Husband won't put me on title for new home

[soserious1]

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.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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

 

Both parties in a marriage should retain control of their own assets, always. The OP should be able to control every single cent she earns.

 

Personally I favor, his, hers and ours checking accounts.. the couple decides how much to spend on basics like food, the bill is split 50/50 with each depositing their half to the joint account. Aside from mutually agreed upon expenses each party keeps every cent they've earned.

 

 

As an aside here, I think the OP's husband is wise.. nobody in their right minds marries a fledgling lawyer without doing some sort of planning to protect their assets, they'd be crazy not to

 

Oh and the OP is building some equity here.. she's being supported while she obtains her degree and builds a practice( and that could take YEARS, lots of young lawyers are serving fast food these days because they can't get jobs) this gal's husband could end up carrying her fiscally for quite some time.

[PinkInTheLimo]

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.

 

Have you ever wondered why she made these bad decisions? It seems to me that your fiancee simply has no personal boundaries. She simply takes the colour of the environment she happens to be in. She's so weak that she will do no matter what the person she is with tells her to do.

 

You say it yourself: she is immature. Why do you want to be with an immature woman? Do you really think that all this will miraculously change when you marry her? It won't.

What will happen in the future is this:

- All your attempts to discipline her kid will fail because she is unable to stand up to him. So she'll sabotage whatever education you try to give him.

- She might find a job but when a male client or colleague will hit on her she will not be able to say "No".

- She will not have any financial responsibility so you will have great trouble to make her manage your common money.

 

I am waiting for your first post-marriage post bringing up a problem.

 

You are not in love, you are in lust. I'm sure that she's good in the sack, again probably because she does no matter what a guy tries to make her do. Again no boundaries.

 

I get that you are smitten with her but at least wait another year to get married so that your blinders have come off a bit. If at that moment you still think she would be a great wife, you can still marry her.

 

What makes you think that this woman will have less problems once you have married her?

[findingnemo]

Both parties in a marriage should retain control of their own assets, always. The OP should be able to control every single cent she earns.

 

Personally I favor, his, hers and ours checking accounts.. the couple decides how much to spend on basics like food, the bill is split 50/50 with each depositing their half to the joint account. Aside from mutually agreed upon expenses each party keeps every cent they've earned.

 

 

As an aside here, I think the OP's husband is wise.. nobody in their right minds marries a fledgling lawyer without doing some sort of planning to protect their assets, they'd be crazy not to

 

Oh and the OP is building some equity here.. she's being supported while she obtains her degree and builds a practice( and that could take YEARS, lots of young lawyers are serving fast food these days because they can't get jobs) this gal's husband could end up carrying her fiscally for quite some time.

 

What you're suggesting is what we do here in my country. Each person has their own account and there's a joint account. The joint one covers household expenses, kids' tuition and all common expenses. If an investment needs to be made, the couple discuss it and agrees on each party's contribution. Say you want to buy a large farm. The H may fork out the cash as long as it is agreed that the W manages it and that it becomes profitable within a set time. If this is the arrangement, then the title is put in both their names.

 

Say they aren't on good terms. The wise thing to do would be for the person who wants the farm to buy it but put it in his company's names...or a sibling or friend. This is very common with many women here who are stars at hiding assets acquired during M. Because D laws are still pro-men, women are taught early on to never ever depend on a man. They are told "He can leave you and your kids any day." So while a W may not like that her H put things in his name only, she will make sure she doesn't contribute any of her money and will begin to build her own nest egg.

 

Now we have lots of men hiring investigators to figure put howm much his W owns exactly. As much as I believe in M, perhaps I should be practical and realize that the concept of M is actually changing. Maybe if two people can discuss this attitude prior to M and agree to proceed this way, it could work. Then child support is the only thing in play. And that should be shared 50/50 just like custody if possible and have an end date.

 

(Alimony is a no-no. If you have two hands and two legs, you bet your *ss I won't be giving you a cent of my hard earned cash.)

[maybealone]

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?

 

I agree that she should talk to an attorney, but the reason I don't believe she would be allowed to build equity in the house is because then it would have to work both ways. If they divorced when the house was worth $100k less than it is now, she should not be responsible for losing any money. That loss should be all on him.

 

And I agree they should have some sort of legal agreement that gives her something, even if it is just something where he signs off on any claim to whatever retirement fund she builds for herself.

 

Personally I favor, his, hers and ours checking accounts.. the couple decides how much to spend on basics like food, the bill is split 50/50 with each depositing their half to the joint account. Aside from mutually agreed upon expenses each party keeps every cent they've earned.

 

I have always sort of done this. Bill money goes in the joint account, whatever we want for spending money goes into his and her accounts, and leftovers go in savings. We don't discuss or justify anything purchased with our own money, and if either one of us wanted to squirrel away our individual money there would be no problem with that.

 

I wouldn't go quite so far as to splitting household expenses 50/50, since we have rarely earned equal amounts of money. But I can see where some people would want to do that.

[nofool4u]

Yes. She had hers and I had mine.

 

Then all is well. OP's husband should allow her to build her own without any arguments then. And any expenses that go towards this house that he won't put her name on can come from his side. She shouldn't have any responsibility to the house all while taking what she would have contributed to the house and make her own investments to which he should have no claim to.

 

She needs to have an attorney draw up such an agreement.

[nofool4u]

Both parties in a marriage should retain control of their own assets, always. The OP should be able to control every single cent she earns..

 

I agree in a situation like this, but what do you want to bet her H wouldn't see it this way?

 

Aside from that, one of the main ways to build equity is in owning a primary residence, for most people that is.

 

So if she isn't allowed any equity in this house, then she should be able to sock every red cent she wants of her own money after she is out of school into her own retirement funds, and the husband shouldn't have any claim to it whatsoever.

[Black Jack]

Then all is well. OP's husband should allow her to build her own without any arguments then. And any expenses that go towards this house that he won't put her name on can come from his side. She shouldn't have any responsibility to the house all while taking what she would have contributed to the house and make her own investments to which he should have no claim to.

 

She needs to have an attorney draw up such an agreement.

 

Agreed. If she wants to go that route, it is perfectly understandable.

[g450]

Have you ever wondered why she made these bad decisions? It seems to me that your fiancee simply has no personal boundaries. She simply takes the colour of the environment she happens to be in. She's so weak that she will do no matter what the person she is with tells her to do.

 

You say it yourself: she is immature. Why do you want to be with an immature woman? Do you really think that all this will miraculously change when you marry her? It won't.

What will happen in the future is this:

- All your attempts to discipline her kid will fail because she is unable to stand up to him. So she'll sabotage whatever education you try to give him.

- She might find a job but when a male client or colleague will hit on her she will not be able to say "No".

- She will not have any financial responsibility so you will have great trouble to make her manage your common money.

 

I am waiting for your first post-marriage post bringing up a problem.

 

You are not in love, you are in lust. I'm sure that she's good in the sack, again probably because she does no matter what a guy tries to make her do. Again no boundaries.

 

I get that you are smitten with her but at least wait another year to get married so that your blinders have come off a bit. If at that moment you still think she would be a great wife, you can still marry her.

 

What makes you think that this woman will have less problems once you have married her?

 

Point taken. We have been together two years and even in the troublsome first year we always came back to each other.

 

I simply came to the decision to take a leap of faith. You cant win if you dont play. I did not want to wait any longer because Im not getting any younger. My take is that if it doesnt work out I can always get divorced. I will be the only one to have the funds for a lawyer so I think Ill be OK. But I do not see this happening in our future. She really wants to try and make this work.

 

And my house was paid for before I even met her so there is zero chance of her trying to take it. She is not that kind of person anyway. Hell she couldnt even put the screws to her first husband because like she told me "Im too much of a nice person". So Im not worried about that. And he treated her like absolute dirt.

[nofool4u]

Agreed. If she wants to go that route, it is perfectly understandable.

 

Question is, will her husband allow her to make investments that are solely hers? If not, it could be used against him if it ever came to court as justification to have entitlement to the house. I don't think many judges are going to allow someone to keep someone else from building any equity of their own while attempting to declare whats mine is mine.

[findingnemo]

Question is, will her husband allow her to make investments that are solely hers? If not, it could be used against him if it ever came to court as justification to have entitlement to the house. I don't think many judges are going to allow someone to keep someone else from building any equity of their own while attempting to declare whats mine is mine.

 

I hope ^^^^this is true. If her husband is willing to apply the same rules to himself, then fine. But it's quite likely what's good for him isn't what he would like for her. But who knows? The OP needs to talk some more about what type of man he is for us to have an idea.

[nofool4u]

I hope ^^^^this is true. If her husband is willing to apply the same rules to himself, then fine. But it's quite likely what's good for him isn't what he would like for her. But who knows? The OP needs to talk some more about what type of man he is for us to have an idea.

 

I have a female friend that went through a divorce. Her husband owned the house before they married. So of course she wasn't entitled to any of that. But he also had this "whats mine is mine" attitude with just about everything because he made more than she did.

 

So she ended up getting tired of it and him looking down his nose at her and had enough(along with other abuses apparently)

So she told him he treated her like dirt, was sick of it, and if he thought that little of her, then he doesn't deserve to be married.

 

So to keep her from divorcing him, they bought a house, and he used all the money off the sale of the first house, which was seperate property, to make a huge downpayment on the new house.

 

A few years later, she found out he was cheating on her, so she filed for divorce. And guess what, she was entitled to every bit of half the equity in the house. It didn't matter if the huge downpayment came from seperate property. It was now sunk into marital property of which she helped to maintain.

 

And this is a state that recognizes the "separate" and "marital" property differences. Once any of the separate is converted to marital, it ceased to be separate.

 

Now I'm sure there are loopholes someone can use to change the rules in certain states, but again, I don't think there are going to be many judges that will allow someone to keep someone else from building equity with their income.

[Black Jack]

Question is, will her husband allow her to make investments that are solely hers? If not, it could be used against him if it ever came to court as justification to have entitlement to the house. I don't think many judges are going to allow someone to keep someone else from building any equity of their own while attempting to declare whats mine is mine.

 

Understandable but that's jumping a little too far, don't ya think? There's no mention of them even separating.

[Black Jack]

I have a female friend that went through a divorce. Her husband owned the house before they married. So of course she wasn't entitled to any of that. But he also had this "whats mine is mine" attitude with just about everything because he made more than she did.

 

So she ended up getting tired of it and him looking down his nose at her and had enough(along with other abuses apparently)

So she told him he treated her like dirt, was sick of it, and if he thought that little of her, then he doesn't deserve to be married.

 

So to keep her from divorcing him, they bought a house, and he used all the money off the sale of the first house, which was seperate property, to make a huge downpayment on the new house.

 

A few years later, she found out he was cheating on her, so she filed for divorce. And guess what, she was entitled to every bit of half the equity in the house. It didn't matter if the huge downpayment came from seperate property. It was now sunk into marital property of which she helped to maintain.

 

And this is a state that recognizes the "separate" and "marital" property differences. Once any of the separate is converted to marital, it ceased to be separate.

 

Now I'm sure there are loopholes someone can use to change the rules in certain states, but again, I don't think there are going to be many judges that will allow someone to keep someone else from building equity with their income.

 

Now in that case she deserved it since she was cheated on and abused. But initially trying to clean him out because of jealousy was just pettiness on her part.

[nofool4u]

Understandable but that's jumping a little too far, don't ya think? There's no mention of them even separating.

 

No, but for one to "protect" themselves in this way, its in the back of their mind.

 

And by what she has written, and OP can correct me if I'm wrong, that he seems to be dragging his feet on other things, like joint checking accounts, and etc.

 

This shows a lack of respect for her, and really is an insult. She said he has always wanted to keep finances separate. Then why the hell even get married?

 

Can't be for filing jointly on taxes, cuz that would make his hoardings vulnerable, name on the accounts or not.

 

So really, if he wants to keep finances separate, why get married? Seems he doesn't respect her much.

[nofool4u]

Now in that case she deserved it since she was cheated on and abused. But initially trying to clean him out because of jealousy was just pettiness on her part.

 

Who said anything about "cleaning him out"?

[Black Jack]

No, but for one to "protect" themselves in this way, its in the back of their mind.

 

And by what she has written, and OP can correct me if I'm wrong, that he seems to be dragging his feet on other things, like joint checking accounts, and etc.

 

This shows a lack of respect for her, and really is an insult. She said he has always wanted to keep finances separate. Then why the hell even get married?

 

A lack of respect for her?

 

Where's the respect and appreciation for him? Especially with how he's supporting her so she can get a job, so she can ultimately invest in her own financial endeavors.

 

Can't be for filing jointly on taxes, cuz that would make his hoardings vulnerable, name on the accounts or not.

 

So really, if he wants to keep finances separate, why get married? Seems he doesn't respect her much.

 

Again does she have respect for him by pining after his inheritance?

[Black Jack]

Who said anything about "cleaning him out"?

 

You didn't have to say those exact words for it to mean that.

[findingnemo]

This is why it is said that discussing your views on children, finances and other things should happen BEFORE getting married. People should have the same ideas and values or else this is what happens.

 

If the H in question had explained his views to his W before they got married, I doubt that she'd be here. If she had told him what she thinks a marriage is, maybe he wouldn't have proposed (if it was him that did).

 

There's nothing wrong with the man per se. The problem is that they seem to have incompatible views about what it means to be a married couple. I think that either the OP ignored her H when he told her his ideas or the H was happy to live off her and never showed his true self.

[beenburned]

Nofool4u,

 

In your example of the friend's new house: Was the new house's title and loan under BOTH of their names?

 

If it was then, that's why it became marital property.

 

If the new house was only in his name, then it would still be separate property in MY state.

[Art_Critic]

If the new house was only in his name, then it would still be separate property in MY state.

 

If you don't mind telling.. what state has that law ?

[carhill]

Good point. When I refinanced my separate property during my M, I had to re-take title from a 'single man' to a 'married man as his sole and separate property' and my exW had to sign a quit-claim deed (lender required it) as she was not on the deed of trust. Part of those proceeds, which she had no obligation to repay, were purposely transmuted to marital property and funded a joint account, our only joint account, with the sole purpose of purchasing 'us' a house, which I quit-claimed any interest in. PlanB at work

[nofool4u]

Again does she have respect for him by pining after his inheritance?

 

She isn't pining after his inheritance. She just finds his behavior a little odd.

 

Its not just about the inheritance issue, which she said of course it is his, but all the other things he tries to keep separate.

 

If it were JUST about the inheritance, or not being able to have equity in a primary residence, she might not feel the way she does. But he is trying to keep everything separate as if she is some louse that will want to take him for everything he has if they divorce.

[nofool4u]

You didn't have to say those exact words for it to mean that.

 

Well what words were used, please enlighten.

[nofool4u]

Nofool4u,

 

In your example of the friend's new house: Was the new house's title and loan under BOTH of their names?

 

If it was then, that's why it became marital property.

 

If the new house was only in his name, then it would still be separate property in MY state.

 

Yes, it was in both, however if you look up precedents and law, you will find that even if her name wasn't on the mortgage, as long as her money was going into the house too, she is entitled. Again, not many judges are going to allow someone to deny a spouse equity building.

[jwi71]

, you will find that even if her name wasn't on the mortgage, as long as her money was going into the house too, she is entitled. Again, not many judges are going to allow someone to deny a spouse equity building.

 

This is not entirely correct.

 

Commingling of assets is, alone, insufficient to change a property's identity.

It is possible, and not terribly infrequent, to comingle assets and retain separate property status. For instance, and somewhat relevant here, should a party I herit funds and use said funds to purchase separate property, that property can also be separate property even if the purchaser is married.

 

The process is known as tracing and their is substantial precedent for it.

 

In essence, if one party can prove (trace) that the asset (which would normally be considered property of the marriage) was obtained through funds defined as separate property, the asset may be ruled as separate property. It is also held that if a significant portion of comingled funds/assets are found to be separate property and it is not possible to determine what, if any, amount was community property, then the entirety of the funds or asset can be judged as separate property.

 

That's how it works in Texas anyway.

Or potentially works as judges and juries sometimes surprise with rulings.