Our son is soon to get a mortgage to buy his own flat and also expects to 
get married in a year or so. We have seen others having the unfortunate 
experience of loosing most of their savings after a divorce.  Since the 
divorce rate is so high these days, we thought if I or my wife were put down 
as 'owners in common' on our son's property deeds, then a future spouse 
could 'not' walk off undeservedly with half of our son's property value. 
Which would include his life's savings invested in the flat.

I am 65 next year and my wife is now 60, So I hope to make a claim for the 
State Pension for both of us quite soon, which will be our sole source of 
income.

But if we (my wife and I) are put down as *part owners* of our son's flat on 
the title deeds, will that then be considered that we ourselves actually 
'own' half the substantial savings our son will invest in the new flat? 
Because if this is the case, might it not considerably reduce, or eliminate 
any State Pension that might otherwise be due to us?

john d hamilton wrote:
> Our son is soon to get a mortgage to buy his own flat and also expects to 
> get married in a year or so. We have seen others having the unfortunate 
> experience of loosing most of their savings after a divorce.  Since the 
> divorce rate is so high these days, we thought if I or my wife were put down 
> as 'owners in common' on our son's property deeds, then a future spouse 
> could 'not' walk off undeservedly with half of our son's property value. 
> Which would include his life's savings invested in the flat.
> 
> I am 65 next year and my wife is now 60, So I hope to make a claim for the 
> State Pension for both of us quite soon, which will be our sole source of 
> income.
> 
> But if we (my wife and I) are put down as *part owners* of our son's flat on 
> the title deeds, will that then be considered that we ourselves actually 
> 'own' half the substantial savings our son will invest in the new flat? 
> Because if this is the case, might it not considerably reduce, or eliminate 
> any State Pension that might otherwise be due to us?
> 

SP is not means tested so savings and income are irrelavant, do you mean 
Pension Credit?

Mike

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:g8k9jm$gdg$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> john d hamilton wrote:
>> Our son is soon to get a mortgage to buy his own flat and also expects to 
>> get married in a year or so. We have seen others having the unfortunate 
>> experience of loosing most of their savings after a divorce.  Since the 
>> divorce rate is so high these days, we thought if I or my wife were put 
>> down as 'owners in common' on our son's property deeds, then a future 
>> spouse could 'not' walk off undeservedly with half of our son's property 
>> value. Which would include his life's savings invested in the flat.
>>
>> I am 65 next year and my wife is now 60, So I hope to make a claim for 
>> the State Pension for both of us quite soon, which will be our sole 
>> source of income.
>>
>> But if we (my wife and I) are put down as *part owners* of our son's flat 
>> on the title deeds, will that then be considered that we ourselves 
>> actually 'own' half the substantial savings our son will invest in the 
>> new flat? Because if this is the case, might it not considerably reduce, 
>> or eliminate any State Pension that might otherwise be due to us?
>>
>
> SP is not means tested so savings and income are irrelavant, do you mean 
> Pension Credit?
> Mike

Mike thanks for your response.  Yes, sorry that should have been Pension 
Credit I was talking about. Perhaps I should mention that we do own our own 
house and would not be living in our Son's flat.

john d hamilton wrote:
> Our son is soon to get a mortgage to buy his own flat and also expects to 
> get married in a year or so. We have seen others having the unfortunate 
> experience of loosing most of their savings after a divorce.  Since the 
> divorce rate is so high these days, we thought if I or my wife were put down 
> as 'owners in common' on our son's property deeds, then a future spouse 
> could 'not' walk off undeservedly with half of our son's property value. 
> Which would include his life's savings invested in the flat.

I can see so many complications with this that I would have to say that 
you *need* to consult with a qualified lawyer (which I am not).  To be 
effective, you would need to have beneficial ownership of your part, 
which, I suspect, means that, between you and your son, you would be 
taxed on the market rent on that part whether or not he actually pays 
that rent.  I think you would also be liable for capital gains tax (as 
an investment property) on sale and for inheritance tax.  Having a two 
or three way trust, or having a trust of trusts, owning the property can 
only cause complications.  You should also consider what happens if one 
of you becomes mentally incapable; I believe you will need an 
independent attorney for each such member of the trust, before you can sell.

If you go into care, the value of the property will, I assume, be used 
in the means test to determine whether you can pay your own fees.

Set against this, my understanding that current divorce settlement 
policy was that the split should be based on the relevant contributions 
and sacrifices (after considering needs of any children).  So, with a 
late short marriage, the balance should be close to that of the initial 
capital input.  I also seem to remember hearing that there is a trend to 
taking into account pre-nups.  For a longer marriage, a low earning wife 
may be considered to have sacrificed income to run the home and her 
emotional support to have contributed to the husband's earnings.  You 
should be talking to the lawyer about whether the risks you perceive 
really exist.

The other thing to consider is that, if the marriage does last, the wife 
will have an increasing moral right (not used in any legal sense) to the 
joint wealth, for the reasons given above.

Also, as you are not living the house, I suspect that the part owned by 
your son would still be splittable in the divorce settlement.  My guess 
is that, if you held out, they would give residence to one party and 
require them to pay market rent to the other one.

This is definitely not legal advice, but hopefully identifies enough 
potential problems that you will seek such advice if you want to proceed 
with this idea.

"john d hamilton" <bluestar@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:g8kkvb$807$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "Mike"  wrote in message
> news:g8k9jm$gdg$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> > john d hamilton wrote:
> >> Our son is soon to get a mortgage to buy his own flat and also expects to
> >> get married in a year or so. We have seen others having the unfortunate
> >> experience of loosing most of their savings after a divorce.  Since the
> >> divorce rate is so high these days, we thought if I or my wife were put
> >> down as 'owners in common' on our son's property deeds, then a future
> >> spouse could 'not' walk off undeservedly with half of our son's property
> >> value. Which would include his life's savings invested in the flat.
> >>
> >> I am 65 next year and my wife is now 60, So I hope to make a claim for
> >> the State Pension for both of us quite soon, which will be our sole
> >> source of income.
> >>
> >> But if we (my wife and I) are put down as *part owners* of our son's flat
> >> on the title deeds, will that then be considered that we ourselves
> >> actually 'own' half the substantial savings our son will invest in the
> >> new flat? Because if this is the case, might it not considerably reduce,
> >> or eliminate any State Pension that might otherwise be due to us?
> >>
> >
> > SP is not means tested so savings and income are irrelavant, do you mean
> > Pension Credit?
> > Mike
>
> Mike thanks for your response.  Yes, sorry that should have been Pension
> Credit I was talking about. Perhaps I should mention that we do own our own
> house and would not be living in our Son's flat.


This isn't an advisable thing to do. Ever. As it's based on an intended deception.

When you apply for Pension Credit you will be asked to declare your assets.

Supposing that prior to this your son has already gifted you a half share
in his flat. Regardless of your or his motives for doing so

If when applying for Pension Credit you don't declare your interest in this
flat, then you will be breaking the Law. If the matter ever comes to light
you will be required to pay back any Pension Credit paid, regardless of
the fact that you never actually owned any part of the flat at all.

Neither can you declare it, and claim that you don't actually own it, but that
should your son subsequently divorce you will then "pretend" that you owned
it all along.

Do you see my point ?

A possible intent to decieve cannot ever be used as a justification for
anything - certainly where dealing with Govt Departments is concerned anyway.

Your son will simply have to be more selective in his choice of partner
to share in the raising your grandchildren, I'm afraid.


JS






>
>

john d hamilton <bluestar@mail.invalid> posted
>
>Our son is soon to get a mortgage to buy his own flat and also expects to
>get married in a year or so. We have seen others having the unfortunate
>experience of loosing most of their savings after a divorce.  Since the
>divorce rate is so high these days, we thought if I or my wife were put down
>as 'owners in common' on our son's property deeds, then a future spouse
>could 'not' walk off undeservedly with half of our son's property value.
>Which would include his life's savings invested in the flat.

It's true that she couldn't get your share, but she could get half, or 
more likely all, of *his* share.

And also the taxman will regard his occupancy of your share of the house 
as a "benefit in kind" for which he should pay you the market rent, and 
so they will assess you for the income tax on this imaginary rent. And 
then, when you die and he inherits your share, he will pay inheritance 
tax on that. Or if you give him your share before you die, you will have 
to pay capital gains tax on its increase in value. It's not a good idea.

However, your problem is a common one which I too expect to face soon 
enough. I have concluded that in the current legal climate there is only 
one bulletproof solution. Your son should *not* marry his girlfriend 
unless either (i) she is bringing an equivalent financial contribution 
to the marriage; or (ii) he is prepared to wave goodbye to half his 
property, and probably much more than that if they have children.

If they (or rather, she) insist on getting married, suggest your son 
uses some other method to protect his capital. Pre-nuptial agreements 
are these days becoming quite common and the divorce courts do pay some 
attention to them (though AIUI they don't regard them as legally 
binding).

Or he could put the house in some kind of discretionary trust with you 
as trustees.

I do not normally say this on this group, but it is probably worth 
taking professional advice on this. But *not* from a high street 
solicitor. Find a qualified trust and estate practitioner. (see 
www.step.org)

>I am 65 next year and my wife is now 60, So I hope to make a claim for the
>State Pension for both of us quite soon, which will be our sole source of
>income.
>
>But if we (my wife and I) are put down as *part owners* of our son's flat on
>the title deeds, will that then be considered that we ourselves actually
>'own' half the substantial savings our son will invest in the new flat?

Well, you'll own the fraction of the flat that the agreement says you 
own, anyway. Doesn't have to be half. And it'll be net of the mortgage 
debt.

>Because if this is the case, might it not considerably reduce, or eliminate
>any State Pension that might otherwise be due to us?

Pension credit, yes. Also it would compromise your entitlement to local 
authority funded long-term care. As well as the disadvantages I listed 
above. Don't do it.

-- 
Les
"God will save her, fear you not, be you the men you've been.
Get you the sons your fathers got and God will save the Queen."

On 22 Aug, 09:41, "John Smith" <John Sm...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> "john d hamilton" <blues...@mail.invalid> wrote in messagenews:g8kkvb$807$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Mike"  wrote in message
> >news:g8k9jm$gdg$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> > > john d hamilton wrote:
> > >> Our son is soon to get a mortgage to buy his own flat and also expects to
> > >> get married in a year or so. We have seen others having the unfortunate
> > >> experience of loosing most of their savings after a divorce.  Since the
> > >> divorce rate is so high these days, we thought if I or my wife were put
> > >> down as 'owners in common' on our son's property deeds, then a future
> > >> spouse could 'not' walk off undeservedly with half of our son's property
> > >> value. Which would include his life's savings invested in the flat.
>
> > >> I am 65 next year and my wife is now 60, So I hope to make a claim for
> > >> the State Pension for both of us quite soon, which will be our sole
> > >> source of income.
>
> > >> But if we (my wife and I) are put down as *part owners* of our son's flat
> > >> on the title deeds, will that then be considered that we ourselves
> > >> actually 'own' half the substantial savings our son will invest in the
> > >> new flat? Because if this is the case, might it not considerably reduce,
> > >> or eliminate any State Pension that might otherwise be due to us?
>
> > > SP is not means tested so savings and income are irrelavant, do you mean
> > > Pension Credit?
> > > Mike
>
> > Mike thanks for your response.  Yes, sorry that should have been Pension
> > Credit I was talking about. Perhaps I should mention that we do own our own
> > house and would not be living in our Son's flat.
>
> This isn't an advisable thing to do. Ever. As it's based on an intended deception.
>
> When you apply for Pension Credit you will be asked to declare your assets.
>
> Supposing that prior to this your son has already gifted you a half share
> in his flat. Regardless of your or his motives for doing so
>
> If when applying for Pension Credit you don't declare your interest in this
> flat, then you will be breaking the Law. If the matter ever comes to light
> you will be required to pay back any Pension Credit paid, regardless of
> the fact that you never actually owned any part of the flat at all.
>
> Neither can you declare it, and claim that you don't actually own it, but that
> should your son subsequently divorce you will then "pretend" that you owned
> it all along.
>
> Do you see my point ?
>
> A possible intent to decieve cannot ever be used as a justification for
> anything - certainly where dealing with Govt Departments is concerned anyway.
>
> Your son will simply have to be more selective in his choice of partner
> to share in the raising your grandchildren, I'm afraid.
>
> JS
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On a more positive note, the number one cause of divorce is marriage.
Sure, can get a pre-nup agreement. Which some would consider an insult
and others wonder about how long the marriage will last.
And yes, some marriages last a lifetime. Even if they never come back
from the honeymoon. Or reach 75 years of marriage.

Your son will take a risk. You could always buy a property sharing
with him and later any new wife. I don't recommend it, in laws under
your feet can be quite stressful on a marriage. Yours and his.
Or can simply let him take his own risks. He has more options
available than you do.

Martin  <><

On Aug 21, 6:21 pm, "john d hamilton" <blues...@mail.invalid> wrote:
> Our son is soon to get a mortgage to buy his own flat and also expects to
> get married in a year or so. We have seen others having the unfortunate
> experience of loosing most of their savings after a divorce.  Since the
> divorce rate is so high these days, we thought if I or my wife were put down
> as 'owners in common' on our son's property deeds, then a future spouse
> could 'not' walk off undeservedly with half of our son's property value.
> Which would include his life's savings invested in the flat.
>
> I am 65 next year and my wife is now 60, So I hope to make a claim for the
> State Pension for both of us quite soon, which will be our sole source of
> income.
>
> But if we (my wife and I) are put down as *part owners* of our son's flat on
> the title deeds, will that then be considered that we ourselves actually
> 'own' half the substantial savings our son will invest in the new flat?
> Because if this is the case, might it not considerably reduce, or eliminate
> any State Pension that might otherwise be due to us?

You mean that your son will be paying the larger part of the cost of
the house?   If they are not married, why cannot they own it as
"tenants in common" with the proportion of ownership being in
proportion to what they have both paid?  That would seem the natural
thing to do.

Once they get married and the house becomes the matrimonial home,  the
court has wide powers to override the ownership proportions if a
divorce takes place.

i don't see that the OP has any business owning part of the house
unless he has contributed financially to its purchase.

Robert

"john d hamilton" <bluestar@mail.invalid> wrote in message 
news:g8k86i$740$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> Our son is soon to get a mortgage to buy his own flat and also expects to 
> get married in a year or so. We have seen others having the unfortunate 
> experience of loosing most of their savings after a divorce.  Since the 
> divorce rate is so high these days, we thought if I or my wife were put 
> down as 'owners in common' on our son's property deeds, then a future 
> spouse could 'not' walk off undeservedly with half of our son's property 
> value. Which would include his life's savings invested in the flat.
>
> I am 65 next year and my wife is now 60, So I hope to make a claim for the 
> State Pension for both of us quite soon, which will be our sole source of 
> income.
>
> But if we (my wife and I) are put down as *part owners* of our son's flat 
> on the title deeds, will that then be considered that we ourselves 
> actually 'own' half the substantial savings our son will invest in the new 
> flat? Because if this is the case, might it not considerably reduce, or 
> eliminate any State Pension that might otherwise be due to us?
>
>

Won't affect State Retirement Pension.

Might affect minimum income guarantee.

Will have disastrous effects if one of you goes into a home.  They won't 
charge the deeds of any house the other spouse owns and lives in, but they 
will on this one.

"john d hamilton" <bluestar@mail.invalid> wrote in message 
news:g8k86i$740$1@registered.motzarella.org...

> But if we (my wife and I) are put down as *part owners* of our son's flat 
> on the title deeds, will that then be considered that we ourselves 
> actually 'own' half the substantial savings our son will invest in the new 
> flat? Because if this is the case, might it not considerably reduce, or 
> eliminate any State Pension that might otherwise be due to us?

Depends on whether your son trusts you more than his wife bearing in mind 
he's signing over half the flat to you with nil contribution.

A bad idea.

"Big Les Wade"  wrote in message 
news:H162rVMZ8nrIFww$@obviously.invalid...
>

snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
> It's true that she couldn't get your share, but she could get half, or 
> more likely all, of *his* share.

Not true if you live in Scotland of course.

Neb

>On a more positive note, the number one cause of divorce is marriage.
>Sure, can get a pre-nup agreement. Which some would consider an insult
>and others wonder about how long the marriage will last.
>And yes, some marriages last a lifetime. Even if they never come back
>from the honeymoon. Or reach 75+ years of marriage.
>
>Your son will take a risk. You could always buy a property sharing
>with him and later any new wife. I don't recommend it, in laws under
>your feet can be quite stressful on a marriage. Yours and his.
>Or can simply let him take his own risks. He has more options
>available than you do.
>
>Martin  <><

A pre-nup is worth zero - in the very situations where you want to
rely on it to achieve an unequal distribution of assets.

Best thing is to stay single and cohabit - then you *can* get a
legally binding agreement.

David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote

>For a longer marriage, a low earning wife 
>may be considered to have sacrificed income to run the home and her 
>emotional support to have contributed to the husband's earnings.

More likely, she made a lifestyle choice to give up work :)

On 7 Sep, 09:10, Postman Pat  wrote:
> David Woolley <da...@ex.djwhome.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote
>
> >For a longer marriage, a low earning wife
> >may be considered to have sacrificed income to run the home and her
> >emotional support to have contributed to the husband's earnings.
>
> More likely, she made a lifestyle choice to give up work :)

Gosh, and in your idea marriage thats up to just the one person?
Funny really, many marriages have decisions made by two people.

Martin  <><

wrote in message 
news:ce9cadc7-ab83-4cba-9d23-b43588a876fd@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 7 Sep, 09:10, Postman Pat  wrote:
>> David Woolley <da...@ex.djwhome.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote
>>
>> >For a longer marriage, a low earning wife
>> >may be considered to have sacrificed income to run the home and her
>> >emotional support to have contributed to the husband's earnings.
>>
>> More likely, she made a lifestyle choice to give up work :)
>
> Gosh, and in your idea marriage thats up to just the one person?
> Funny really, many marriages have decisions made by two people.
> Martin  <><

yes made by two people, but quite often the dominant partners 'works' on the 
other and swings the other half's opinions around to the 'right' direction, 
wouldn't you say?

"john d hamilton" <bluestar@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:g8kkvb$807$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> > SP is not means tested so savings and income are irrelavant, do you mean
> > Pension Credit?
> > Mike
>
> Mike thanks for your response.  Yes, sorry that should have been Pension
> Credit I was talking about. Perhaps I should mention that we do own our own
> house and would not be living in our Son's flat.

The value of a property you own but don't live in is usually counted as capital
for means tested benefits purposes. Almost certainly the case for pension
credit.

Falling property prices will probably wipe out his equity anyway so there'll be
less to fight over ;-)

--
Andy

"john d hamilton" <bluestar@mail.invalid> wrote

>
> wrote in message 
>news:ce9cadc7-ab83-4cba-9d23-b43588a876fd@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> On 7 Sep, 09:10, Postman Pat  wrote:
>>> David Woolley <da...@ex.djwhome.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote
>>>
>>> >For a longer marriage, a low earning wife
>>> >may be considered to have sacrificed income to run the home and her
>>> >emotional support to have contributed to the husband's earnings.
>>>
>>> More likely, she made a lifestyle choice to give up work :)
>>
>> Gosh, and in your idea marriage thats up to just the one person?
>> Funny really, many marriages have decisions made by two people.
>> Martin  <><
>
>yes made by two people, but quite often the dominant partners 'works' on the 
>other and swings the other half's opinions around to the 'right' direction, 
>wouldn't you say? 

Quite.

I am pretty damn sure that if you lined up 100 men, and presented each
of them with a visually attractive prospective wife who said up front
"after marriage, I am going to become a housewife, I will cook meals
for you, make sure you get all you need in bed, and keep the house
tidy, and because I will not do anything to learn any skills or do any
outside work, but I will be after a horse, stables, a 4x4 to go
shopping in, so I will totally depend on you financially so if we
break up you will be taken to the cleaners with maintenance" how many
would go for it?

Sure, some would. But only a few of the really thick ones.

Divorces in these "high dependency" situations result in the most
bitter ex wives who screw their husbands as much as they can and
continue their bitterness for years and sometimes decades. If there
are no kids, it's not too bad because - finances aside - you can just
tell her to stick it and avoid all contact. But if there are kids,
it's really bad. And pregnancy is practically entirely in *her*
control.

I would strongly caution any man with more than half a brain to be
really careful. Always pick a woman who can stand up on her own feet,
has some skills and some initiative, and do not go for the
"traditional housewife" approach. The place is full of women who look
to a marriage as a protection from the outside world, and there are
plenty of men who mostly-unwittingly fall for it. Many years ago, I
was one of them...

Regarding the original question, I wonder if a trust can be set up
which would own the house. Years ago I looked into this, in a
different scenario, and one of the big problems (with a "lifetime
trust") was what happens if the beneficiary predeceases the settlor.
In this case it is unlikely (a young man) but obviously possible. Last
I heard on that one was that a certain type of non-UK trust would
solve that problem because it could just be cancelled and the man who
put the money in could just take it back out again. But I never
investigated it because finding specialists in the field was hard.

If the settlor goes into council care, after something like 7 years
following the transaction, there is no problem.

Wealthy families routinely use trusts in this way to own old family
businesses, to prevent the business being gradually trashed as various
family members divorce over the decades.

Postman Pat  posted
>
>Regarding the original question, I wonder if a trust can be set up
>which would own the house. Years ago I looked into this, in a
>different scenario, and one of the big problems (with a "lifetime
>trust") was what happens if the beneficiary predeceases the settlor.
>In this case it is unlikely (a young man) but obviously possible. Last
>I heard on that one was that a certain type of non-UK trust would
>solve that problem because it could just be cancelled and the man who
>put the money in could just take it back out again. But I never
>investigated it because finding specialists in the field was hard.
>

Moreover, English divorce courts have been happy to order the trustees 
of such trusts to hand over the trust's assets to the ex-wife. So it 
didn't really work.

However there has been a very recent decision in Jersey (Mubarak v 
Mubarak IIRC) where a court has decided the trustee has no power to give 
the trust's assets to anyone other than the originally nominated 
beneficiary, even if a foreign divorce court orders him to do so. So it 
may be that Jersey is in for a bit of extra trust business in future.

-- 
Les

Big Les Wade  wrote

>Moreover, English divorce courts have been happy to order the trustees 
>of such trusts to hand over the trust's assets to the ex-wife. So it 
>didn't really work.

Do you have any more details?

I cannot see how Joe Bloggs, *not* being a shareholder in the family
business but merely being a Director, can have any part of the
business valued as a matrimonial asset.

If he was a shareholder that would be completely different.
Businessmen get fleeced through this system all the time - the
valuation of even a small business can easily exceed everything else
the divorcing couple have, so he comes out keeping the business but
she gets everything else. That was the deal I got.

But just working in a family business which is held entirely in a long
standing trust, I cannot see hot the trust assets could be raided.

The devil is going to be in the detail. If the Director had some kind
of an unconditional deal guaranteeing his salary for X years, a value
could be placed on that income stream. Etc. 

I have bumped into a number of divorcing/divorced women who were
bitter that their ex had "filthy rich parents" and she "should" have
got more because of that, but I don't know of any case where that
actually worked. Potential inheritance perhaps - what is the latest
case law on that rather dodgy subject?

>However there has been a very recent decision in Jersey (Mubarak v 
>Mubarak IIRC) where a court has decided the trustee has no power to give 
>the trust's assets to anyone other than the originally nominated 
>beneficiary, even if a foreign divorce court orders him to do so. So it 
>may be that Jersey is in for a bit of extra trust business in future.

That sounds exactly right. Trust is a trust. The trustee is personally
liable if he acts out of order.

On 7 Sep, 14:02, "john d hamilton" <blues...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:ce9cadc7-ab83-4cba-9d23-b43588a876fd@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 7 Sep, 09:10, Postman Pat  wrote:
> >> David Woolley <da...@ex.djwhome.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote
>
> >> >For a longer marriage, a low earning wife
> >> >may be considered to have sacrificed income to run the home and her
> >> >emotional support to have contributed to the husband's earnings.
>
> >> More likely, she made a lifestyle choice to give up work :)
>
> > Gosh, and in your idea marriage thats up to just the one person?
> > Funny really, many marriages have decisions made by two people.
> > Martin  <><
>
> yes made by two people, but quite often the dominant partners 'works' on the
> other and swings the other half's opinions around to the 'right' direction,
> wouldn't you say?

Then its still the decision of the two people.


Martin  <><

Postman Pat  posted
>
>Big Les Wade  wrote
>
>>Moreover, English divorce courts have been happy to order the trustees
>>of such trusts to hand over the trust's assets to the ex-wife. So it
>>didn't really work.
>
>Do you have any more details?
>
>I cannot see how Joe Bloggs, *not* being a shareholder in the family
>business but merely being a Director, can have any part of the
>business valued as a matrimonial asset.
>If he was a shareholder that would be completely different.
>Businessmen get fleeced through this system all the time - the
>valuation of even a small business can easily exceed everything else
>the divorcing couple have, so he comes out keeping the business but
>she gets everything else. That was the deal I got.
>
>But just working in a family business which is held entirely in a long
>standing trust, I cannot see hot the trust assets could be raided.

No, I agree - I wasn't thinking of family trusts that have been around 
for years and have several (and variable) beneficiaries. They do tend to 
have some protection from gold-digging wives.

I was thinking of the kind of trust that I understood you were proposing 
- where the parent places assets in trust for the son in order to keep 
them away from the wife. The courts have generally ordered that these 
assets count as part of the husband's property and should therefore be 
handed to the wife.

-- 
Les

Big Les Wade  wrote

>I was thinking of the kind of trust that I understood you were proposing 
>- where the parent places assets in trust for the son in order to keep 
>them away from the wife. The courts have generally ordered that these 
>assets count as part of the husband's property and should therefore be 
>handed to the wife.

I think the key words in the above are "for the son".

What exactly does this mean?

I am totally nonexpert on this but AIUI a bare trust transfers the
asset to the beneficiary at 18. 

An accumulation & maintenance trust can delay till 25 - my Will
actually sets up an A&M trust for my children, with a specified delay
till 25. Actually I heard recently that all this has recently changed
(the law) so maybe I need to have it looked at...

So if you create a lifetime A&M trust for your son, and at 23 he
divorces, the Court could well say that at 25 it is all his anyway so
into the matrimonial melting pot it goes.... that's if they know about
the trust!!

But if the trust is one under which the asset never passes to the son,
what can the court do?

IMHO, nothing.

In fact the old man could just hang onto the house and rent it to his
son, and use the Will (below).

In the meantime, the son can live in the house as a tenant, paying
some rent...

And the old man could always put a provision in his Will to pass the
house to his son, so this way if the son divorces during the father's
lifetime, all is OK. And such a provision can be secret - this is
desirable in case the old man got ill, in which case you have a
potential inheritance situation. Anyway, AIUI, the divorce court has
no right to examine the Will of the old man - unless like I say he is
ill and might die soon. Anyway, one can make secret provisions in
Wills: you leave an asset to a trusted friend, with a letter (or a
nod) to pass the asset to a specified person after X years. It is
quite safe because all the time you are alive, you can tear it up and
nobody knows. That deals with the potential inheritance scenario too.

Perjury is not a problem because the instruction to the trusted friend
can be in a sealed envelope, and by the time this is opened, the old
man is dead.

If I can think of this kind of stuff, I am sure any half competent
solicitor can do far better.

But, as stated, the best advice to his son is to be damn careful who
he marries :)

Postman Pat  posted
>
[snip interesting stuff]

>So if you create a lifetime A&M trust for your son, and at 23 he
>divorces, the Court could well say that at 25 it is all his anyway so
>into the matrimonial melting pot it goes.... that's if they know about
>the trust!!
>
>But if the trust is one under which the asset never passes to the son,
>what can the court do?
>
>IMHO, nothing.

There are other types of trusts besides bare and A&M. In discretionary 
trusts, the trustees are free to distribute (or not distribute) assets 
or income among multiple potential beneficiaries at their discretion, 
within very broad guidelines. It *is* hard for an outsider to get her 
hands on this type of trust.

However where the son is the sole beneficiary an English court might 
take the view that the trust is just a sham. I don't really understand 
how the divorce courts do their "reasoning" in these cases, but it's a 
fact that many rich men who used a trust to protect their assets from a 
new wife have later found the courts didn't allow it. There may be hope, 
though: see for example
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=451580&in_pa
ge_id=2


[snip more interesting stuff from PP]

-- 
Les