business advice

[job seeker]

Hi

I would like to ask about property law in Finland. I and my wife have rented one restaurant and started our business after marriage but my wife registered her name as the owner only, now she would like to transfer it to her relatives , that 's what I don't like. Is it compulsory that if she wants to do it, she also needs my signature or she could do it alone officially

thanks in advance

[rinso]

started our business after marriage

Then the conditions of your marriage agreement come into play.
If she is registered as the owner, she can manage it by herself. But it still can be a joined property which she cannot sell without your consent. But those situations can be very complicated and can only be answered by specialists with all the relevant facts.

[job seeker]

we do not have any marriage agreement , then do I understand correctly if she would to do it, she must have my signature to do it. Because even I do not register as the second owner but I was working at the same restaurant with her and we started it after marriage


Thanks

[rinso]

If there is no marriage agreement, in principle everything you acquire after marriage becomes joint property.
And although he partners can decide themselves over small things, selling a business is something both should agree about.
That she is registered as sole owner makes it a little bit tricky. She could sell it legally and then you would have a conflict with your partner. But I doubt if the sales could be undone.

[ajdias]

now she would like to transfer it to her relatives , that 's what I don't like.

I'd hate to ring the alarm bells for nothing but, is there a good business reason for this or has your relationship seen better days?

You should make sure there's proper compensation for the transfer, in case this goes ahead.

[EP]

Sounds fishy. And would these new owner relatives pay you? I mean, like SALARY. (I assume that you work in that restaurant.)

[job seeker]

I'd hate to ring the alarm bells for nothing but, is there a good business reason for this or has your relationship seen better days?

Because I made mistakes that I have not registered as the second owner, I have built up the business and it goes really well, now her relatives try to kick me out by asking her selling it to her brother.

I highly appreciate that you guys give me the advice, not the judges because every family has its own problem

Thanks for your time

[Rip]

If there is no marriage agreement, in principle everything you acquire after marriage becomes joint property.
And although he partners can decide themselves over small things, selling a business is something both should agree about.
That she is registered as sole owner makes it a little bit tricky. She could sell it legally and then you would have a conflict with your partner. But I doubt if the sales could be undone.

(Although I am not a lawyer..) if it is legally her property, then it is her property. If there were a divorce, then things would need to be split (a company or money got from it's sale), but until then, the owner decides.

Now assuming the company would be sold for a sum below it's fair value, then at divorce time probably one could try to get compensation, but to know how, and under what terms and how easily in practice, I think one would need professional help.

[rinso]

if it is legally her property, then it is her property.

That is the tricky bit. If it represents more than half of the pairs capital, it is partly his too.
If it is known in advance he is against the sale, they have a problem.
But it all comes down to the details so you indeed need professional advice.

[Rip]

If it represents more than half of the pairs capital, it is partly his too.

Based on what legal principle? AFAIK the 'avio-oikeus' has has really significance only after marriage ends either by divorce or death...?
(there are restriction related to property used as home by the couple, but that is not the case here)

[rinso]

Everything acquired after marriage is shared property. Putting the business in the name of one partner gives that partner control, but it does not deprive the other partner of his rights. If the business is sold for the real value, the other partner can be compensated. If however the business is handed over to easily (like it is suggested in this case) the other partner can not be compensated and there is a problem.
But again in this case it is all in the details.
One of the things the op can do is getting an estimate of the value of the business. So he has a better position in case of a divorce. (which I think is inevitable if she sells the place and he is kicked out.)

[Rip]

Everything acquired after marriage is shared property.

Source?

If the business is sold for the real value, the other partner can be compensated. If however the business is handed over to easily (like it is suggested in this case) the other partner can not be compensated and there is a problem.

After divorce, true. But before that I think he has no say in what happens to the business.

[Upphew]

Everything acquired after marriage is shared property.

Source?

http://www.om.fi/en/Etusivu/Julkaisut/E ... suudenjako ?

If the business is sold for the real value, the other partner can be compensated. If however the business is handed over to easily (like it is suggested in this case) the other partner can not be compensated and there is a problem.

After divorce, true. But before that I think he has no say in what happens to the business.

If the business is handed over too easily, then the taxman might be interested...
But the owner of the business gets to decide what to do with it.
No name on the papers or stock certificate means no control.

[Rip]

http://www.om.fi/en/Etusivu/Julkaisut/E ... suudenjako ?

Which, as I said, is related to things that happen after a marriage ends, not during it.

If the business is handed over too easily, then the taxman might be interested...

in principle yes, but if the company has little assets, some debt and in the end has just made living for the people who work in it, then it may be less than obvious that is has much monetary value.

But the owner of the business gets to decide what to do with it.
No name on the papers or stock certificate means no control.

No disagreement on that.

[rinso]

If the business is handed over too easily, then the taxman might be interested...
But the owner of the business gets to decide what to do with it.
No name on the papers or stock certificate means no control.

If there is a set up to divert funds out of the marriage before a divorce (as I have the feeling it is the case here) It is an intention of fraud.
The taxman would be interested indeed. But also the husband should try to protect his interests.
To prove it however is a different matter.
I cannot stress it enough; get professional advice.