TIC for married couples?

[doverf5ve]

So i've only been married for a year and a few months now, everything has been going well. We plan to start a family soon too.

My husband is sweet and caring, he just doesn't earn as much as me at the moment. We finally purchased a place and my deposit is 40% of the property value and his is less than 20%. I have a friend who is divorced and she told me how nasty things could get. I didn't think of getting a prenup as i don't consider myself HMW, just someone who is more of a saver and works hard.

I have the option to arrange a TIC agreement so i can outline my contribution towards the house and that i will be paying off more of the mortgage. Problem is im seeing that when it comes to a divorce, the courts will pool all the assets together that we own and it would be a 50:50 split. So this TIC agreement looks like its ineffective if you are married? I don't want to think negatively but i do want to protect myself. Anybody been in this situation?

[Seraphim]

It would depend on where you live . 
 

I have been married 30 years and I have never planned a contingency plan for divorce . I don’t get it. Why is there a contingency plan for divorce? Why get married if divorce plans are needed? 

[doverf5ve]

UK based. Yes i shouldnt be thinking about divorce so soon, but it happens too often these days. I am not one to give up easily, i havent dated often either. But women stand to lose more in relationships, time out to raise children, struggling to climb back up the career ladder etc. 

[Andrina]

If you didn't like the fact that your contribution toward the house will always be more than his, you should've bought a place that cost less where you could each contribute equally.

There will often be cases where one person of the two will be the breadwinner. I am, and that's okay with me since my husband has a high work ethic. He's making the most he can with the abilities he has. And I went into the marriage knowing that whenever we went on vacation, I'd be footing most of the bill. But there are things besides money that are important in their own ways. He eases my troubles, cares for me when I'm sick. Helps me out by caring for my elderly father who has many needs. Picks up things at the store he knows I need that he doesn't even eat or drink. Does more than a fair share of chores. Rubs my back without me even asking.

There are couples who have a partner who doesn't work outside the home for a period of years to care for their children. So do you think the stay home parent should be excluded from a portion of divorce money because he/she didn't contribute toward bills and the mortgage for those years?

In a divorce you will get half of the equity, so I wouldn't think you'd be destitute. To make yourself feel comfortable financially, make sure you and your husband each put in money to your own retirement accounts and also put money regularly in a combined emergency fund. That's usually 3 months worth of living expenses.

In a marriage, you're a team combining assets. Don't let a toxic mindset ruin a beautiful thing.

[Seraphim]

8 minutes ago, Andrina said:

If you didn't like the fact that your contribution toward the house will always be more than his, you should've bought a place that cost less where you could each contribute equally.

There will often be cases where one person of the two will be the breadwinner. I am, and that's okay with me since my husband has a high work ethic. He's making the most he can with the abilities he has. And I went into the marriage knowing that whenever we went on vacation, I'd be footing most of the bill. But there are things besides money that are important in their own ways. He eases my troubles, cares for me when I'm sick. Helps me out by caring for my elderly father who has many needs. Picks up things at the store he knows I need that he doesn't even eat or drink. Does more than a fair share of chores. Rubs my back without me even asking.

There are couples who have a partner who doesn't work outside the home for a period of years to care for their children. So do you think the stay home parent should be excluded from a portion of divorce money because he/she didn't contribute toward bills and the mortgage for those years?

In a divorce you will get half of the equity, so I wouldn't think you'd be destitute. To make yourself feel comfortable financially, make sure you and your husband each put in money to your own retirement accounts and also put money regularly in a combined emergency fund. That's usually 3 months worth of living expenses.

In a marriage, you're a team combining assets. Don't let a toxic mindset ruin a beautiful thing.

I agree contributing to marriage is not just financial. My husband always made more than I did. Most of the time I worked as well but 99.9 of childcare was me and home care and bill paying etc. He appreciates my contribution. He said our life would be a flaming crater without you. 

[doverf5ve]

1 hour ago, Seraphim said:

I agree contributing to marriage is not just financial. My husband always made more than I did. Most of the time I worked as well but 99.9 of childcare was me and home care and bill paying etc. He appreciates my contribution. He said our life would be a flaming crater without you. 

i agree with your point, i am the home maker, i cook and clean, i do most of the house chores. It will probably be me who will be more hands on with childcare. I could have went with a 50:50 mortgage but i know he wouldn't be able to save as much if he did that. We talked about what if this marriage didn't work out and what would only be fair for each person. 

1 hour ago, Andrina said:

If you didn't like the fact that your contribution toward the house will always be more than his, you should've bought a place that cost less where you could each contribute equally.

 

I put more towards the house so we could get a better Loan to value for us and a better interest rate. I could have matched him...

[Seraphim]

See that’s what I don’t understand, the plans for failure . I have never made those plans . 

[TeeDee]

Marriage is about love, commitment & sharing. 

Divorce is about money & betrayal.  

I don't know anything about UK law, so you best ask a lawyer but if you are genuinely concerned about this put everything in writing.  Document.  Document.  Document.   If you get a divorce in the future & you have a paper trail, a court will consider that when deciding what is equitable under your circumstances.   

[Andrina]

46 minutes ago, doverf5ve said:

I put more towards the house so we could get a better Loan to value for us and a better interest rate. I could have matched him..

Well, that's the sacrifice/extra contribution you CHOSE to make because of the circumstances. You accepted a spouse who makes a smaller salary than you. My brother who makes a meager salary married into a well-to-do family in the UK. He contributed zero to a mortgage and says in a divorce, he would get half of the house's worth. That's the reality in most cases. If you were so focused on receiving a higher percentage in a divorce than a low earning spouse, you should've gotten a pre-nup before the marriage to make sure your spouse was on the same page and still willing to marry you.

The pickle you're in now is that spelling all this out in a post-nuptial agreement could put you in a such a poor light to your partner that he might not ever see you in the same way again. I know it would leave a bad taste in my mouth after all is said and done and I've been putting manual maintenance into OUR house and furnishing it and cleaning it, etc. Being nit-picky about nickle and diming who contributes less or more is a lot of separateness that will divide you.

But why are you doing more of the chores and all the cooking? Do you work outside of the home, or not?

Yes, divorce is costly for both parties, and usually the breadwinner gets hit with more of the financial loss. It's a gamble we take for wishing to have a happy life with a lifetime companion. As said, whether you're married or single, you set yourself up well financially by contributing to a nest egg and retirement funds. You can have your own savings and checking that your spouse doesn't have access to. And you can have a combined, separate account where you both contribute to pay bills. 

I hope that eases your fears. I and so many I know have survived divorce and none of us have wound up in homeless shelters. Don't let fear be your constant companion.

[catfeeder]

You raise that he doesn’t earn as much at the moment, which makes room for the idea that he may earn more in the future. If that’s the case, he can raise his contribution and you can reduce yours.

[Batya33]

Did you communicate your (unique? unusual?) perspective on marriage and finances and preparing for divorce before marriage? How does your husband feel about choosing a home where he cannot contribute equal to you at the moment? If you reduce hours at work or make less because you are more of the full time parent then do you plan to reduce that to $$ too to keep everything fair?

If my husband hypothetically had wanted a post nup for the reasons  you stated -to buy a better property I'd have said - no we don't need one at this point because we likely will need to divorce if that's really how you feel. (Married 15 years, one child, he makes more, we both brought substantial assets into the marriage)

[tattoobunnie]

4 hours ago, doverf5ve said:

So i've only been married for a year and a few months now, everything has been going well...

My husband is sweet and caring, he just doesn't earn as much as me at the moment. We finally purchased a place and my deposit is 40% of the property value and his is less than 20%.

So does the TIC include who will plunge the toilets when clogged?  Who will repair the roof, siding, floors? Who will do the maintenance, general home repairs, landscaping, outdoor holiday decorations?  Make sure the boiler and furnace are running. Chopping wood for the fireplace?  If you are the bread winner, I would think he's the one that needs to take off if the kids need to be picked up when sick, or watch them during school breaks.  There is so much more than just the deposit to home ownership.

If you divorce, you may not sell the home, and instead keep it, and it goes to whomever has residential custody of the kids.  If you honestly believe you plan be resentful of your husband not earning more than you, I would only get a house you can both contribute equally to.  I could never live in this type of arrangement personally, as I believe as partners, it's okay to contribute in different ways, so the difference between 40% vs 20% over a lifetime of marriage and having children are absolutely nothing.

My name is solely on the mortgage, and I covered our deposit, while my hubs covered closing costs. Happily married with kiddos and doggos.  What's mine is his, and vice versa.

Sorry for your friend's divorce, sorry to hear, but in reality, only about 30% end in divorce, including the UK.  Her divorce should not be your guide for your own marriage. 

[Cherylyn]

Even though I supplement my husband's higher income,  no,  it never crossed my mind to get a pre-nup.  Even though our house has since quadrupled in value since its original purchase,  in hindsight,  there are still no regrets regarding not having a pre-nup. 

However,  in your situation,  it's not too late to consult with an attorney regarding your fair share of the majority of real estate assets as long as your husband agrees to sign this new contract to make it official.   Since this is a concern of yours,  yes,  you should protect yourself legally and financially so you can be prepared,  economically secure and protected for the worst case scenario. 

[Kwothe28]

4 hours ago, Seraphim said:

I don’t get it. Why is there a contingency plan for divorce? Why get married if divorce plans are needed? 

This. It means that OP is already counting it may come to the divorce. 

Also, I like how women, after earning more then men, discovered how divorce isnt some fair separation of assets. And how something that was obtained in marriage will maybe be separated in half during proceedings no matter how much who invested into marriage, because, well, that is how marriage and divorce works. 

[Seraphim]

1 minute ago, Kwothe28 said:

This. It means that OP is already counting it may come to the divorce. 

Also, I like how women, after earning more then men, discovered how divorce isnt some fair separation of assets. And how something that was obtained in marriage will maybe be separated in half during proceedings no matter how much who invested into marriage, because, well, that is how marriage and divorce works. 

I hear you, my brother lost massive assets in his divorce plus being with his kids every day. 

[itsallgrand]

Usually this is something you'd work out before deciding to get married. Kind of strange to marry, and then bring this up now.

Don't make the same mistake twice. You two need to have clear cut understanding about expectations about when children enter the picture. How will labour and finances be handled?

Why are you currently carrying the household tasks and why are you assuming you would be primary child care provider? If your concern is equitability, why are you assuming these roles by default? If you are worried about losing career trajectory, why opt out of the workforce then? You could take mat leave and keep working. You could hire childcare so you both keep working or hubby could assume a primary childcare role if he makes less.

You can't have everything. You have to decide what is most important to you. If it's pure financial equitability, you split costs and live at what you both can afford. You split tasks. 

If you want to be a stay at home mom, he's going to be covering some financial load for you. That should be taken into account. 

 

[Seraphim]

3 minutes ago, itsallgrand said:

Usually this is something you'd work out before deciding to get married. Kind of strange to marry, and then bring this up now.

Don't make the same mistake twice. You two need to have clear cut understanding about expectations about when children enter the picture. How will labour and finances be handled?

Why are you currently carrying the household tasks and why are you assuming you would be primary child care provider? If your concern is equitability, why are you assuming these roles by default? If you are worried about losing career trajectory, why opt out of the workforce then? You could take mat leave and keep working. You could hire childcare so you both keep working or hubby could assume a primary childcare role if he makes less.

You can't have everything. You have to decide what is most important to you. If it's pure financial equitability, you split costs and live at what you both can afford. You split tasks. 

If you want to be a stay at home mom, he's going to be covering some financial load for you. That should be taken into account. 

 

Yup, there is a consequence for every single life choice and we can’t have it every which way or have it all no matter what fairytale they sell us . 

[TeeDee]

Pre-nups & ante-nups are not for everyone.  However, they have a place. 

When we married I had considerably more assets than my husband including a business, a house & commercial real estate for the business.  I wanted to protect that. 

We did a prenup & the mandatory financial disclosures were onerous.  To this day I maintain that the exercise of putting that document together inoculated our marriage against a divorce because we were forced to have uncomfortable conversations early on. It taught us trust & improved our communication. 

After my mother died, my father's lawyers wanted him to divest himself of certain assets but given the Medicaid look back periods my father had concerns about gifting his assets to me.  He knew if something happened, I would take care of him but he had reservations about my new husband.  Dad wasn't saying that DH was bad or anything but it was a lot of money.   So we did an ante-nup where DH disclaimed any entitlement to the money my father was gifting me.   That satisfied dad's fear that once I was "rich" that DH would divorce me to take half of Dad's money.  

These legal documents get a bad rap.  It's not solely that somebody is predicting their marriage will fail.  It's about mitigating the emotional & financial fall out in the event the marriage fails, especially early on.  As time passes & circumstances change, pre-nups especially lose their validity.  

[shouldhavelearned]

What does your husband think?

[Batya33]

4 hours ago, TeeDee said:

Pre-nups & ante-nups are not for everyone.  However, they have a place. 

When we married I had considerably more assets than my husband including a business, a house & commercial real estate for the business.  I wanted to protect that. 

We did a prenup & the mandatory financial disclosures were onerous.  To this day I maintain that the exercise of putting that document together inoculated our marriage against a divorce because we were forced to have uncomfortable conversations early on. It taught us trust & improved our communication. 

After my mother died, my father's lawyers wanted him to divest himself of certain assets but given the Medicaid look back periods my father had concerns about gifting his assets to me.  He knew if something happened, I would take care of him but he had reservations about my new husband.  Dad wasn't saying that DH was bad or anything but it was a lot of money.   So we did an ante-nup where DH disclaimed any entitlement to the money my father was gifting me.   That satisfied dad's fear that once I was "rich" that DH would divorce me to take half of Dad's money.  

These legal documents get a bad rap.  It's not solely that somebody is predicting their marriage will fail.  It's about mitigating the emotional & financial fall out in the event the marriage fails, especially early on.  As time passes & circumstances change, pre-nups especially lose their validity.  

I think prenups and antenups are totally fine for those who want them especially in your situation.  My issue with the OP's situation is she deliberately chose to purchase a home after marriage where she would be paying more AND wasn't comfortable with that and yet still thought the benefits outweighed the risks.  And her really negative attitude about worst case scenario - much more negative than typical IMO.  Also what she's trying to protect against likely is unrealistic as others have pointed out.  My friend married a man 10 years younger when she was almost 40 and had many more assets than he did plus his career was in the arts and very low pay.  So they got a prenup.  (I believe they are now divorced - they married 15 years ago - we haven't been in touch much the last few years - have no idea if it had to do with $$)