Divvying up the spoils

Lockstep

Was just watching the Sopranos where Tony and Carmela are arguing over cash and threatening divorce.


Got me thinking: how exactly does the whole marriage division of wealth work? If a couple consists of a dirt poor person and a millionare, is the poor one entitled to half the wealth upon the moment of marriage?
Or does the court analyse what each contributed to the relationship>

johnnyskeleton

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Was just watching the Sopranos where Tony and Carmela are arguing over cash and threatening divorce.


Got me thinking: how exactly does the whole marriage division of wealth work? If a couple consists of a dirt poor person and a millionare, is the poor one entitled to half the wealth upon the moment of marriage?
Or does the court analyse what each contributed to the relationship>

Neither. Irish family law is based on proper provision for each spouse. There are a number of factors to be considered, but essentially the courts should endeavour to ensure that both parties live in the style in which they have been accustomed to during the currency of the marriage (so far as is practical).

The starting point for division of assets between a rich and poor spouse can be considered to be 1/3, but there are so many factors this is just a very basic starting point. The courts will not leave either party destitute if they can help it.

Where a couple are not married but have co-habited, then the joint assets will be split on the basis of what each contributed.

Thoie

More curiousity. Say I'm female, and I've bought and paid off a house. At some stage I meet a bloke, he moves in, we get married. If we split up, assuming there's no kids affecting things in either direction, would he be entitled to some of the house? Does Irish law recognise prenuptial agreements - ie something that says "everything from here on out is shared, but you can't have any part of the house or my Venga Boys CD"?

johnnyskeleton

Thoie wrote: »

More curiousity. Say I'm female, and I've bought and paid off a house. At some stage I meet a bloke, he moves in, we get married. If we split up, assuming there's no kids affecting things in either direction, would he be entitled to some of the house? Does Irish law recognise prenuptial agreements - ie something that says "everything from here on out is shared, but you can't have any part of the house or my Venga Boys CD"?

Yes to your first question, in that if he doesn't have any money or means of taking care of himself and there are marital assets, he is entitled to proper provision out of the property. Which could be a chunk of change to set him up in an apartment, or it could be very little, depending on the circumstances.

The second question is extraordinarily complicated and it is an ongoing, not entirely resolved issue. Suffice it to say that the Court will give consideration to a pre nuptial agreement but the court will not be bound to it. If a house is a family home passed down to one of the spouses through generations (e.g. a family farm) the courts might be less inclined to divide it up or force a sale, but if the house is just a house it will form part of the normal marital assets, and if the courts need to divide it in order to make proper provision for the other spouse then they will.

All this is, of course, just idle chatter.

Thoie

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

All this is, of course, just idle chatter.

Absolutely. I own neither a house, nor a Venga Boys CD

maidhc

Thoie wrote: »

Absolutely. I own neither a house, nor a Venga Boys CD

If I were you I'd let the house go if I could hold onto the Venga Boys CD.

johnnyskeleton

maidhc wrote: »

If I were you I'd let the house go if I could hold onto the Venga Boys CD.

This is actually a very good point, as a lot of family law /equity actions are less about who gets what but who pays what in this world of negative equity and too much personal debt.

Thoie

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This is actually a very good point, as a lot of family law /equity actions are less about who gets what but who pays what in this world of negative equity and too much personal debt.

Ooh, I'd never thought of that. So if me and the mythical husband that I was trying to get rid of had a joint credit card, and he'd spent €5000 on the Venga Boys back catalogue, while I'd only used the card once to buy his mother some flowers, I might get stuck with half the paying off of the CC? That's it - I'm tackling the mythical man about his spending habits as soon as I meet him

johnnyskeleton

Thoie wrote: »

Ooh, I'd never thought of that. So if me and the mythical husband that I was trying to get rid of had a joint credit card, and he'd spent €5000 on the Venga Boys back catalogue, while I'd only used the card once to buy his mother some flowers, I might get stuck with half the paying off of the CC? That's it - I'm tackling the mythical man about his spending habits as soon as I meet him

The difficult cases in the good times were where two people buy a house for say €100k, one of them contributes €20k, the other €10k, but the value goes up to €200k. They split up and there is say €120k extra after the sale and all expenses. Should this be divided 80:40 in proportion to their contribution, or should it be divided 65:55 to reflect the difference in payments in nominal terms and an even split of the capital appreciation.

The difficult cases will now come where they buy for €100k, one pays €20k, the other €10k and the sale of the property results in a €10k loss. Should they pay €5k each (split their losses), the person who paid €20k walks away and the other is left with the €10k debt (split contribution) or should it be split some other way?

Thoie

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The difficult cases in the good times were where two people buy a house for say €100k, one of them contributes €20k, the other €10k, but the value goes up to €200k. They split up and there is say €120k extra after the sale and all expenses. Should this be divided 80:40 in proportion to their contribution, or should it be divided 65:55 to reflect the difference in payments in nominal terms and an even split of the capital appreciation.

The difficult cases will now come where they buy for €100k, one pays €20k, the other €10k and the sale of the property results in a €10k loss. Should they pay €5k each (split their losses), the person who paid €20k walks away and the other is left with the €10k debt (split contribution) or should it be split some other way?

The first one seems quite clear cut to me (but I'm not a judge). If the 20k and 10k contributions were the initial deposit, and the mortgage payments after that were evenly split, then you should get 65 and I should get 55. If our total contributions, including mortgage payments were 20 and 10, then you should get 80 and I should get 40.

In the second situation, if again the 20 and 10 were deposits, and the mortgage payments were split evenly, and you put in the 20, then I'd consider the impartial way would be for you to owe 6.6 and for me to owe 3.3 - you could consider it like a gamble - you invested twice as much as me, therefore you lose twice as much. That doesn't seem very fair though, as I've had the benefit of this imaginary house for a number of years.

Let's do some maths. Of the original 100, you paid 20, I paid 10. If we split the rest of the debt on that 100, we get 3:4 for the debt.
So with a 10k loss, and you paid the original 20, I think the fairest way is for you to take 4.3 of the debt, and I take 5.6 of the debt.