Case study Estranged spouse rights

Curious 1

New Member
Messages
2
Estranged couple not divorced or legally separated but living apart for decades. What are a survying spouse rights on death of wife or husband. The family home was paid for by one of the couple since estrangement
 
Everything you need to know - see link below


In answer to this:

IF A SPOUSE HAS LEFT AND STARTED ANOTHER RELATIONSHIP DOES THIS STILL REPLY

Yes. It still applies.

mf
 
I am not sure it is as straight forward as that. There are Succession Law rules on desertion. There are common law rules on equity/resulting trusts. I would say it depends on the circumstances of each case. Even in the case of a joint tenancy one could argue for partition as a result of separation. There are the rights of the new partner also. Quite a lot of issues involved.
 
When it comes to property or estates, the default assumption is open to challenge but of course I agree with you, that may not be quick or cheap, the law is an ass after all
 
I presume when the house was bought after separation it was done without a mortgage? A bank would usually not lend without some sort of agreement in place.
 
Estranged couple not divorced or legally separated but living apart for decades. What are a survying spouse rights on death of wife or husband. The family home was paid for by one of the couple since estrangement
Go to a.Solicitor and.initiate.divorce.proceedings immediately.
 
@BlackandBlue you cannot divorce someone who is dead.

This is a married couple who have been living separate lives for decades, but never legalised their position.

Thus if the spouse died intestate, the rules of intestate apply. “Your spouse/civil partner gets your entire estate. Your spouse/civil partner gets two-thirds of your estate and the remaining one-third is divided equally among your children. If one of your children has died, that share goes to his/her children.

If the spouse who died left a will the living spouse is still entitled to a legal right share “If you have left a will, and your spouse or civil partner has never renounced or given up their rights to your estate, then they are entitled to a legal right share of your estate. This legal right share is: One-half of your estate if you do not have children. One-third of your estate if you do have children”

If the op is the surviving spouse or the current partner then to prevent an expensive legal battle where the legal spouse will win negotiate a settlement asap. The legal spouse may settle for less than half/a third (but probably not a lot less) to prevent spending a lot of money with solicitors.
 
If the family home is owned as joint tenants (as opposed to tenants-in-common) then ownership transfers to the surving spouse. Its not considered part of the estate and it does not really matter who paid for it. A surviving co-habitant could bring a legal challenge. If there was no will and no named executor then I'd imagine the surviving spouse is effectively next of kin and is required to apply for probate but only if the other assets (excluding family home) deem that is necessary. As mentioned above if there is a will and a named executor, the surviving spouse is entitled to legal right share of the remaining assests also. As part of probate the executor would have to prove the rights of the surviving spouse have been extinguished by a specific clause in either Deed of Separation or Divorce which sounds like neither exist.

One last point worth noting, in the scenario where the surviving spouse takes full ownership of the family home and then decides to sell it, then it will likely incur a significant CGT bill as they would be unable to available of PPR for the decades they were living apart. So both legal and tax advice should be sought by the op. Its a bit of a messy situation. My parents are in similar position having seperated in the 80s, although both still alive, but I'm urging them to regularise their affairs by applying for an uncontested divorce otherwise I'll be the one try to sort out it eventually.
 
When it comes to property or estates, the default assumption is open to challenge but of course I agree with you, that may not be quick or cheap, the law is an ass after all
There’s nothing to challenge and there’s no default assumption.

They’re still married, end of story.
 
I don't agree, I believe there are quite a number of potential challenges, , s.120 Succession Act, a new partners rights, the separation resulting in a partition ( if it was jointly owned as joint tenants), the payments by one party creating a greater equity, the surviving spouse may hold on a resulting trust for the estate...
 
Back
Top