Husband won't put me on title for new home

[maybealone]

Well that's going off-topic.

 

My apologies if it is, I didn't think it was. Everyone is giving their opinions as spouses of someone receiving the money, and I felt it was appropriate for people to also give their opinions as the parents who would be giving the money to the children who would then share it with their spouses.

 

Studying for school pales in comparison to having a job.

 

That's your experience, but it isn't mine. And it's temporary. Even if the OP finds law school to be the equivalent of sitting around and eating bon bons, that's only going to last two to three years out of the decades of working.

[Black Jack]

My apologies if it is, I didn't think it was. Everyone is giving their opinions as spouses of someone receiving the money, and I felt it was appropriate for people to also give their opinions as the parents who would be giving the money to the children who would then share it with their spouses.

 

Fair enough.

 

That's your experience, but it isn't mine. And it's temporary.

 

Agreed it is temporary.

 

Even if the OP finds law school to be the equivalent of sitting around and eating bon bons, that's only going to last two to three years out of the decades of working.

 

Yes but lets not deny that currently OP's hubby is holding the big weights for now. Give the man some credit when it is due.

[beenburned]

I have grown married children and grandchildren, who stand to inherit from both sides of the family.

 

I will make sure they know the laws of inheritance in our state. And how they stand to lose it all, if they co-mingle with their spouse, in the event they divorce.(50/50 chance)

It has nothing to do with not loving your spouse, just protecting what is rightfully yours alone from your family.(sometimes for generations)

 

Not only do we have wills, but all the grandparents do to. Nothing is kept secret about what is to come in their future.(we have family meetings)

 

And when their own spouses inherit from their parents/grandparents, it will also be separate property that they can do as they please with.

[PinkInTheLimo]

Oh but he does have a father figure...me. You are making assumptions in that regard. I am the closest thing to a father figure that he has seen in years. And he is living with me right now.

 

My beef is that I dont think it would be fair for me to fork the bill 100% to feed and cloth etc his and her Son. He is not my child after all. I want at least one of them to contribute to their Son's cost on me. Preferabley him!

 

If you cant understand the logic and logistics behind that then I dont know what else to tell you.

 

Let me put it this way. Had it not been for me, the kid would not have had a Christmas last year. Neither his mother or his loser dad could afford what he wanted for Christmas so I stepped up to the plate and took care of him.

 

And I guarantee you that me not being involved with him like I am now, would defenitely "have a terrible effect on the kid" (as you put it) because his mother is unreliable with money and employment and his father doesnt give a rat's a$$ about him at all. At least I actually care.

 

For lack of being humble, Fact is that as far as the kid and his mother are concerned, I am a godsend for both of them. You have absolutely no idea.

 

And as far as her divorce being six months old, that is irrelavent. They have been separated for 5 years while he cheated on her and lived with another woman that entire time. Prior to her going back to her H I asked her to divorce him with a free legal aid lawyer. Her pro-bono Lawyer dropped her because she dragged her heels on the divorce for over six months. She did this because she really did not want to divorce him so she lied to me about that.

 

So then she went back to him and he cheated on her again within 2 weeks. I actually knew that would happen. She came back to me and realized what a mistake she made so I told her I would pay for her divorce, which I did. Unlike my XW, I believe in 2nd chances.

 

Four months ago I proposed to her and she accepted. She is a good woman but her priorities were all screwed up. Otherwise I would have proposed a lot sooner. She is 100% into our marriage now as am I. And I guarantee you her kid will never starve while with me.

 

But I will digress as this subject is OT here and I have my own situation under control so a separate thread is not required. Just wanted to put in my two cents here.

 

I really don't get why you want to marry such a loser. Sorry but that is what she is. She's totally screwed up and I am pretty sure you will have an awful lot of trouble with this woman.

 

I start to think that you marry this loser because you are too afraid that if you would marry a capable woman, she would walk away just like your XW did.

 

Plenty of decent, financially independent, capable single women in the world but you pick one whose children each have a different father and lives off food stamps.

[nofool4u]

I personally think the house is an asset people should expect to split in case of divorce. If he didn't want her to get part of the inheritance, he shouldn't have put it into the house.

 

Thats the way it will work. There is a small chance that if he kept the inheritance as cash, and put in a separate account, he MIGHT have been able to keep her from getting half of it.

 

But once he purchases something with it, its now marital property.

[nofool4u]

Doesn't matter. It's his money and he's entitled to spend it as he sees fit.

 

It does now.

 

There might be a small chance he'd be able to keep her from that money in a divorce, if he kept it as money.

 

But now he is buying a house with it. He just F'd up if he wanted to keep her from it. Once he buys something with the money, she is entitled to half. Look it up.

 

Oh, and its best if you never get married. You have this whats mine is mine mentality. And if thats the case, then there is no reason for you to get married.

 

Best save some poor woman the trouble and stay single.

[nofool4u]

Nofool4u,

 

You are confusing the 2 terms.

 

Inheritances are considered separate property unless they are deposited into a joint account.(it doesn't matter whether you are married or not)

 

You are correct. But that still won't shield him if they divorce. It MIGHT, but it probably won't.

 

However, once you acquire something with "separate property", which he has done (bought a house), then it becomes "communal/marital property"

 

 

 

Marital assets are assets acquired/earned during a marriage, which are subject to equal division upon divorce. Inheritances are NOT a marital asset unless the person that gets the money decides to share it with their spouse.

 

Again, although it is not a guarantee she won't get any of it if they divorce, you are correct.

 

But he now has converted that inheritance into a marital asset by buying a house. She now owns half of it.

 

 

If I inherit money while married, I don't have to share it, even if I divorce them.

This is the law in my state. Other states may have different laws governing inheritances.

 

Then if you inherit, you best keep it as cash and spend it on things that don't hold value.

[maybealone]

Thats the way it will work. There is a small chance that if he kept the inheritance as cash, and put in a separate account, he MIGHT have been able to keep her from getting half of it.

 

But once he purchases something with it, its now marital property.

 

For the record, this is not true in my state. It doesn't matter how long you live there or who puts what work into the house, if it was bought with inheritance and you did not put your spouse on the deed, the spouse has no claim to the house if you divorce.

 

Other states could have different laws.

[nofool4u]

Nessienu, nobody here seems to agree on what will happen. I can tell you what more than likely will happen, based on my own experiences. Yes, the state you live in can make a difference, but laws typically aren't designed so one spouse can screw another out of the partnership of marriage.

 

With that said, contact an attorney, and tell him/her what lousy crap your husband is trying to pull and let them guide you to what they think you need to do. May be a deal is struck up. Because of your husband somehow is allowed to keep you from getting equity in the house, then you shouldn't be left high and dry with no equity of your own if you end up divorcing. So it may be that if he gets to buy a house and cut you out of equity, which I highly doubt, then an agreement could possibly be drawn up that once you are back to working after school is done, that you get to build your own equity that he will have no rights to.

 

Again, laws are generally written so that if a couple divorces, that someone isn't left high and dry if they somehow have been denied the ability to build equity over the years.

 

Question, why do you want to be with a man that is thinking in his head, "in the even we ever divorce, I don't want her to get *****" ? Because it doesn't appear to me that your marriage is about love. No, money does not equate love, but his line of thinking is showing you major disrespect.

 

So consult an attorney to help you with this disrespect if you decide to keep Mr. Shifty.

Edited March 20, 2012 by nofool4u

[nofool4u]

Now I will agree that one should forfeit a substantial portion of their entitlement in a marriage, if infidelity is involved;)

 

But hey, I'm just dreaming

[Black Jack]

It does now.

 

There might be a small chance he'd be able to keep her from that money in a divorce, if he kept it as money.

 

But now he is buying a house with it. He just F'd up if he wanted to keep her from it. Once he buys something with the money, she is entitled to half. Look it up.

 

It's still his money. Besides, her name isn't even on the house.

 

Oh, and its best if you never get married. You have this whats mine is mine mentality. And if thats the case, then there is no reason for you to get married.

 

Best save some poor woman the trouble and stay single.

 

Sorry but every woman out there isn't begging to spend their man's money and if you see it that way, then maybe you should stay single.

[nofool4u]

It's still his money. Besides, her name isn't even on the house.

 

In my experience, that won't matter. She needs to contact an attorney, at the very least to have an agreement drawn up that she gets to build some equity with her money once she is out of school. Once shouldn't be married for years, then all of a sudden be dumped with absolutely no equity in the world.

 

An agreement can be drawn up IF it is deemed that he will be successful in keeping her equity at virtually zero.

 

Nessienu, get an attorney.

 

 

 

Sorry but every woman out there isn't begging to spend their man's money and if you see it that way, then maybe you should stay single.

 

You just don't get it. Its not about spending her man's "money". Its about being with someone that seems to be paving the way to leave her completely out in the cold with no equity of her own in the event he decides to divorce later. I'd say, especially after reading your words, you are a misogynist at best.

[Lostinlife4now]

No name on title....no sex, no cleaning, no cooking....SIMPLE AS THAT!!!

[Black Jack]

In my experience, that won't matter. She needs to contact an attorney, at the very least to have an agreement drawn up that she gets to build some equity with her money once she is out of school. Once shouldn't be married for years, then all of a sudden be dumped with absolutely no equity in the world.

 

An agreement can be drawn up IF it is deemed that he will be successful in keeping her equity at virtually zero.

 

Nessienu, get an attorney.

 

That is YOUR experience. It doesn't mean it's marital law.

 

How is he leaving her out in the cold? He has a darn roof over her head fer cryin out loud!

 

It's his money, and from what I've read he's shared a lot of it if he's supporting her so she can go to school!

 

You're just assuming the man is going to dump her because he chose to protect himself. That's selfish thinking every single thing in a marriage is just up for sharing.

 

You just don't get it.

 

Yea you don't.

 

Its not about spending her man's "money". Its about being with someone that seems to be paving the way to leave her completely out in the cold with no equity of her own in the event he decides to divorce later.

 

"Paving the way?!?!?!?!?":laugh: Again you're assuming he's going to divorce her quickly.

 

I'd say, especially after reading your words, you are a misogynist at best.

 

Not true. I'm just sticking up for the men who were wronged, including myself, considering my own ex attempted to take everything I had. I can emphasize with the men out there who just want a layer of security over their balls.

 

Fact of the matter is, it's his money.

[Lauriebell82]

Not true. I'm just sticking up for the men who were wronged, including myself, considering my own ex attempted to take everything I had. I can emphasize with the men out there who just want a layer of security over their balls.

 

Fact of the matter is, it's his money.

 

Right, but you got married KNOWING that it could end in divorce did you not? Not saying that it is right what your ex tried to do, however didn't you realize that it was possible that would happen? I've just always wondered why someone should even get married if they are so paranoid about losing their money in a divorce! Men are always so quick to biatch about the financial losses of divorce, but a man never thinks about that when he is down on one knee holding a ring!

 

Same with OP, she came into this marriage knowing her husband's position on finances. She didn't go in blindly. On the other hand, so did he! He was okay with her going back to school and being the breadwinner. I think the real issue with their marraige is that they haven't communicated their positions on all financial matters in their marraige. So now they are trying to go about changing the other's position on the house deed, when in fact the discussion should have happened prior to marriage.

[Ursa]

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

I am a parent. I also own multiple properties, some with my husband and some separately (we both owned properties before we ever met, so he owns a separate dwelling also). We might sell some off as needed, but I plan to pass at least half of those properties to my children when I go, and I would leave it to them alone. My parents have already told me that while they love my husband, they plan to leave the house I grew up in to me alone, so that I can hold it in trust for our children. My husband knows that and doesn't have a problem with it.

 

However. The house we live in now is a home that we purchased together, and it is our marital and family home, in which we are both equal partners.

 

I would not expect us to go and live in one of the properties that was mine alone, without his input, against his instincts, and without making it OUR home, while depriving him of the opportunity to benefit from the investment that it essentially is.

 

I see a difference between inheriting and protecting a cherished family home that is in one person's name only and held in trust for future generations of that family, and inheriting a sum of money and then using that money to newly purchase a house that is an investment for one party of a marriage only--while expecting BOTH parties of the marriage to live in it. The difference might be subtle to many, but to me it is a real distinction.

 

If I left my son a large sum of money, say, I would expect him to prudently keep some portion of it separate for himself and any children he might have. I would hope he would invest it wisely. I would, however, be very surprised if he chose to buy a house and exclude his wife and supposed partner from having any reasonable share in it, while expecting her to live in it. It seems like an affront, to my sensibilities. If his family as a whole were in dire need of the money--including his wife--I would want and expect him to use it in support of his whole family, in whatever way worked best to alleviate their urgent need.

 

When/if I do leave my son actual family property, it would be up to him and his hypothetical wife whether to live in it or use it as a rental property, or sell it himself as the need arose. If they chose to live in it, and she were a real-estate minded woman, I would hope they would use their funds however they best saw fit together to purchase some other land so she would have an equitable investment. I would also want there to be some kind of rider so that if something happened to my son, his wife would not be cast out.

 

I haven't actually consulted any lawyers on these matters as my son is a pre-schooler and I'm in pretty good health, but these are my preliminary thoughts, in response to your question.

 

I agree that going to law school isn't exactly a whimsical stress-free ride full of nothing but bon-bons and Oprah. I find it kind of sad and amusing that the woman married him when he had no money, supported them both for two years, and is now a full-time law student while her husband takes his turn supporting them, yet she is being painted by some posters as some kind of lazy, whining, calculating gold-digger.

[Black Jack]

Right, but you got married KNOWING that it could end in divorce did you not?

 

Hence the reason why I made contingency plans early on while we were in the honeymoon phase.

 

Not saying that it is right what your ex tried to do, however didn't you realize that it was possible that would happen?

 

After she left me and our son? Oh yes I did realize that. But it's pretty moot for you to say that I knew she was going to cheat. I did not know that at the time. I was in love with her, you know.

 

I've just always wondered why someone should even get married if they are so paranoid about losing their money in a divorce!

 

Well when you love someone (you know like you love your own husband) you jump into a relationship with them. That's why it's called marriage.

 

Men are always so quick to biatch about the financial losses of divorce, but a man never thinks about that when he is down on one knee holding a ring!

 

It's easy for women to say that when they're the ones steady trying to milk the cow while the opportunity is there.

 

And please this is a new age where men are getting pretty fed up of getting on their knees and putting women on a high pedestal. Lots of women are doing it now. It's about darn time they start doing it too.

 

Same with OP, she came into this marriage knowing her husband's position on finances. She didn't go in blindly.

 

So if she knew that then wouldn't it be safe to say that she should let him do his thing instead of complaining? If that were my wife, I would definitely not complain.

 

On the other hand, so did he! He was okay with her going back to school and being the breadwinner.

 

Okay? And? He's doing what a kind husband would do! Supporting his woman! Why throw all his hard efforts away and then turn around and say he's not being loving?

 

I think the real issue with their marraige is that they haven't communicated their positions on all financial matters in their marraige. So now they are trying to go about changing the other's position on the house deed, when in fact the discussion should have happened prior to marriage.

 

Definite possibility there. Agreed.

[nofool4u]

That is YOUR experience. It doesn't mean it's marital law.

 

How is he leaving her out in the cold? He has a darn roof over her head fer cryin out loud!

 

You need to learn to comprehend what you read better. He is PAVING the way to leave her out in the cold I said. That would be in the event they divorce. She will have no equity unless she is allowed to build equity in something with the money she will soon make and he can keep his mits off of it. Thats why I told her to contact an attorney. If somehow he is able to keep out with no equity, then she needs to be allowed to build her own.

 

It's his money, and from what I've read he's shared a lot of it if he's supporting her so she can go to school!

 

And she supported him during the first part of the marriage. So they are even.

 

 

You're just assuming the man is going to dump her because he chose to protect himself.

 

He is paving the way to do so. Whether he does or not remains to be seen, but he sure as hell is thinking about divorce being possible in the future.

 

As far as protecting himself, ok fair enough. Then would you agree that she should be able to build some equity that is entirely hers? If she isn't going to have any equity in the home, then she should be able to build some that he shouldn't lay claim to. Again, why I advised her to get an attorney and have something drawn up.

 

 

That's selfish thinking every single thing in a marriage is just up for sharing.

 

So your alternative would be that when she is out of school and earning an income, if say 10, 20 years down the road they divorce, and she has no equity because he decided they shouldn't have a marital home(assuming he can get away with it), and she has ZERO substantial assets of her own, then just tough ***** for her eh?

 

 

"Paving the way?!?!?!?!?":laugh: Again you're assuming he's going to divorce her quickly.

 

Nope. Actually if he divorces her quickly he'd be doing her a favor. Because the alternative is if they divorce later, she has nothing, no equity or assets to call her own. Again, that is unless by agreement she is allowed to build up her own nest egg when she starts working again.

 

He should be agreeable to that right? Afterall if he has the whats mine is mine mindset, same should go for her too right?

 

If he has all this money, equity, then he should have no problem with her building up a little of her own so she can be covered as well, right?

 

If you agree with this, then arguing about this will be a moot point and we need to advise her to see an attorney about drawing up an agreement that she will be allowed to make investments that are solely hers.

 

 

Not true. I'm just sticking up for the men who were wronged, including myself, considering my own ex attempted to take everything I had. I can emphasize with the men out there who just want a layer of security over their balls.

 

There is a difference between an X trying to take someone for "everything they have" and getting half of assets accumulated during the marriage, whether you think its the man's money or not.

 

Sorry you had a b!tch that tried that, but nobody can get more than half unless the other party agrees just to get a divorce over with.

 

 

Fact of the matter is, it's his money.

 

Then she should be able to obtain, invest and have her own then, yes?

[nofool4u]

Hence the reason why I made contingency plans early on while we were in the honeymoon phase.

 

And did you allow your wife to build up her own equity?

[donnamaybe]

OP, aside from normal housework, make it clear to your H that you are not going to participate in any financial or labor upkeep of his investment. I do agree an inheritance belongs to the person to whom it was bequeathed. But being married and not having a financial interest in the home you share would be disturbing for me.

[Black Jack]

You need to learn to comprehend what you read better. He is PAVING the way to leave her out in the cold I said.

 

Comprehending and agreeing are two different things.

 

He's not leaving her out in the cold. She'll have her own job soon!

 

That would be in the event they divorce. She will have no equity unless she is allowed to build equity in something with the money she will soon make and he can keep his mits off of it. Thats why I told her to contact an attorney. If somehow he is able to keep out with no equity, then she needs to be allowed to build her own.

 

Doesn't matter. It's silly to do it because of pure jealousy and greed.

 

And she supported him during the first part of the marriage. So they are even.

 

Not really. He's still supporting her.

 

He is paving the way to do so. Whether he does or not remains to be seen, but he sure as hell is thinking about divorce being possible in the future.

 

You only assume he's going to divorce her because he's protecting himself. If you didn't protect yourself early on like he did with your ex wife then that is okay, but don't be mad at him because he's choosing to think ahead.

 

As far as protecting himself, ok fair enough. Then would you agree that she should be able to build some equity that is entirely hers?

 

Absolutely. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as she doesn't try to come after his assets!

 

If she isn't going to have any equity in the home, then she should be able to build some that he shouldn't lay claim to. Again, why I advised her to get an attorney and have something drawn up.

 

I'm sure once she gets back on her feet she'll do that. I see nothing wrong with her invest in something he can't touch, but the problem is coming after his inheritance money.

 

So your alternative would be that when she is out of school and earning an income, if say 10, 20 years down the road they divorce, and she has no equity because he decided they shouldn't have a marital home(assuming he can get away with it), and she has ZERO substantial assets of her own, then just tough ***** for her eh?

 

Wow you came up with that conclusion?lol

 

I never said tough **** for her, nor do I recall having ever said she should get nothing in the event that they do divorce. I said earlier in the thread that she'll be able to have more financial freedom when she gets her job. Isn't that why he's supporting her now? You're totally ignoring his contribution to the marriage and implying he's paranoid Batman for having sleeper cell plans in place in case there ever is a divorce.

 

Nope. Actually if he divorces her quickly he'd be doing her a favor. Because the alternative is if they divorce later, she has nothing, no equity or assets to call her own. Again, that is unless by agreement she is allowed to build up her own nest egg when she starts working again.

 

Well tell him to his face and see what he says then report back to me.

 

I think he'd disagree with you on that front.

 

He should be agreeable to that right? Afterall if he has the whats mine is mine mindset, same should go for her too right?

 

If he has all this money, equity, then he should have no problem with her building up a little of her own so she can be covered as well, right?

 

If you agree with this, then arguing about this will be a moot point and we need to advise her to see an attorney about drawing up an agreement that she will be allowed to make investments that are solely hers.

 

But see the flaw in your argument is that nobody never said that she has no right to have her own personal assets.

 

There is a difference between an X trying to take someone for "everything they have" and getting half of assets accumulated during the marriage, whether you think its the man's money or not.

 

The "difference" is subjective (for instance if you're dealing with a selfish cheater) and besides, it seems the money he makes is his so it doesn't look like there's "half-assets accumulated" in this marriage.

 

Sorry you had a b!tch that tried that, but nobody can get more than half unless the other party agrees just to get a divorce over with.

 

Hmmmmm.....

 

Then she should be able to obtain, invest and have her own then, yes?

 

Exactly but this is all moot considering it's his money that's trying to be taken.

[Black Jack]

And did you allow your wife to build up her own equity?

 

Yes. She had hers and I had mine.

[g450]

I really don't get why you want to marry such a loser. Sorry but that is what she is. She's totally screwed up and I am pretty sure you will have an awful lot of trouble with this woman.

 

I start to think that you marry this loser because you are too afraid that if you would marry a capable woman, she would walk away just like your XW did.

 

Plenty of decent, financially independent, capable single women in the world but you pick one whose children each have a different father and lives off food stamps.

 

Well I guess it's like they say. Love is blind. Happens all the time where you dont know everything about a person until after you fall in love with them. I fell for her for the person she is, not her situation. And most independant and successful women are already married or dont want to be.

 

She really is a sweet woman. Lots of good things about her that I like. It's just that she has made many bad decisions in her life and she is a bit immature. She is 40 now and I think she is finally starting to see what all her decisions in life have done for her. But her kids are her world regardless if they were planned or not.

 

At least she made one very good decision. She decided to marry me. So that's a start. After the honeymoon she will be looking for a job. When it comes right down to it, she makes me happy and vise versa. And her 13 year old wont be with us forever. Five years tops and he will move out. I have already told her this needs to happen and he is not going to sit on the couch after high school and sponge off us. She agreed.

 

But here I go crashing this thread again. But my situation is kind of related.

[g450]

No name on title....no sex, no cleaning, no cooking....SIMPLE AS THAT!!!

 

Then no marriage, simple as that!

 

And people wonder why he was trying to protect himself LOL. Consider the irony.

[maybealone]

Two things I was thinking that aren't really responses to any particular posts:

 

1. Assuming a marriage will last a lifetime can pave the way for one or both spouses to take the other one for granted.

 

2. If he had plans of leaving her anytime soon, I think he would have picked a house closer to his work than a three-hour commute.