# protecting property investment against divorce



## badabing (1 Dec 2005)

The way things are these days, there is a good risk one will get divorced sometime after marrying. Does anyone know what measures can be taken to protect assets (ie property) which were aquired prior to marriage?


----------



## ClubMan (1 Dec 2005)

*Re: protecting proerty investment against divorce*

I don't think that you can. The marriage contract means that all assets become assets in common as far as I know and, as discussed on another thread recently, pre-nuptial contracts have no legal standing and cannot abrogate statutory marriage related rights and obligations in _Ireland_.


----------



## DrMoriarty (1 Dec 2005)

*Re: protecting proerty investment against divorce*

Spot trivia quiz: who was the FF goon who went on air at the time of the enactment of the new divorce legislation, muttering about how 'you'd go up the aisle with four acres and come back down with only two...'


----------



## badabing (1 Dec 2005)

*Re: protecting proerty investment against divorce*

What are the options regarding trusts etc?


----------



## ClubMan (1 Dec 2005)

*Re: protecting proerty investment against divorce*

I'm no expert but I don't think that any assets can be "shielded" from one's spouse. This is part and parcel of what marriage is all about.


----------



## RainyDay (2 Dec 2005)

*Re: protecting proerty investment against divorce*

You could enter into a pre-nuptial agreement - While this has no legal standing, a court may well take it into account when deciding how to split the assets on seperation.


----------



## delgirl (2 Dec 2005)

*Re: protecting proerty investment against divorce*

It's a terrible way to go into a marriage with thoughts of divorce and protecting one's assets. 

A friend of mine recently transferred an investment property to his trusted brother prior to tying the knot just in case it went pear shaped.


----------



## Purple (2 Dec 2005)

*Re: protecting proerty investment against divorce*

I agree with delgirl. Your marriage is more important than your investment portfolio, or at least it should be. If it isn't then you probably shouldn't be getting married in the first place.


----------



## badabing (2 Dec 2005)

*Re: protecting proerty investment against divorce*

I understand its a terrible and nasty business, however I've right to be that way after getting rightly shafted before. Now to move onto the big question; What are the options regarding trusts etc?


----------



## RainyDay (2 Dec 2005)

*Re: protecting proerty investment against divorce*



			
				badabing said:
			
		

> INow to move onto the big question; What are the options regarding trusts etc?


AFAIK, this is a very specialised area, and you really need to take professional legal advice on the matter via your solicitor. From what I know, the costs involved in setting these up are substantial.


----------



## Glenbhoy (2 Dec 2005)

*Re: protecting proerty investment against divorce*

Very specialised and to be honest would probably involve off-shore dealings, as I imagine if you had beneficial entitlement to any asset in this country that would be taken into account when divvying up the assets!  Or is there someone you trust moore than your intended who would happily relinquish the assets back to you?
I also think that in circumstances where a couple marry for a short time, continue with their current careers and in the absence of children, and where it can be shown that being in that relationship did not harm one career or improve the other career, then there would be very little redistribution of assets.


----------



## Gabriel (2 Dec 2005)

*Re: protecting proerty investment against divorce*



			
				Purple said:
			
		

> I agree with delgirl. Your marriage is more important than your investment portfolio, or at least it should be. If it isn't then you probably shouldn't be getting married in the first place.



I doubt anyone goes into a marriage thinking they'll inevitably split up but in this day and age it's prudent to think about these things. A lot of marriages go pear shaped for one reason or another.

Personally, I think we should change the law in this regard. If you own an asset prior to marriage you should keep it. Assets that are built/bought during the marriage should be split.


----------



## ClubMan (2 Dec 2005)

*Re: protecting proerty investment against divorce*



			
				Gabriel said:
			
		

> I doubt anyone goes into a marriage thinking they'll inevitably split up but in this day and age it's prudent to think about these things. A lot of marriages go pear shaped for one reason or another.


Maybe people should also apprise themselves of the legal/contractual issues involved in marriage too and not just think about the big day and the romance of it all? I reckon many people don't understand the implications of getting hitched.


> Personally, I think we should change the law in this regard. If you own an asset prior to marriage you should keep it. Assets that are built/bought during the marriage should be split.


Personally I disagree and believe that once marriage is entered into then all assets should be pooled. Especially so if there are children involved. But obviously anybody who believes that the law should be changed is free to lobby/campaign for this to happen.


----------



## Gabriel (2 Dec 2005)

*Re: protecting proerty investment against divorce*



			
				ClubMan said:
			
		

> Personally I disagree and believe that once marriage is entered into then all assets should be pooled. Especially so if there are children involved. But obviously anybody who believes that the law should be changed is free to lobby/campaign for this to happen.



Children are a good point and (if I were making the decision) I'd say that the law would be amended again if children come into the equation.
Complicated issue though. I'm just not comfortable with the idea that some woman some day could take a chunk out of my millions!


----------



## ClubMan (2 Dec 2005)

*Re: protecting proerty investment against divorce*



			
				Gabriel said:
			
		

> I'm just not comfortable with the idea that some woman some day could take a chunk out of my millions!


Then maybe not marrying is a better solution than changing the law?


----------



## RainyDay (2 Dec 2005)

*Re: protecting proerty investment against divorce*



			
				Gabriel said:
			
		

> Complicated issue though. I'm just not comfortable with the idea that some woman some day could take a chunk out of my millions!


Or you could take a chunk of hers?


----------



## Gabriel (2 Dec 2005)

*Re: protecting proerty investment against divorce*

In fairness I'm not religious so marriage is unimportant to me. However it can often be important for women...which is why I suspect most men get hitched in the first place


----------



## RainyDay (2 Dec 2005)

*Re: protecting proerty investment against divorce*



			
				Gabriel said:
			
		

> In fairness I'm not religious so marriage is unimportant to me.


There is no direct connection between religion & marriage. There are civil weddings which have nothing to do with any religion.


----------



## Gabriel (2 Dec 2005)

*Re: protecting proerty investment against divorce*



			
				RainyDay said:
			
		

> There is no direct connection between religion & marriage. There are civil weddings which have nothing to do with any religion.



Fair point.


----------



## DrMoriarty (2 Dec 2005)

*Re: protecting proerty investment against divorce*



			
				Gabriel said:
			
		

> I'm just not comfortable with the idea that some woman some day could take a chunk out of my millions!


If the lucky-woman-to-be claps eyes on this thread, she may take a chunk out of something else!


----------



## ClubMan (2 Dec 2005)

*Re: protecting proerty investment against divorce*



			
				Gabriel said:
			
		

> In fairness I'm not religious so marriage is unimportant to me. However it can often be important for women...which is why I suspect most men get hitched in the first place


Neither am I or my wife but marriage is important to us for a variety of reasons other than religious/spiritual.


----------



## Gabriel (2 Dec 2005)

*Re: protecting proerty investment against divorce*



			
				DrMoriarty said:
			
		

> If the lucky-woman-to-be claps eyes on this thread, she may take a chunk out of something else!



Right now there is no lucky woman to be....not even an unlucky one.

Happy days!


----------



## ClubMan (2 Dec 2005)

Is there a lucky man then? I think that changes are afoot on the same sex marriage if that's of any iterest to you.


----------



## Gabriel (2 Dec 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> Is there a lucky man then? I think that changes are afoot on the same sex marriage if that's of any iterest to you.



No...no lucky man either. Not my cup of tea but thanks for asking.

But I do actually think same sex marriages should be legal.


----------



## DrMoriarty (2 Dec 2005)

I still remember the day I got thrown out of Religion class for venturing that priests should be allowed to get married — but only if they _really_ loved each other...


----------



## RainyDay (2 Dec 2005)

DrMoriarty said:
			
		

> I still remember the day I got thrown out of Religion class for venturing that priests should be allowed to get married — but only if they _really_ loved each other...


Excellent....


----------



## badabing (2 Dec 2005)

Amusing trivia folks.....but can we get back to the topic?


----------



## onekeano (2 Dec 2005)

*Re: protecting proerty investment against divorce*



			
				Gabriel said:
			
		

> Personally, I think we should change the law in this regard. If you own an asset prior to marriage you should keep it. Assets that are built/bought during the marriage should be split.



But then you'd have all those rich women marrying us, abusing us and then throwing us on the scrapheap when they've had their wicked way with us 

Roy


----------



## Corolla97 (3 Dec 2005)

I agree with Gabriel about retaining assets held prior to a marriage in the event of a breakup provided that there are no children involved.
This is particularly so where there might be an age gap between the parties and the older one might have had time to build up considerable assets ( e.g. property or pensions ).
If both parties are in say their early twenties this might not be so important.


----------



## Observer (5 Dec 2005)

Contrary to popular belief (and as expressed here on this thread!) assets do NOT become commonly owned on marriage. Both partners can continue to hold and, indeed, acquire assets entirely in their own name during a marriage. 

However, (there's always a however!) in the event of divorce/judicial separation, all or part of either spouse's assets can be transferred to the other spouse if the court deems it appropriate to do so.  In practice, one of the factors the court will consider is which spouse paid for the asset in the first place.

Also, the Family Home is somewhat different. If it is not jointly owned, the non-owning spouse is deemed to have an interest in it, and it cannot be disposed of (or mortgaged or rented out) without that spouse's consent. 

But neither the Family Home nor any other property *automatically* become joint property on marriage.


----------



## Purple (6 Dec 2005)

I didn't know that Observer, thanks.


----------



## sudden (11 Dec 2005)

hi,
i seem to be going in the other direction-my wife is a stay at home mum with no assets (apart from her great beauty,of course) and has no income-so we are thinking of tranfering a property or two onto her name so as to bring her income up towards 20k a year,when we file jointly that should allow us to earn up to 64k at 20% tax,. 
see- having a spouse can be useful!!!! 

sudden.


----------



## DrMoriarty (11 Dec 2005)

How nice — aesthetically pleasing _and_ tax-efficient...


----------



## sudden (11 Dec 2005)

care must be always taken when choosing a spouse as a tax investment vehicle-
falling interest rates could mean the loss of your house ........etc etc


sudden


----------



## DrMoriarty (12 Dec 2005)

She reads this, you'll be losing more than your house!


----------



## Observer (13 Dec 2005)

sudden said:
			
		

> ...so we are thinking of tranfering a property or two onto her name so as to bring her income up towards 20k a year,when we file jointly that should allow us to earn up to 64k at 20% tax,.
> see- having a spouse can be useful!!!!
> 
> sudden.


Yes, this is a particularly tax efficient way of organising your affairs and I'm suprised it doesn't feature more prominently in the typical "tax tips" articles in the papers.  And transfers of property between spouses are free of stamp duty and CAT.


----------

