Own home getting married

Hi,

I have a question. If someone has a house they own or have a mortgage they can easily pay is there a way to wrap it up whereas if they get married their spouse will not be entitled to it?

I.e can it be put in a trust to a sibling or parent/relative and keep it out of any future spouse hands?

Person I'm referring to doesn't trust anyone and will not get married until guaranteed the house stays within the family in the event of separation.

They are bringing significantly more to the party than potential spouse regards earnings and property.

Thanks

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

Israel Scarce Washbowl wrote: »

Hi,

I have a question. If someone has a house they own or have a mortgage they can easily pay is there a way to wrap it up whereas if they get married their spouse will not be entitled to it?

I.e can it be put in a trust to a sibling or parent/relative and keep it out of any future spouse hands?

Thanks

Prenups are worthless in Ireland.
Unfortunately.

The judge will only honour it if it benefits the woman.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

Prenups are worthless in Ireland.
Unfortunately.

The judge will only honour it if it benefits the woman.

That what I thought, unfortunately it will prevent this person getting married. They are coming to the party with roughly 500k in assets and other half nothing. Thinking of buying a property together after but surely what has been earned before relationship should stay with that person

Vestiapx

Israel Scarce Washbowl wrote: »

That what I thought, unfortunately it will prevent this person getting married. They are coming to the party with roughly 500k in assets and other half nothing. Thinking of buying a property together after but surely what has been earned before relationship should stay with that person

Yeah its all a bit mad, you need to look into trusts and legal advice

El Tarangu

Israel Scarce Washbowl wrote: »

That what I thought, unfortunately it will prevent this person getting married. They are coming to the party with roughly 500k in assets and other half nothing. Thinking of buying a property together after but surely what has been earned before relationship should stay with that person

It sounds like marriage is not for your friend.

El Tarangu

El Tarangu wrote: »

It sounds like marriage is not for your friend.

Sounds like it.

Vestiapx

Vestiapx wrote: »

Yeah its all a bit mad, you need to look into trusts and legal advice

Care to elaborate?

One should be able to get married without the fear of living homeless in a ditch if it goes wrong, especially if they are the person bringing half a million worth of assets to the table before the marriage and the other not a pot to piss in.

walshtipp

Marriage really isn't that important. I honestly think single people are happier people. Can do what they want, less commitments, nobody to answer to. Being single myself I may be biased in this though.

walshtipp

walshtipp wrote: »

Marriage really isn't that important. I honestly think single people are happier people. Can do what they want, less commitments, nobody to answer to. Being single myself I may be biased in this though.

I don't think that matters anymore tbh, someone else will know more but I'm pretty sure a significant other can claim for half even without marriage in this country.

pwurple

Israel Scarce Washbowl wrote: »

That what I thought, unfortunately it will prevent this person getting married. They are coming to the party with roughly 500k in assets and other half nothing. Thinking of buying a property together after but surely what has been earned before relationship should stay with that person

Not how marriage works my friend, it’s a contract to go splitsies on your life. And have no fear, the gender doesn’t matter. If the woman is the higher earner she ends up getting wiped out in a divorce too.


500k in assets is basically one house. Hardly loaded in this day and age. Sounds like it was an inherited family home as well, so not an indicator of future earnings.

Perhaps they aren’t suited to this marriage if they already suspect their future spouse is out to rip them off.

pwurple

pwurple wrote: »

Not how marriage works my friend, it’s a contract to go splitsies on your life. And have no fear, the gender doesn’t matter. If the woman is the higher earner she ends up getting wiped out in a divorce too.


500k in assets is basically one house. Hardly loaded in this day and age. Sounds like it was an inherited family home as well, so not an indicator of future earnings.

Perhaps they aren’t suited to this marriage if they already suspect their future spouse is out to rip them off.

We'll it's basically fully paid off so it may aswell be 500k in cash and the new house would be over a million purchase so it's a good hit of money.

Yeah I think I will advise to refuse the proposal, no good can come of it.

I'm very surprised it can't be placed in trusts etc though, I work in financial services and see all sorts of 5hit going on regards trusts but wouldnt be privy to the intracellular workings

Larbre34

The whole point of various legislation in this area is to specifically protect a spouse of lesser means.

If two people marry, then occupy a home owned previously by one of them, even as a result of inheritance by that party, adjudication of a legal separation or divorce will uphold their entitlement either to part of that home or to compensation for it.

You cannot contrive some sort of contract to obviate protections guaranteed under legislation.

Sounds like your cynical and miserable pal should stay single and joyless.

Tails142

Israel Scarce Washbowl wrote: »

I don't think that matters anymore tbh, someone else will know more but I'm pretty sure a significant other can claim for half even without marriage in this country.

Yes, co-habiting couples. The only person who can have a house before a marriage and keep it fully after a split is a woman, if there's a mortgage on it though and especially if there are kids in the mix, the husband could well be liable to cover half or more. What a world eh.

Yet still we jump in both feet.

Larbre34

Larbre34 wrote: »

Sounds like your cynical and miserable pal should stay single and joyless.

Thanks for your valuable input, are you a solicitor?

walshtipp

I think it's really down to where their priorities lie. Do they want to have a long-term, hopefully happy relationship, with the chance of it going belly up and losing assets, or be happy with what they have and retaining it. I would personally go with the latter option. I would be also the kind of person to trust absolutely nobody, not even relatives.

Tails142

Tails142 wrote: »

Yes, co-habiting couples. The only person who can have a house before a marriage and keep it fully after a split is a woman, if there's a mortgage on it though and especially if there are kids in the mix, the husband could well be liable to cover half or more. What a world eh.

Yet still we jump in both feet.

Are you speaking as a solicitor or having a guess?

Atlantic Dawn

She's not the one if that comes in to your mind, seek pleasure elsewhere.

Atlantic Dawn

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

She's not the one if that comes in to your mind, seek pleasure elsewhere.

Mate I've seen mates parents married 30 years split up, that's a load of ****e if ever I have heard.

Tails142

Tails142 wrote: »

Yes, co-habiting couples. The only person who can have a house before a marriage and keep it fully after a split is a woman, if there's a mortgage on it though and especially if there are kids in the mix, the husband could well be liable to cover half or more. What a world eh.

Yet still we jump in both feet.

So essentially what you are saying is that a man with assets entering a relationship with marriage on the horizon is playing a game of Russian roulette as to whether he is financially destroyed and left homeless? Whereas the woman will be fine either way ..

hurleronditch

Israel Scarce Washbowl wrote: »

We'll it's basically fully paid off so it may aswell be 500k in cash and the new house would be over a million purchase so it's a good hit of money.

Yeah I think I will advise to refuse the proposal, no good can come of it.

I'm very surprised it can't be placed in trusts etc though, I work in financial services and see all sorts of 5hit going on regards trusts but wouldnt be privy to the intracellular workings

This person has 500k in cash to buy a house, and another mortgage free house?

So if they split up, they would get 50% of the assets each? So he would still have a house to live in? Likely he’d keep his family home.

Lots of people earn more or bring more assets to a relationship than their partner, who in some cases may bring nothing financially either pre or post wedding. If you love someone enough these things don’t matter, if your friend is this worried about these things he’s either got the wrong priorities or this relationship may not be the one for him.

the hedgeman

Israel Scarce Washbowl wrote: »

So essentially what you are saying is that a man with assets entering a relationship with marriage on the horizon is playing a game of Russian roulette as to whether he is financially destroyed and left homeless? Whereas the woman will be fine either way ..

Marriage may be a better gamble if both of them had equal assets,no losers then

hurleronditch

hurleronditch wrote: »

This person has 500k in cash to buy a house, and another mortgage free house?

So if they split up, they would get 50% of the assets each? So he would still have a house to live in? Likely he’d keep his family home.

Lots of people earn more or bring more assets to a relationship than their partner, who in some cases may bring nothing financially either pre or post wedding. If you love someone enough these things don’t matter, if your friend is this worried about these things he’s either got the wrong priorities or this relationship may not be the one for him.

There is a 20k mortgage left on a house that's worth 500k that he has saved for his whole life and paid for.

She earns 30k a year and he earns roughly 100k. So she should not be remotely entitled to his property that he had pretty much fully paid off before they met and his concern is that if they broke up she would be entitled to a portion of this house that she had nothing to do with.

This isn't a mckensy besos story where she was fully entitled and helped create the wealth and is fully entitled, this is a couple where she had absolutely nothing to do with this asset or paying it down and shouldnt be remotely entitled to it.

lalababa

Unfortunately the 50/50 split is here.
An extreme solution would be to get rid of the assets before the marriage.
How many years do you need to cohabit to get rights to assets and how much % for how many years etc.

Mrs OBumble

Larbre34 wrote: »

The whole point of various legislation in this area is to specifically protect a spouse of lesser means.

If two people marry, then occupy a home owned previously by one of them, even as a result of inheritance by that party, adjudication of a legal separation or divorce will uphold their entitlement either to part of that home or to compensation for it.

You cannot contrive some sort of contract to obviate protections guaranteed under legislation.

Sounds like your cynical and miserable pal should stay single and joyless.

That makes sense if one person sacrifices the opportunity to build a career so that they can raise the children produced from the marriage.

But if they have not, eg if you're older, there are no children and the "spouse of lesser means" would not have developed a career anyway, then it's totally unfair.

OP, I'm in a similar situation: coupled up when it was too late to have children, I own a house (lesser value), he owns a set of power tools and has little motivation to build a business, he's happy to earn enough for beer and food and rent (in that order of priority!).

Marrying in Ireland would be crazy. Even co-habitation comes with a risk that if I pre-deceased him, the value of the house would go to him (to be used on alcohol), instead of to the nieces/nephews I want it to go to.

Irish law is seriously deficient IMHO.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

That makes sense if one person sacrifices the opportunity to build a career so that they can raise the children produced from the marriage.

But if they have not, eg if you're older, there are no children and the "spouse of lesser means" would not have developed a career anyway, then it's totally unfair.

OP, I'm in a similar situation: coupled up when it was too late to have children, I own a house (lesser value), he owns a set of power tools and has little motivation to build a business, he's happy to earn enough for beer and food and rent (in that order of priority!).

Marrying in Ireland would be crazy. Even co-habitation comes with a risk that if I pre-deceased him, the value of the house would go to him (to be used on alcohol), instead of to the nieces/nephews I want it to go to.

Irish law is seriously deficient IMHO.

Exactly, this is what I'm talking about, this guy is 40 years old. She had nothing to do with his success. Thanks for a female example, it's great to hear another side.

On a side note you need to leave him, that's madness you deserve better.

heroics

Israel Scarce Washbowl wrote: »

So essentially what you are saying is that a man with assets entering a relationship with marriage on the horizon is playing a game of Russian roulette as to whether he is financially destroyed and left homeless? Whereas the woman will be fine either way ..

Did this happen to you or something? You seem to be very negative about your “friend” in this sample scenario.

In fairness it happens the other way as well. While I had an apartment when I proposed my wife had close to 3 times it’s value in cash. Means nothing got either of us as we plan our lives together.

hullaballoo

Moderator Since the OP seems only to be interested in the views of solicitors, I can only presume the OP's pal is looking for legal advice. And since the OP's pal seems to be quite miserly, I can only presume that seeking legal advice for free is the primary objective of this thread.

All of which is unfortunately not allowed under the forum charter, which for the benefit of the OP and his pal, I suggest is read prior to starting further threads on this or any issue.

Thread closed.