Husband won't put me on title for new home

[Lauriebell82]

I didn't get the impression she was lamenting the fact that she would lose out on half of what she didn't earn if there was a divorce. Only that she was being treated as a minority partner in the marriage, just because she can't bring equal financial assets to the table. I think she had a point.

 

Yeah, this is what I would think as well. It seems as though her husband isn't treating her equally because she cannot contribute equally to the marriage. Hopefully OP has worked things out with her husband which is why she is no longer here!

[Lauriebell82]

 

OP is in the wrong. She's greedy and unreasonable and now wants to lay a guilt trip on her husband because he refused to give her something to which she is not entitled by virtue of being married nor by virtue of any reasonable discussion. All she is saying is she wants it because she wants it. A classic selfish person.

 

Ah come on that's a little harsh. I don't think she is being selfish at all, nor is her husband. The problem is they don't agree on marital finances.

 

I am going to get a substantial inheritance from my parents when they pass away and will share every single penny with my husband. No if ands or buts. My parents will give me money for birthday/xmas gifts and I will put it in my combined bank account. It's not my money it's ours.

 

Although OP has known that her husband does not want to share finances with her or any money within the marriage, she doesn't seem able to accept it, therefore seems to be wishfully thinking that he will change his mind or that she could GET him to change his mind. I think it's just a classic case of marrying someone and trying to change them.

[johan]

No' date=' Johann.[/quote']

 

That misspelling of my name seems familiar. It reminds me of someone who was spiteful and upset at me for no reason. And who also made angry, abusive posts that were outright violations of the site rules.

 

I sure wish I could remember who it was. I think I'll ask the moderators. They have good memories.

[soserious1]

I'm not in favor of that. But where to live and how to acquire the house is a decision the couple should make. Not the one with the money.

 

 

From the things I read on this site it's pretty clear that most here view the bread winning spouse with utter contempt. Our role appears to be limited to forking over the $, hurrying home to clean, cook & do laundry, all the while apologizing on our hands and knees for daring to earn a living.

 

From where I sit, there is ZERO benefit in being the breadwinner in a marriage, not a single benefit.

[frozensprouts]

From the things I read on this site it's pretty clear that most here view the bread winning spouse with utter contempt. Our role appears to be limited to forking over the $, hurrying home to clean, cook & do laundry, all the while apologizing on our hands and knees for daring to earn a living.

 

From where I sit, there is ZERO benefit in being the breadwinner in a marriage, not a single benefit.

 

soserrious1...

I am very sorry that you have been put in the position you are in. It does sound very unfair to you.

 

But...

 

That being said...

 

I don't see why you judge everyone else so harshly. There's an awful lot of us who are not the "breadwinners" but who very much respect our spouses who do work while we stay at home. An awful lot of us are not just sitting on our butts in an easy chair snacking on bon bons watching our "stories" while our spouse is out working, then expecting him/her to come home and do all the housework too. Not everyone is in a situation like yours was.

 

The idea that every spouse who stays at home while their spouse works is just getting a "free ride" is not always true. In some cases,I agree they are getting a free ride. But in other cases, one spouse staying at home is what works out to be the best thing for that particular family. It is not as cut and dried as it may seem. When our first two kids were small, we both worked, but with the way things are in our family , there's no way that would work for us now. There are a surprising number of families like ours.

 

Each marriage, if it is to be successful, has to find it's own way that will work to the satisfaction of both parties.Sometimes things don't work out the way you would have expected, but when there's nothing you can do about it, you have to let it go and move on.

[Black Jack]

Yeah, this is what I would think as well. It seems as though her husband isn't treating her equally because she cannot contribute equally to the marriage. Hopefully OP has worked things out with her husband which is why she is no longer here!

 

Not treating her equally when she gets to relax and go to school while he pays the bills?

[johan]

From the things I read on this site it's pretty clear that most here view the bread winning spouse with utter contempt. Our role appears to be limited to forking over the $, hurrying home to clean, cook & do laundry, all the while apologizing on our hands and knees for daring to earn a living.

 

From where I sit, there is ZERO benefit in being the breadwinner in a marriage, not a single benefit.

 

I think that's a pretty extreme characterization. I never got that impression at all. I think your statements on here are mostly venting your rage at your own situation. They don't have a lot to do with the original post. This has just been an opportunity for you to use indirect terms to let everyone know how bad it got to be for you.

[frozensprouts]

Not treating her equally when she gets to relax and go to school while he pays the bills?

 

yep...going to school is sooooo relaxing. A real cake walk.( if i remember correctly, it's law school she's going to, which is no picnic)

 

When she's done school and is a practicing attorney, I expect she will be making a pretty decent income. Do you not think he'll be enjoying the fruits of all her efforts then? So her "carries" her for two years. I bet he won't have any trouble sharing in the things Her income will buy once she's done school ( just like he didn't have any trouble before she started and she was the one who was working)

 

it really sounds like there could be a very simple solution to the issue with the house, but it's being made into a much bigger " working spouse vs. non working spouse" thing. When all is said and done, they will both be working and sharing the fruits of their labors.

[Black Jack]

yep...going to school is sooooo relaxing. A real cake walk.( if i remember correctly, it's law school she's going to, which is no picnic)

 

But she's not working so it honestly it is relaxing if you can study for a few hours, then sit on your behind for another couple hours.

 

When she's done school and is a practicing attorney, I expect she will be making a pretty decent income.

 

Good for her, but this isn't about her potential income. He's in the driver seat now with all the good money and she doesn't like it.

 

Do you not think he'll be enjoying the fruits of all her efforts then?

 

From what I've read, he's not the one who's jealous. He has his own money and he's just covering his bases financially. He doesn't need to be frustrated over her earning potential, but she obviously wants her hands on ALL his money. With everything he's doing now, that is a lot of sharing.

 

So her "carries" her for two years.

 

And counting.

 

I bet he won't have any trouble sharing in the things Her income will buy once she's done school ( just like he didn't have any trouble before she started and she was the one who was working)

 

You're trying to make this into a jealousy issue as if he's the one who's bitter. Again it hardly looks like this guy is jealous about her potential, since he's the one paying out of his pocket, and is the one with the large amount of inheritance money, that she's trying to get her hands on. If anyone is jealous out of this marriage, it is definitely not him. He's the one who bought the house and will be paying the bills on it.

 

it really sounds like there could be a very simple solution to the issue with the house, but it's being made into a much bigger " working spouse vs. non working spouse" thing. When all is said and done, they will both be working and sharing the fruits of their labors.

 

Except for that inheritance money.

[zengirl]

The bottom line here is that he is buying a house that they are going to live in, but isn't theirs. She doesn't feel respected or included or trusted, and those are all the foundations of a good relationship. When she sleeps it will be in his house, not their home. When she cooks, it will be in his kitchen, not theirs. If she breaks something, it will be something of his. She'll live there feeling like a guest. A guest in his house and a guest in his life.

 

Right. I know I could never live like that, and that's why I empathize with the OP. I could also never be married AT ALL with the mindset soserious presents. If I really thought of marriage that way---as something to be afraid of, guard against, as though my partner were a potential enemy---then I couldn't be married. Really, I couldn't. I don't think good marriages can live in that environment.

 

Which is not to say there's any ONE way to do marital finances properly, but I think you need a certain degree of trust in your spouse to conduct a proper marriage.

 

I'm not in favor of that. But where to live and how to acquire the house is a decision the couple should make. Not the one with the money.

 

The original poster wouldn't have felt the need to start the thread if the proper communication and collaboration had occurred with her husband. That's how it happens in a relationship. That's what should happen in a marriage.

 

Maybe they could decide together that the right thing to do is to put his inheritance into the house. Or maybe they could decide together that a home they both feel they have a stake in is more important, and his inheritance should be invested into something else.

 

Right! I don't see why there weren't an array of options and conversations available to both of them. Good points.

 

From the things I read on this site it's pretty clear that most here view the bread winning spouse with utter contempt. Our role appears to be limited to forking over the $, hurrying home to clean, cook & do laundry, all the while apologizing on our hands and knees for daring to earn a living.

 

From where I sit, there is ZERO benefit in being the breadwinner in a marriage, not a single benefit.

 

Then don't be the breadwinner in a marriage! You can choose who you marry and what finances you set up.

 

Presumably and hopefully, the OP and her husband discussed her going back to school (which if she made 87K before and gets her law degree successfully sets her up to be a high earner as well) and it will work out for both of them long-term. Perhaps he was still in school when he was earning $0 and they are just taking turns with it, I'm not sure. At any rate, they've both been the breadwinner in this case and both been the one at home for whatever reason, and the OP doesn't feel he supports her (it sounds like to me) with the generosity of spirit/mind that she supported him. He always gives her just enough, whereas she was open and free with her support; they obviously have different mindsets.

 

As to breadwinners in general (and there really isn't one, except temporarily, in this marriage from the OP but to the general sense) -- I think it's lovely to be a breadwinner. If I were in a field where one could win enough bread to support someone comfortably, I'd rather do that than stay home certainly. I'll never stop working! I love working, and I love having the comfort and security of my own career. I think it's far easier to be a breadwinner than the SAHP personally, though I know others would find the stay-at-home role easier. I have absolutely no scorn for breadwinners EXCEPT if they have scorn for their SAH partner. I really think it's wrong to set up a lifestyle together and then say you're the "better" contributor to that lifestyle. I think neither partner is "better" or "worse" in any way.

 

I think that, for a marriage to work, both partners need to be in agreement and understanding and communicating properly about what they want their life to be like. They also need to be willing to make sacrifices, but not sacrifices so big they cannot bear it. And that has to be mutual.

 

I don't think anyone in this thread has expressed scorn for breadwinners. Instead, what they've presented are reasons why breadwinners shouldn't necessarily get to make all of the decisions without considering their partner, that money in a relationship does not determine and assign control in the relationship, and that partners have a reasonable expectation to understand and talk about various financial views.

[maybealone]

I'm not in favor of that. But where to live and how to acquire the house is a decision the couple should make. Not the one with the money.

 

The OP did help pick out the house. But yes, how to pay for it should have been a decision made by both of them. If he wanted to invest his inheritance in real estate, it did not have to in the family home. He could have done something differently, and purchased a family home with a mortgage the two of them could be responsible for.

 

If the OP's husband unilaterally made this decision to buy the family home against her vocalized wishes, then there probably are bigger issues at hand.

 

My parents will give me money for birthday/xmas gifts and I will put it in my combined bank account. It's not my money it's ours.

 

My husband and I always made joint decisions about what to do with the Christmas money we get every year. But birthday money? Um, no. I'm not sharing that.

 

But she's not working so it honestly it is relaxing if you can study for a few hours, then sit on your behind for another couple hours.

 

I've never met any "breadwinner" that didn't also have at least a couple of hours to sit on their behinds.

 

I don't even know why this turned into a "breadwinner" debate. The husband did nothing to earn this money, he simply had a father who had money and chose to leave it to him in a will. I can certainly understand why he might want to honor his father by investing that money, and I can understand why he might want to keep the inheritance money separate from marital money. But I don't see why the fact that he's working and she's a student has any bearing in this discussion.

[carhill]

The only relevance I can find regarding work and school is that the joint choice made to purchase the new marital home moved W closer to school and H further from work.

[Black Jack]

I've never met any "breadwinner" that didn't also have at least a couple of hours to sit on their behinds.

 

She's not the breadwinner here.

 

I don't even know why this turned into a "breadwinner" debate. The husband did nothing to earn this money, he simply had a father who had money and chose to leave it to him in a will.

I don't know why this turned into a breadwinner debate either, considering that the husband is the only one currently making the money and supporting his wife so she can get her own career back on track.

 

Obviously he must've done something to earn it if his father, you know the guy who "simply" bred and raised OP's husband, passed the money down to him. You're trying to argue against an ironclad law that clearly states it's his money and that she cannot touch it without his permission, regardless of emotional opinion from others.

 

I can certainly understand why he might want to honor his father by investing that money, and I can understand why he might want to keep the inheritance money separate from marital money.

Then he shouldn't be bashed because he's simply a man covering his bases.

 

But I don't see why the fact that he's working and she's a student has any bearing in this discussion.

It has everything to do with this discussion, considering we're all talking about it. Respectfully maybealone, him not sharing his money that he has the right not to share should not even be in this discussion at all.

[musemaj11]

Women and money are like ants and sugar.

 

Isnt anyone curious how there is tons of threads like this about a woman complaining that she doesnt get to touch her man's money while there is NOT A SINGLE opposite thread in which a man complains that he doesnt get to touch his woman's money?

 

I think this fact speaks volume about the motivation of the female kind.

 

Personally I think my husband would be upset if I bought a house with inheritance money and refused to put his name on the deed. He'd be upset if I refused to share inheritance money with him also. We see marriage as an equal partnership in which our assests are shared and everything is equal among us.

Yes, you think. But what you think remains a presumption until it actually happens.

 

Actually, in the case of soserious1, her ex took her for nearly everything she had AND she is paying the louse in excess of two grand a month in spousal maintenance after he cheated on her!

 

So, yeah. There ARE "men" who feel they are entitled to someone else's money.

I guess you didn't read SoSerious' post about the fact that SHE'S paying ALIMONY to her husband and whatever else he could bleed from her during the divorce? I guess you MISSED where she said the little weasel and his lawyer tried every trick in the book to also get her house from her?

SoSerious' husband is a very rare case.

 

The majority of men dont expect to gain financial benefit from their partners, on the other hand, most of the times they expect to benefit their partners financially instead.

 

The bottom line here is that he is buying a house that they are going to live in, but isn't theirs. She doesn't feel respected or included or trusted, and those are all the foundations of a good relationship. When she sleeps it will be in his house, not their home. When she cooks, it will be in his kitchen, not theirs. If she breaks something, it will be something of his. She'll live there feeling like a guest. A guest in his house and a guest in his life.

Thats the line of thinking of a self-centered person.

 

If I lived in a house purchased by my wife and I dont have any legal right to it, instead of being negative and thinking how I should also be entitled to the ownership of the house without contributing nothing to its purchase simply because I were married to her, I would look on the bright side and be grateful because I get to live in a comfy house and use all its facilities FOR FREE. The fact that I didnt have to spend a dime to earn such a privilege would be enough reason for me to appreciate the generosity of my spouse rather than begrudging her.

Edited March 19, 2012 by musemaj11

[nofool4u]

I'm not sure you're correct. The house was bought with an inheritance, which is typically excluded from divorce settlements.

 

Inheritance is excluded from divorce if the money was obtained AFTER divorce.

 

Any money accumulated during marriage, no matter what the source, is a marital asset. Any property purchased during marriage is a marital asset.

 

But yes, if I inherited money now, my X wife can't lay claim to it.

[nofool4u]

and he's repaid her in kind by supporting her for the past 2 years & counting.

 

But you assume she married him for his wealth. What wealth? He had no income when they married.

[dreamingoftigers]

Just for the record, I know a woman in my Domestic Violence group who supported her alcoholic husband who made a habit of using her as a punching bag for over 20 years.

 

He is now suing for alimony. He'll probably get it.

[nofool4u]

Just for the record, I know a woman in my Domestic Violence group who supported her alcoholic husband who made a habit of using her as a punching bag for over 20 years.

 

He is now suing for alimony. He'll probably get it.

 

I think unless there is proof that a spouse forbid the other to work, or demanded that he/she not hold job, I think alimony should be non-existent. Alimony for any other reason is bullsh***

[findingnemo]

I wonder why people get married to someone they don't trust. If one is worried because of the divorce statistics, then isn't it better to not marry at all and not risk it?

 

So the OP's husband inherited money. Why bother to buy a house for them to live in when he can invest it elsewhere? Why stress his W? After all, it is only natural that spouses share income as well as debt. these are the things that cause unnecessary resentments and make spouses question the state of the M.

 

The W is studying law? Surely she can figure out how to win in an ugly divorce whether the house is in her names or not. All it requires is for her to live in it and it becomes her marital home. No inheritance law in the world will deprive a woman of a share of her marital home. If her H's intention is to make sure she doesn't get a hold of his inheritance, then he is plain wrong.

 

OP, go attend the closing. The fact that you made the decision together and will live in that house is enough to give you part ownership. Your main problem is understanding what your H is thinking. If he has a good reason (which I can't for the life of me imagine), then go with it. If not, you need to re-evaluate your choices.

[soserious1]

Each marriage, if it is to be successful, has to find it's own way that will work to the satisfaction of both parties.Sometimes things don't work out the way you would have expected, but when there's nothing you can do about it, you have to let it go and move on.

 

 

Oh but that's not possible, at least not for the bread winning spouse, you see I am still firmly yoked into my marital obligations to provide money under the threat of being thrown in jail.

 

So my marital obligations continue, no "letting go" possible

[soserious1]

Just for the record, I know a woman in my Domestic Violence group who supported her alcoholic husband who made a habit of using her as a punching bag for over 20 years.

 

He is now suing for alimony. He'll probably get it.

 

He probably will, in my divorce, the judge wasn't at all interested in why the marriage was ending, neither of our conduct had ANY bearing whatsoever on the settlement, it was cut & dried.

[Black Jack]

Inheritance is excluded from divorce if the money was obtained AFTER divorce.

 

Any money accumulated during marriage, no matter what the source, is a marital asset. Any property purchased during marriage is a marital asset.

 

That depends on the state.

 

But yes, if I inherited money now, my X wife can't lay claim to it.

 

Well of course she can't lay claim to it.

 

You two are divorced!

[nofool4u]

That depends on the state.

 

I'd like to know what states those are then. Because the laws are set up so that one spouse can't hide assets acquired during marriage, or seek to keep it from the other

 

 

Well of course she can't lay claim to it.

 

You two are divorced!

 

Uh, ya, that was my point.

[Black Jack]

But you assume she married him for his wealth. What wealth? He had no income when they married.

 

Nowhere did she assume she married him for his wealth. She was just stating he has a right to cover his bases.

 

And he's making the money now and supporting her so she can get a job and make her own income. If I had a wife like OP's husband I'd be making bubble baths for her and rubbing her feet every day after she got home from work. That's someone who's committed, not someone who's insecure.

[nofool4u]

Nowhere did she assume she married him for his wealth.

 

Sorry, guess I read it wrong

 

Originally Posted by Gumby's Pal

So may we assume you married him for his wealth?

 

 

She was just stating he has a right to cover his bases.

 

You mean try to shield marital assets from his wife? He wasn't thinking about covering bases when she was the only income and he made nothing. Perhaps he needs to pay her back for supporting him the first part of their marriage then huh? I mean if he has this what's mine is mine mentality.