Loan from wife to husband, before marriage

Exactly!

I can''t even understand how anyone with even an ounce of sense can follow the logic that "shares registered in my name = loan".

Their letter even states my wife thinks the shares are joint so on how on earth can she also say it''s a loan?

Is my idea to demand that, if she wishes to pursue this "loan", that she do so separately from the Separation Agreement?

After all, how can any loan that may or not have been made before the wedding form part of the matrimonial assets?

Lets flip this around.
So you went to your fiance before being married and said I''ve got some red hot tip insider trading share tip.It can''t fail!!
Only problem is I haven''t got any money to buy them with pookums honey bunny I love you so much.Can you let me have the money to buy them.Oh sorry I''ve had to put the red hot insider trading shares that can''t fail all in my name legally Oh you know pookums technical stuff.Don''t worry honey I promise they''re ours.
Get married only 4 years later your red hot insider trading share option CANNOT FAIL TO GO THROUGH THE ROOF has lost money.And the point is you never thought that would happen ever.But then it was no fail anyway because you never paid a penny for them you mugged her into that.
So now she''s being unreasonable for wanting the money back for shares you registered solely in your name?
She ain''t unreasonable you''re a con artist.
HRH

A loan without a credit brokers agreement is a ''soft loan'' and therefore not a loan.

Shares in your name would be put '' into the pot''

If the money was in a joint account then it was joint money and not soley hers

Survive

hawaythelads wrote:

Lets flip this around.
So you went to your fiance before being married and said I''ve got some red hot tip insider trading share tip.It can''t fail!!
Only problem is I haven''t got any money to buy them with pookums honey bunny I love you so much.Can you let me have the money to buy them.Oh sorry I''ve had to put the red hot insider trading shares that can''t fail all in my name legally Oh you know pookums technical stuff.Don''t worry honey I promise they''re ours.
Get married only 4 years later your red hot insider trading share option CANNOT FAIL TO GO THROUGH THE ROOF has lost money.And the point is you never thought that would happen ever.But then it was no fail anyway because you never paid a penny for them you mugged her into that.
So now she''s being unreasonable for wanting the money back for shares you registered solely in your name?
She ain''t unreasonable you''re a con artist.
HRH

I''m hoping that was Devil''s advocate there...

A few clarifications though:

The money used to purchase the shares originally came from the sale of a flat we both both owned and an equity release loan on the house we both owned at the time.

Therefore all the money we had was jointly owned 50/50.

We used all of that money to buy and sell various shares, some registered in my name only and some in joint names (as some brokerage firms don''t allow joint accounts).

Then we sold all of those shares and bought 3 unit trusts in joint names.

Then we sold the unit trusts and put the money into the joint account.

From there, we transferred all of the money into an account in my own name as I had an account lying dormant and we didn''t want to open a second joint account just for this. The STBX''s didn''t want the savings being mixed up with the joint account money she used to budget the household expenses with which is we wanted them in another account.

We then bought the shares now in dispute in my name only as the Company rules are only employees can own equity.

I''m claiming she owns half of the shares.

She''s claiming that, although she thought she did, as they''re not registered in her name she doesn''t. Therefore, half of the investment amount was a loan from her to me which she wants repaid.

Does anyone believe that if, the shares had risen in value, we''d be having this argument?

p.s. she knew at the time the shares would be in my name as the rules of the company are clear only employees can own equity, so she''s lying about not knowing. Not that that matters now but for record...

Perhaps offer half the value in monitory terms of the value of the shares as they stand at present date. Or is that too much of a simplistic approach?

Tried that and it was turned down.

I didnt even like that idea as they''re worthless really and will never recover any value so I''d simply be throwing money away, but I thought I was being fair.

Her solicitor can ask for the moon on a stick don''t mean you have to give it.
Judges and courts only end up dealing with the money that is left.They won''t even entertain this he said she said the dog said "was it a loan,was it joint marital money scenario?"
It''s pretty inderterminate to anyone else how the shares were bought other than by hearsay from both parties involved who will have their own bias on the truth.
The current value of the shares will be all the judge will entertain and I reckon will dismiss any notion of this loan scenario as it cannot be proved one way or the other.
I have been told I look like keanu reeves.
All the best
Pete