discodown Posted May 27, 2010 Share Posted May 27, 2010 I haven’t got a point to prove I just thought I would burst a few bubbles.whose bubbles? are there people on the forum who are vehemently anti-marriage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted May 27, 2010 Author Share Posted May 27, 2010 whose bubbles? are there people on the forum who are vehemently anti-marriage? Search some of the threads on marriage, you may be surprised Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dozy Posted May 27, 2010 Share Posted May 27, 2010 I haven’t got a point to prove I just thought I would burst a few bubbles. Surely the real problem is that they bought the house in joint names, without having a proper, legal agreement drawn up which set out what would happen if they split up. Which is a problem that could arise when any 2 people buy a house together, whether they're in a relationship or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted May 27, 2010 Share Posted May 27, 2010 Pre-nup, anyone? If one of the parties contests it then it isn't worth the paper it is written on as you cannot override the law-of-the-land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted May 27, 2010 Author Share Posted May 27, 2010 Which is a problem that could arise when any 2 people buy a house together, whether they're in a relationship or not. True but the irony of the situation is that a divorce would have split the house when it was worth £70,000. If one of the parties contests it then it isn't worth the paper it is written on as you cannot override the law-of-the-land. The law-of-the-land regarding Marriage can’t be challenged but apparently individuals can enter into any agreement they like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted May 27, 2010 Share Posted May 27, 2010 Do I want "that bit of paper" any more or less. No. All this proves is that we aren't party to all the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted May 27, 2010 Author Share Posted May 27, 2010 All this proves is that we aren't party to all the facts. What facts do you want? Get married and be covered by the laws of the land. Live with someone and take your chances. Live with someone but have a pre-nup in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted May 27, 2010 Share Posted May 27, 2010 True but the irony of the situation is that a divorce would have split the house when it was worth £70,000.Not necessarily. Usually, when there are children, the house is considered the children's home and the parent who has custody of the children can continue to live there with the children until the youngest child is 18 and then the house can be sold and the profit split between the parents. Usually, of course, the non-resident parent would continue to pay their share of the mortgage payments in order for there to be a 50-50 split, otherwise it would be pro-rata. Personally, if I'd left my children to be brought up by the other parent, I'd think that person deserved the house as recompense for all the extra responsibility. He's so cheap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted May 27, 2010 Share Posted May 27, 2010 What facts do you want? The facts that the judge will have considered before the verdict. I've no reason to assume his or her reasoning is unsound. Do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dozy Posted May 27, 2010 Share Posted May 27, 2010 True but the irony of the situation is that a divorce would have split the house when it was worth £70,000. ..... So would a properly drawn up agreement, so don't see that married/not married has that much to do with the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.