johan Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 My "path" has been made crystal clear to me by the divorce court judge,get out there & earn the money to continue to meet your marital obligations... or go to jail. There will be no such thing as opening myself "to receive and to give love without fear and bitterness" not while I'm still chained to my marital fiscal obligations. I just cannot afford another mistake, the next husband I have to pay could land me in jail. The one comfort I take from all of this is knowing that if my situation causes even one person to stop and think before blindly getting married without a prenup then some good has come out of all of this. You can be bitter if you want. It's your hard earned right to be as pessimistic and negative as you see fit. No one would blame you for it, although some might question whether you are dealing with it in a healthy way. Fine if you're bitter. But it seems to be the agenda of the bitter that they think LS is a recruitment site. They treat it like a soapbox and have no interest in looking for solutions. Only problems. They make every thread about them and their history and outlook under the pretense that it must apply to everyone. It doesn't. But we all know about the problems by now anyway. That horse is no longer alive. 4 Link to post Share on other sites
johan Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) The taxes, upkeep and insurance will be paid for via marital money.. therefore making a portion thru time of the home a marital asset... So his inheritance isn't untouchable simply because her name isn't on the title? Edited March 20, 2012 by johan Link to post Share on other sites
maybealone Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) She's not the breadwinner here. 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. Then he shouldn't be bashed because he's simply a man covering his bases. 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. I'm not sure why you are jumping all over me when I have argued through this entire thread that it's his right to keep that money separate. Yes, I questioned the breadwinner argument but that's because it has nothing to do with how he is paying for the house. 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. Not in my state. Inheritance is definitely not a marital asset unless it is put into a joint account. It's called thinking ahead and anticipating the future. Not every couple stays together until they die. This is why a bunch of pages ago I asked how parents here feel. I am willing to bet that at least some of them would hope that the kid they leave their hard-earned money to might want to keep that money separate from a spouse, just in case things don't work out. She has no stress. She's not even working. Law school is a lot of things, but it is most certainly not stress free. And I might be going out on a huge limb here, but I'm guessing the decision for her to go to school and not work while doing it was not a unilateral decision that the OP made without discussing it with her husband. Edited March 20, 2012 by maybealone 1 Link to post Share on other sites
soserious1 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 maybealone, I have adult children & will try to structure my will so that they get this house & any other assets I might have at the time but that the estate is handled in manner that it is preserved for my kids & grandchildren. No, I wouldn't want my child to lose this house because of a divorce of their own. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
xxoo Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 maybealone, I have adult children & will try to structure my will so that they get this house & any other assets I might have at the time but that the estate is handled in manner that it is preserved for my kids & grandchildren. No, I wouldn't want my child to lose this house because of a divorce of their own. But he is inheriting money, not a house. He doesn't have to buy a house with his inheritance. They could take a mortgage for the home, and he could invest the money another way. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
soserious1 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 But he is inheriting money, not a house. He doesn't have to buy a house with his inheritance. They could take a mortgage for the home, and he could invest the money another way. Yeah but it's HIS inheritance, she has no legal control over it or what he does with it. By the same token he can't force her to live in the house that's so repugnant to her.. she can decide to leave & file for divorce. Freedom of choice on both sides. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Art_Critic Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 So his inheritance isn't untouchable simply because her name isn't on the title? He is co mingling the asset assets.. If he uses inheritance money to pay for upkeep, taxes and insurance then it will be easier for him to keep all of the house, but that will be hard to do, he would have to pay for everything with an account that has no co-mingled funds... Of course if he lives in a state that considers the marital home marital property and therefore part hers.. He cannot kick her out of her marital home regardless of who is on the deed, so she does have some power. I don't think him buying a marital home with an inheritance will provide him any shield.. the act alone to my knowledge pierces any shield that inheritance law gave him. If he wanted to keep it separate he needed to buy rental property or a second home and not the marital home Really this is all talk.. the guy is a dickwad to do this to his wife.. it isn't like they are BF-GF... 1 Link to post Share on other sites
maybealone Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I don't think him buying a marital home with an inheritance will provide him any shield.. the act alone to my knowledge pierces any shield that inheritance law gave him. It probably varies by state, but I know here it does because when my friend was in this situation her attorney advised her not to put his name on the title because that would co-mingle the funds. And based on my own recent advice from an attorney, who pays for the taxes and upkeep and even who did all the home improvements doesn't carry any weight. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
xxoo Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Yeah but it's HIS inheritance, she has no legal control over it or what he does with it. By the same token he can't force her to live in the house that's so repugnant to her.. she can decide to leave & file for divorce. Freedom of choice on both sides. True, she doesn't have to live there. Not that the house is repugnant. Just the husband who buys a home for only himself, while married! Link to post Share on other sites
johan Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 He is co mingling the asset assets.. Is that a legal term? Really this is all talk.. the guy is a dickwad to do this to his wife.. it isn't like they are BF-GF... How about that one? I don't know what his motivation is, but he does at least seem a bit selfish and insensitive. And I believe in being smart with money. But frugal to the point you treat your wife like a nemesis is too much. I find it hard to trust frugal people. Link to post Share on other sites
soserious1 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 True, she doesn't have to live there. Not that the house is repugnant. Just the husband who buys a home for only himself, while married! Well then she remains totally free to pack her things & leave her repugnant husband doesn't she? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
xxoo Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 If he wanted to keep it separate he needed to buy rental property or a second home and not the marital home Really this is all talk.. the guy is a dickwad to do this to his wife.. it isn't like they are BF-GF... I agree. It really isn't about the inheritance. It is about considering your spouse's point of view, and finding a solution that is good for everyone. There isn't just one possible solution here..... 2 Link to post Share on other sites
johan Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Well then she remains totally free to pack her things & leave her repugnant husband doesn't she? His way or the highway. Hope he likes porn. Until he can import a passive wife anyway. Or maybe just a sheep. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
soserious1 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 His way or the highway. Hope he likes porn. Until he can import a passive wife anyway. Or maybe just a sheep. Judging from all the men here in basically sexless marriages despite bending over backwards to kiss the wife's butt I'd say this is not a reason to hand over half a house. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Art_Critic Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Is that a legal term? .. yes yeah yes I don't know what his motivation is, but he does at least seem a bit selfish and insensitive. And I believe in being smart with money. But frugal to the point you treat your wife like a nemesis is too much. I find it hard to trust frugal people. I really don't think he is being very smart and if hiding money from a current spouse was that easy then everyone would do it.. The catch is that it is the marital homes that both will reside in and it was purchased while being married. If any protection he will have his investment protected but all inflated equity will have to be split. When I got married I refinanced my home and put my wife on the deed.. it is what is right... so I can understand the where the OP is coming from.. In my state, all of my pre-marital property is protected.. so you leave with what you had if you don't co-mingle the money. I'd bet that he is looking to make it all clean for exit purposes... 1 Link to post Share on other sites
xxoo Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 His way or the highway. So many people have no interest or ability to creatively solve problems with others. It is shocking. But it is no surprise that their relationships fail. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
maybealone Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 It really isn't about the inheritance. It is about considering your spouse's point of view, and finding a solution that is good for everyone. There isn't just one possible solution here..... Absolutely. I think it would have been smarter to invest the money in a retirement fund or rental property, and hold off on getting a family home until they could buy it together. Not that I can't see the appeal of paying cash for a house -- I certainly can -- just not necessarily at the expense of having an unhappy spouse. I do wonder how this situation came to be, since there is a big difference between someone who makes this decision unilaterally and someone who thinks (even mistakenly) that it was discussed and decided on together. Link to post Share on other sites
carhill Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I do wonder how this situation came to be, since there is a big difference between someone who makes this decision unilaterally and someone who thinks (even mistakenly) that it was discussed and decided on together. The OP wrote: "We picked out the house together, but when it was time to do all of the paperwork, my husband excluded me" So, apparently, she was on-board for selecting the house which suited her and the disconnect occurred when the paperwork was started. I was annoyed enough that I had to put my exW's name on the title company's statement of facts for the most recent place I closed on today. It's bad enough having to take title as 'an unmarried man' (in Cali, if you're divorced you're not 'single' legally; you're 'unmarried'), but I'm going to have to name the ex on every one I buy. Crap BTW, getting lost in the legalities, I forgot to offer opinion on the OP's feelings. I think she's perfectly entitled to feel excluded, annoyed or any other valid feeling she has. I can empathize with that. If they can't work it out, they'll learn all about marital property, separate property, transmuting, co-mingling, equitable distributions and a whole bunch of other stuff. I hope it doesn't come to that. 3 Link to post Share on other sites
Black Jack Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I'm not sure why you are jumping all over me when I have argued through this entire thread that it's his right to keep that money separate. Yes, I questioned the breadwinner argument but that's because it has nothing to do with how he is paying for the house. Hmmm This is why a bunch of pages ago I asked how parents here feel. I am willing to bet that at least some of them would hope that the kid they leave their hard-earned money to might want to keep that money separate from a spouse, just in case things don't work out. Thought OP said she couldn't have kids? Law school is a lot of things, but it is most certainly not stress free. And I might be going out on a huge limb here, but I'm guessing the decision for her to go to school and not work while doing it was not a unilateral decision that the OP made without discussing it with her husband. But come on, school life vs work life? Link to post Share on other sites
findingnemo Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I agree. It really isn't about the inheritance. It is about considering your spouse's point of view, and finding a solution that is good for everyone. There isn't just one possible solution here..... Exactly, that's why I said that the H was causing an unnecessary trust issue. I totally understand wanting to keep your inheritance apart. As Soserious says, there is an intelligent way to ensure that your children's inheritance always stays in the family. It's not new. It's been done for centuries. The way the H is going about this doesn't seem to be a sure way of securing his inheritance. But it sure shows the W that she's expendable. Not a good way to build a lasting M. Link to post Share on other sites
maybealone Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Thought OP said she couldn't have kids? Right, but that wasn't my point. I was wondering how people here, currently with kids, feel about the money they might be leaving to their kids in the future. Mainly I was trying to see if feelings might be different when looking at it from the parents' point of view vs. looking at it from the spouse's point of view. But come on, school life vs work life? Yeah, it's just horrible not having to study until all hours of the night and instead having a job where I can come home, eat dinner, and watch television. And weekends? They totally suck when all my time belongs to me instead of the stack of books that need to be dealt with and the papers that need to be written. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
frozensprouts Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 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 I wasn't talking about divorce... sometimes things happen in a marriage and one spouse can't work. Maybe they got injured in an accident, maybe they got sick , maybe they got laid off and really are trying to find work but they can't, maybe they need to to stay at home with children who need more care than what a babysitter can provide, maybe they need to care for an elderly parent, etc. All of these are unexpected variables that can affect a marriage...they do NOT mean that the spouse who isn't working is 'lazy" ( although sometimes they are...each situation is different) Link to post Share on other sites
frozensprouts Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 there should be a way to find a solution here that would make both spouses happy and that doesn't pit one against the other BTW... I'd be interested to know what her husband will do if and when she inherits some funds from her family...will he consider them "theirs" or "hers"... 1 Link to post Share on other sites
zengirl Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 BTW... I'd be interested to know what her husband will do if and when she inherits some funds from her family...will he consider them "theirs" or "hers"... And this is where it gets problematic if two people aren't on the same page. To me (just from her posts), it sounded like when the OP was the breadwinner and the hubby had no income, she was free and open with household funds, whereas he gives her "just enough" (she repeated) to pay household bills. So, while he's not interested in sharing his inheritance with her, she probably would initially be compelled to share it with him. It doesn't work when one person is giving and the other is not. The breadwinner debate really is moot to this situation. In the relationship in question, both have won the bread and both have eaten bread they didn't win. And theoretically they'll be a dual income household after she finishes law school. However, I would say no one should be a breadwinner who doesn't want to share their earnings totally and fully with their spouse. It's not going to go well under those circumstances. Thing is, no one HAS to be a breadwinner --- yes as FS says sometimes surprises are thrust upon us (layoffs, injuries, etc) but in most cases, those are temporary, not long-term. I don't consider someone who supports someone for a few months while they're on UE or short-term disability from an injury to be the same as a typical "breadwinner." There are some longterm situations that come up --- FS has experienced that, having children that need constant care --- and then couples make the decisions together. tl;dr: People who want their money separate so badly should definitely not be single-earning families. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Black Jack Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Right, but that wasn't my point. I was wondering how people here, currently with kids, feel about the money they might be leaving to their kids in the future. Mainly I was trying to see if feelings might be different when looking at it from the parents' point of view vs. looking at it from the spouse's point of view. Well that's going off-topic. Yeah, it's just horrible not having to study until all hours of the night and instead having a job where I can come home, eat dinner, and watch television. And weekends? They totally suck when all my time belongs to me instead of the stack of books that need to be dealt with and the papers that need to be written. Studying for school pales in comparison to having a job. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts