"Big Les Wade" wrote in message
...


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 7 Sep, 09:10, Postman Pat wrote:
David Woolley 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
...
On 7 Sep, 09:10, Postman Pat wrote:
David Woolley 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" wrote in message
...
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

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

On 7 Sep, 14:02, "john d hamilton" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On 7 Sep, 09:10, Postman Pat wrote:
David Woolley 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

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/ar...d=451580&in_pa
ge_id=2


[snip more interesting stuff from PP]

--
Les

Postman Pat posted

Why on earth marry if one is going to do that? NOT marrying is so easy
- one can buy perfectly edible microwave meals nowadays, and there is
no shortage of women, especially 40+, who are happy with casual
relationships

Of course in my day we used telegraph poles. But tell that to the youth
of today they won't believe you.


Far better to be really fussy about who to marry. Avoiding bunny
boilers is not that hard, even for a bloke

I agree. But mothers teach their daughters all sorts of tricks to apply
the pressure to marry, and men do fall for it. As my wife says, "I don't
understand why you men are such suckers for it, but I'm glad you are." I
hasten to add that I was flat broke when I married her, so I didn't have
anything to lose

--
Les
"Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns
out to be linked to other offences."

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 06:56:18 +0100, Postman Pat
wrote:

Of course in my day we used telegraph poles. But tell that to the youth
of today they won't believe you.

What would that do? Sorry but I don't get it

Old primary school smutty poem:

In days of old
When men were bold
And women weren't invented,
They'd drill a hole
In a telegraph pole
And stand there quite contented.

--
Cynic