ChatterBank5 mins ago
Splitting After 28 Years, What Are We Entitled To
Hi group, my relationship with my partner of 28yrs is at an end, she is asking for closure and needs what is hers, we have 3 properties, all in joint names, 100k shared in bonds and just short of 200k savings in Isa's etc. She has never worked, but has been a good mother to our children and a hard worker at home, alas the inevitable question is, what is she entitled to?
kindest regards to all
kindest regards to all
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ottosump. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
it is much better to reach an agreement together on what she is entitled to, so that both partners are happy, rather than use up funds getting Lawyers tof fight it out on your behalf. What do you consider reasonable? What does she?
I suspect the final answer will lie somewhere between "more than you want to give her" and "less than she wants"
I suspect the final answer will lie somewhere between "more than you want to give her" and "less than she wants"
-- answer removed --
straight down the middle for anything since you came together.....anything you had before is yours - or hers, anything you have given each other becomes personal, so you can't split jewellery, watches etc. Ditto on cars if you have given her one.
Be careful of any implied loans unless there was a specific agreement or promissary note.
Be careful of any implied loans unless there was a specific agreement or promissary note.
TWR: Your post is a bit judgemental.
Note: Please refrain from being rude, abusive or judgemental - members come here for advice, not judgement! Members who offer only moral judgement will be suspended.
And NO, it is not correct about what was hers before is hers. The starting point here is in whose name the assets are held. If they are held in joint names on a joint tenancy, there is a presumption that they are jointly owned 50/50 - if they are held as tenants in common on an unequal basis the presumption is that is what the parties intended. That presumption can be displaced by evidence of the common intention of the parties, but that remains the starting point.
Note: Please refrain from being rude, abusive or judgemental - members come here for advice, not judgement! Members who offer only moral judgement will be suspended.
And NO, it is not correct about what was hers before is hers. The starting point here is in whose name the assets are held. If they are held in joint names on a joint tenancy, there is a presumption that they are jointly owned 50/50 - if they are held as tenants in common on an unequal basis the presumption is that is what the parties intended. That presumption can be displaced by evidence of the common intention of the parties, but that remains the starting point.
-- answer removed --
