?

The choice should be available to all...

Why would it go to court? If someone has a claim on the assets the other denies. Her name is on the deeds

But you said all assets would be split 50/50. In this case the court would only rule on legally binding agreements such as the deeds to a house. It would not consider personal wealth and neither partner would be entitled to spousal maintenance, a share of pensions etc.

Even with the deeds showing a 50/50 ownership if one party could prove they paid 100% of the mortgage the court may award a greater share of the property to that person.

The major difference here is that divorce has to go through the courts, simply splitting up does not and trying to fight for assets which are not in your name is a waste of time and money generally.

You do not have the same legal rights no - but the same principles will be used by a court to divide up the assets ie 50/50 of all assets built up during the time together is my understanding.

Nope.

Each partner owns what they own. If it is owned jointly, then it will be split 50/50 but there is zero claim on assets only owned by one partner.

OP's partner has no more claim on assets held in his name than I do.

Marriage is completely different. It is a binding legal commitment that you share all assets and so everything owned by either partner effectively becomes owned by both.

However plenty of people both men and women do not believe in marriage for many good reasons so why should they be penalised

Marriage is nothing more or less than a binding legal and financial commitment. You either make that commitment or you don't. Half an hour in a registry office with two witnesses off the street can get it done.

You want to add love or religion or whatever on top of that then it is up to you but it isn't required.

Getting lawyers involved will only reduce the total amount you have to split.

ZOMG tj said something I agree with

However plenty of people both men and women do not believe in marriage.....some legal recognition and rights without getting married?

I'm genuinley interested in your view here (and apologies that this is a sideral thread) but what exactly is your issue with marriage?

On any practical assessment the only difference between marraige and civil union is semantic and the only reason we created 'civil unions' originally was because the state didn't want a situation where churches were required to marry gay couples.

Lord (no pun intended) only knows why we didn't implement the legislation we subsequently ended up with, where churches/clergy are not required by law to conduct ceremonies they feel are against their religious beliefs but can if they wish. Instead we had to create this silly half way house that was marriage in everything but name.

You either want the protection that a legal union afffords (i.e. marriage) or your don't. I agree though that we should either allow everyone to undertake a civil unoin or simply do away with them altogether.

apologies that this is a sideral thread

Indeed. Influenced by the stars.

geetee - I have huge issues with marriage. It was set up to control women - effectively ownership of them - "love honour and OBEY" WTF!

Its an outdated institution used nowadays as a huge marketing tool to sell people useless stuff.

I am not religious and I don't want kids. I don't need a religious or government blessing to live with someone

If I could do a civil union I would - but as we are hetrosexual we can't

Indeed. Influenced by the stars.

Hence why it is also used to mean something unrelated and out of the ordinary to the main subject of discussion.

I have huge issues with marriage. It was set up to control women - effectively ownership of them - "love honour and OBEY" WTF!

My memory isn't what it used to be but I am sure that my wife made the same vows to me when I got married. Besides, we didn't even make those vows; it's called progress but you can make your own vows these days.

I think your view might have been accurate say 100 years ago but we've moved on a lot since then.

I am not religious and I don't want kids.

Neither am I (the religious part not kids - I have two and it's the most rewarding thing I've ever done) but I'm really not sure what that has to do with marriage? A civil ceremony is legally prevented from making any theological reference of any kind.

And if you don't want kids that's also fine and if you don't want to enter into a legal union with your partner that's fine also.

If I could do a civil union I would - but as we are hetrosexual we can't

But you could get a civil wedding, which is as near as makes no difference to a civil union.

As for the OP get some legal advice of your own would be my suggestion. It'll probably save money and heartache in the long run.

But to me and my partner a wedding is about ownership of the woman. A partnership isn't.

geetee - I have huge issues with marriage. It was set up to control women - effectively ownership of them - "love honour and OBEY" WTF!

Its an outdated institution used nowadays as a huge marketing tool to sell people useless stuff.

but you don't have to do any of that crap.

I'm married. There was no obeying, no father of the bride nonsense, no bridesmaids, no white dress, no rings that cost a fortune, no changing surnames.

But there was still music, readings, 100+ people, food, suits, hats, photos, booze. It was even in a (deconsecrated) church.

Marriage was originally a tool of the patriarchy, yes. But you don't have to implement it as such.

I'm genuinley interested in your view here (and apologies that this is a sideral thread) but what exactly is your issue with marriage?

I have no issue with marriage. I am in fact very happily married and have been for 11 years. However I know a number of people who do not want to get married for a variety of reasons - some of which TJ has touched on.

I simply don't see why you should have to tick a box so to speak to be considered equal partners in a relationship if you do not want to.

Some out of date views of what marriage can be. We had a registry do, no religion, certainly no honouring or obeying in our vows. We got married precisely in order to ensure that MrsMC and any future children had proper legal protection.

All good discussion on the pro's and con's of marriage, but in true STW fashion not remotely connected to the OP's question.

Since marriage is not involved, there shouldn't be any need to go to court.
If you and your partner are still on civil speaking terms, the suggestion to agree between the 2 of you without the need for lawyers is a good one. Less money to legal folk = more money for all of you.

If you can agree on everything (property distribution, child custody/access, ongoing child maintenance), I'd thoroughly recommend some kind of legally binding agreement in any case... you never know how things may turn out in the future.

IANAL

Good luck!

I simply don't see why you should have to tick a box so to speak to be considered equal partners in a relationship if you do not want to.

How should we do it? For instance in cases like these, where lawyers could be in the offing to argue whether the partners were indeed equal?

A £50 trip to the registry office to tick a box seems about as simple a process as we can manage, IMO...

I simply don't see why you should have to tick a box so to speak to be considered equal partners in a relationship if you do not want to.

So you want some sort of process where you go to a recognised official (with witnesses) and make some declarations and promises, after which you are given special status and a certificate?

In what way is that different to marriage? In a civil or humanist ceremony (humanist marriages are legal in Scotland) the legally required words are very limited.

Ours had no obeying, no religion, no outdated ideas. It was about committing to each other and sharing with each other. That was about it.

If you dislike being married because some other people treat marriage as something else, then the problem is with you and not with marriage.

Personally, I'd rather we never had civil partnerships and had gone straight to same sex marriage but our country wasn't tolerant enough for that step.

It s dragged the thread out a long way from the OP and I merely answered a question.

You have to understand what marriage is thru the window of history to see why to some its abhorrent. Some people don't understand or disregard that history. Up to them. To me the symbology of it is important. My partner is my equal not my chattel

To me the symbology of it is important. My partner is my equal not my chattel

If that's how you feel then that's all the matters. No one should try defining your experience of reality; for you, marriage absolutely does represent these regressive things you cite.

Just a word of warning; the 50/50 split is a starting point only. Other factors can influence that either way, including your future earning capacity. If your partner has given up work and potentially damaged her career to look after the kids she may get more than half of the assets. Much more.

Innit funny how, even though you have experience of what the OP is asking, you can be put off from giving your view by someone who loves to shout about his views on marriage break ups and kids even though he has experienced neither.

OP sory to hear, been there done that (20+ years, 3 kids, did get married eventually). Tough times but if the relationship has run it's course then it's time to move on.

You should get some proper advice. You should prepare yourself for 50/50 on house (maybe even worse 😐 ) and to pay some maint for your kids (I imagine you are ok with this). There are pension issues too, as you are not married your partner cannot legally access your pension, a court may decide she should have more of the house as a result.

Your partner must work (assuming kids are in school) to "maximise her income"

I suggest you look at mediation, it's much cheaper and should schieve much the same results. You may not like the outcome. Be ready for that and don't keep it bottled up

Best of luck and feel free to check in any time. Frankly the breaking up and money stuff can be a real sh.t experience.

You have to understand what marriage is thru the window of history to see why to some its abhorrent

What about understanding what marriage is through the window of 20 years experience of being married?

You're declaring something to be abhorrent even though you've never tried it.

I've tried it and I like it.

I've also tried celery and found it to be abhorrent but at least I now have an informed opinion on it.

Edit: I also do not consider my wife to be my equal. She's way better than that.

Just a word of warning; the 50/50 split is a starting point only. Other factors can influence that either way, including your future earning capacity. If your partner has given up work and potentially damaged her career to look after the kids she may get more than half of the assets. Much more.

This does not apply if they're not married. See rest of thread 🙂

You have to understand what marriage is thru the window of history to see why to some its abhorrent

Personally, I think civil partnerships are abhorrent (to use your word). They only ever existed to make same sex couples legally different to man and wife.

So we should pretty much just ban humans. I mean, if you look at Homo Sapiens through the window of history then we are rather abhorrent.

If you want the benefits of marriage, get married. Simples.

Been busy so only checking back in. First response/link was scary reading, but as we're not married i didn't think much of it applied to me (future earning etc). Thanks for the replies, had a little laugh at where the thread was going, but i expected nothing less 😀

Spent several hours this morning trying to phone the local CA place. Constantly engaged so used the in between times to speak to a solicitor and the bank. Gave up on CA and decided to call in to try and make an appointment. Spoke to a lady who gave me a leaflet and told me to call the number on it. The same number i was ringing all morning!

Bank got back to me confirming her name was also transferred onto titles/deed so it's likely a 50/50 split. Solicitor said i could be entitled to a slightly larger share since i'd paid extension/doing up the place but that would involve heavy solicitor action, bigger bills and resentment all round so it's not the road i want to take. I want to try and remain friends with the mother of my kids if possible.

Did ask the solicitor if we came to some sort of compromise/solution could he draw it up into a legal doc. Answer was yes so that's what i'm hoping to do. I'd like to keep the house as a place to live but more as something to pass onto my boys. Current thinking is to offer to buy her out. Main problems is she doesn't know what she wants and my advice isn't particularly welcome at present.

If I could do a civil union I would - but as we are hetrosexual we can't

You can do that in the Isle of Man .

If it were me , and I have been in a broadly similar situation , I would split it down the middle and start again . You loved each other once , have shared a house , a life , children . Could you really be bothered with all the hassle and expense of getting solicitors involved , the bad feeling and the potential to make what is already a shit time for your kids worse than it needs to be .
😀 Obviously if you have been caught having it off with the mother in law or similar then this approach may not work too well . 😀

Halve it up, walk away, go for joint custody and live your life. Hopefully the proceeds of the sale are enough for both of you to have suitable properties in which you can continue raising your children. Solicitors will cost you both dearly so I'd do all I could to avoid that and agree an amicable settlement between you both as sensible adults. I'd expect your pension and any other assets are yours as are future earnings so focus on making this quick clean and as painless as possible.

Do not listen to TJ. Get yourself lawyered up and make sure that the one you get is a hard-nosed one that will take an aggressive approach. Anything that gets the process over and done with quickly is what you want. Then and only then can you start to undo the damage that the whole process will do.

Euro - might be worth going for relationship counselling to see if things can be saved. Then if they can't you know the drill.

What about understanding what marriage is through the window of 20 years experience of being married?
You're declaring something to be abhorrent even though you've never tried it.

Same old, same old. TJ will keep on arguing his point until he gets banned again.

I was asked a question and answered it. Thats all. Geetee asked why some of us are so anti marriage. I explained.

If I could do a civil union I would - but as we are hetrosexual we can't
You can do that in the Isle of Man .

You can, sadly not recognised outside of the Isle of Man.

Euro, as some have said professional advice is almost certainly a good idea.
Good luck

Well a heterosexual couple from London became the first to do it a few weeks ago so I would have expected it to be recognised in England ..

TJ, does that mean YOU see my wife as my chattel?

Poly - I am not going to get into any more debate on this. I was asked why I am against marriage. I explained.

Back to the OP - would your ex accept mediation? A lot cheaper than getting lawyered up and a lot friendlier in outcomes
http://www.divorceaid.co.uk/legal/mediation.htm

^^^ this. As I posted OP you may not like the result of mediation but it will likely deliver a similar result to the courts at a fraction of the price. As my divorce lawyer said generally both parties leave unhappy. I was with my ex 25 years, she worked full time for 1 year and part time for 2 years. Apart from first year she never paid a penny towards a household bill or mortgage. When we divorced my kids where all in their 20's, she still got maintainence / more than 50%.

OP - I take it you aren't rich and you both are going to downsize as a result? Your kids are going to be living with her as well so surely you want the best possible place for them? If so it may seem reasonable to make sure that she has a chance to afford something decent.

I was asked a question and answered it. Thats all. Geetee asked why some of us are so anti marriage. I explained.

To be fair that is what happened. TJ's views might clash with yours/mine/others but he has still expressed them courteously and with insight.

Back to the OP - would your ex accept mediation? A lot cheaper than getting lawyered up and a lot friendlier in outcomes
http://www.divorceaid.co.uk/legal/mediation.htm
br />

Here is how a wise lawyer once explained the relative merits of mediation, arbitration and court in commercial disputes to me. I doubt it is that different here.

1. Most disputes can be solved by the two parties having a civil and intelligent discussion with each other and agreeing the outcomes. Legal advice may be useful to consider "what if" scenarios, and ensure that any agreement that is reached is valid.
2. When the parties can't have a civil discussion about it, then mediation may help. However it will only be useful if one or both parties really wants to avoid court, usually because of the fear of losing at court. If either party feels they are losing the mediation (even if they are not) then they are likely to revert to court if they can afford to do so.
3. When the parties have a mature and sensible approach to the problem, but agree that they need someone independent to decide the outcome then (binding) arbitration is appropriate.
4. When nobody agrees with anybody, then court becomes the only possible option.

Poly - friendlier ( probably a bad choice of words) in that a court battle will be adversarial ie pitting one against the other and will cost a huge amount wheras mediation / arbitration can bring about agreeent without this me V you situation.

Lovely explanation of the options BTW.

I'd love nothing more than having a civil discussion with her but she is very emotional and frightened. My wage us about average but hers is well below and she fears for her future. She thinks taking as much as possible from me is best for her and my boys but she doesn't earn enough to get a mortage and csa money/child support will stop in 3 years for my eldest. I'll continue to provide for him (and my youngest) but the money will come direct from me when they are older. I doubt I'd be able to afford another mortage when this is over and hate the idea of leaving my boys without a home when I'm gone.

She doesn't seem to want/or is capable of talking things through at present. And keeps throwing the 'you need to talk to my solicitor' line when I ask her anything about what she wants to do.

Things have gotten very ugly in the last few hours 😥

Surely if the outcomes are better (financially) than court then one party is getting a "raw" deal (compared to their legal entitlement) and is unlikely to accept it and you end up at court anyway?

It is financially better for the two parties because you don't have solicitors milking both of you.

But mediation requires an honest commitment from both sides and a reasonable approach

She thinks taking as much as possible from me is best for her