Husband won't put me on title for new home

[johan]

Johan quite obviously has been trying to lay a very manipulative guilt trip on soserious, it's so transparent it's a joke.

 

I don't know. You just seem pissed at me in general. You're definitely choosing to make the worst of what I've been trying to say. That can't really be my problem.

 

I don't think she should feel the least bit guilty for how she lives her life. These decisions are hers to make. If a guy wants in on her terms, I hope they are happy. But her solution is not for everyone. That's what I've said several times now.

Edited March 26, 2012 by johan

[soserious1]

In my relationships paying the bills is voluntary. "I'll get it this month." We care about each other's feelings do our parts voluntarily. Money isn't the only currency. Bills aren't the only cost. I'm happy with, "Did you pay the phone bill? Let me make dinner."

 

 

You are assuming here that the person who earns the money doesn't also do things like take their turns at making dinner, doing the laundry and other household chores.

 

I do my 50% of the household work, pay my 50% of the household bills & expect the same from any live in romantic partner.

[zengirl]

You are assuming here that the person who earns the money doesn't also do things like take their turns at making dinner, doing the laundry and other household chores.

 

I do my 50% of the household work, pay my 50% of the household bills & expect the same from any live in romantic partner.

 

Sounds like a lot of calculation to me.

 

If I owned a house, I could not see asking someone to pay me rent. One problem is the house is paid for, and that person has no ability to build their own equity. A lot of people don't want to be lifetime renters. Another problem is, it seems extremely petty. Of course, I would have no problem asking someone to chip in on the mortgage, though I'd certainly add them to the title if we were married and they were doing so.

 

Hubby and I brought all kinds of things to the marriage. We don't "rent" them to each other. If we already own them, why would we charge each other for using them? That's what paying rent on a paid-for-house sounds like to me.

 

And I have no idea how you calculate chores, really. Honestly.

 

Hubby and I go halfsies on rent and utilities at the moment. He buys more of the groceries, but I keep us in wine. That 50/50 assertion of yours reminds me of the couple in the Joy Luck Club who split groceries 50/50 every month exactly, despite being married for years... oh, but he bought her a cat and then wanted to deduct cat food from the 50/50 because it was HER cat after all. Too much calculation. Led to divorce in the Joy Luck Club and I imagine it would in RL too.

[soserious1]

Sounds like a lot of calculation to me.

 

If I owned a house, I could not see asking someone to pay me rent. One problem is the house is paid for, and that person has no ability to build their own equity. A lot of people don't want to be lifetime renters. Another problem is, it seems extremely petty. Of course, I would have no problem asking someone to chip in on the mortgage, though I'd certainly add them to the title if we were married and they were doing so.

 

Hubby and I brought all kinds of things to the marriage. We don't "rent" them to each other. If we already own them, why would we charge each other for using them? That's what paying rent on a paid-for-house sounds like to me.

 

And I have no idea how you calculate chores, really. Honestly.

 

Hubby and I go halfsies on rent and utilities at the moment. He buys more of the groceries, but I keep us in wine. That 50/50 assertion of yours reminds me of the couple in the Joy Luck Club who split groceries 50/50 every month exactly, despite being married for years... oh, but he bought her a cat and then wanted to deduct cat food from the 50/50 because it was HER cat after all. Too much calculation. Led to divorce in the Joy Luck Club and I imagine it would in RL too.

 

So you'd let a guy just move in, rent free? Nice score for him! around here that would be like hitting the lottery for a cool 12k year.

 

When I rented, I understood that my payment ensured that I had a safe decent place to live, if the plumbing blew up I wasn't getting a bill to fix it, if the electrical needed updating I didn't see a bill for that either, snow was shoveled, grass cut, walls repainted every few years, worn carpets & flooring replaced.

Edited March 26, 2012 by soserious1

[johan]

You are assuming here that the person who earns the money doesn't also do things like take their turns at making dinner, doing the laundry and other household chores.

 

I do my 50% of the household work, pay my 50% of the household bills & expect the same from any live in romantic partner.

 

I think we can agree that the split on expenses and housework and everything else just needs to be made so that both people are happy. If 50/50 makes you happy, because you think it protects you from something, then that's how it will have to be for you.

 

50/50 is as arbitrary as 60/40 or any other pre-determined amount. Even at 50/50 you can still feel taken advantage of. Splitting things 50/50 may not be right what people really want.

 

I prefer something more organic. I don't want the word "owe" to ever be used between my and my woman, a friend or a family member. We do things for each other. The one who can do more, does more. No one adds it all up in the end and settles up. If you feel you're being taken advantage of, you say so. If it doesn't change you make arrangements.

 

As far as divorce goes, I think you have to plan for it. I'm not sure I should walk away with exactly what I put into it. I'd probably end up sacrificing more, because I make a lot and I've saved a lot. I think that knowledge should make me more alert when I choose someone to marry. I don't want to go broke any more than you do. But my strategy is not quite as aggressive as yours.

[johan]

So you'd let a guy just move in, rent free? Nice score for him! around here that would be like hitting the lottery for a cool 12k year.

 

If that makes her happy, so what? Hopefully she wouldn't do it with a guy who treated it like he won the lottery. If he did, then he's not someone to be with. I personally couldn't do that. I'd feel disgusted with myself.

 

Maybe your problem is not marriage and divorce and family finance so much as how you chose the guys you got involved with, and the signals you missed. If you are prone to missing signals like that, then yeah, protecting yourself up front is a solution.

[soserious1]

I think we can agree that the split on expenses and housework and everything else just needs to be made so that both people are happy. If 50/50 makes you happy, because you think it protects you from something, then that's how it will have to be for you.

 

50/50 is as arbitrary as 60/40 or any other pre-determined amount. Even at 50/50 you can still feel taken advantage of. Splitting things 50/50 may not be right what people really want.

 

I prefer something more organic. I don't want the word "owe" to ever be used between my and my woman, a friend or a family member. We do things for each other. The one who can do more, does more. No one adds it all up in the end and settles up. If you feel you're being taken advantage of, you say so. If it doesn't change you make arrangements.

 

As far as divorce goes, I think you have to plan for it. I'm not sure I should walk away with exactly what I put into it. I'd probably end up sacrificing more, because I make a lot and I've saved a lot. I think that knowledge should make me more alert when I choose someone to marry. I don't want to go broke any more than you do. But my strategy is not quite as aggressive as yours.

 

Well, sorry but I've had my turn at being the one wearing "the one who has more does more" tee shirt & in my experiences all it's ever gotten me is the opportunity to continue doing, more, more & more.

[johan]

Paying bills is not "voluntary." It's "mandatory" unless you want to start getting unpleasant phone calls from debt collectors. That doesn't mean you have to have an explicit set of written rules but there has to be a workable understanding of who pays for what. If what you are saying is literally true than neither you nor your partner need to pay for anything.

 

The next time you go to a restaurant with her, try leaving without either of you paying the bill, and see if the restaurant manager believes your mutual obligation to pay the bill is "voluntary" only.

 

What the hell would even make you write this? Like I said before. You have a problem with me. It's personal for God knows what reason.

 

Paying bills isn't because you care about each other's feelings, it's because you owe someone else the money. Your mandatory obligation to pay bills is because of your obligation to someone external to your relationship, not because of your love relationship. If you are in a joint enterprise with your partner then it's up to you how those mandatory bills are split up, but that doesn't make them voluntary. Between the two of you, 100% of those bills must be paid.

 

Even if you break up with your partner, you still owe 50% of the bills previously incurred. If you don't believe me, just try running up several thousand dollars worth of charges on your partner's credit card and then get back to us and let us know if she was willing to pay all of it on your behalf.

 

 

You still haven't given a straight answer concerning who pays for what in your relationship and how that is determined though.

 

 

 

 

 

"Did you pay the phone bill?" If it's voluntary, neither of you has to. Why are you even asking if the phone bill was paid? It's voluntary.

 

If now you are saying you exchange services in kind for dollars that's fine, but it is still just a form of bartering equitable financial division of obligation. As you say those services are a "form of currency" = "money."

 

I am reasonably sure that if your partner was content to accept that her obligation was purely "voluntary" and let YOU pay ALL the monetary bills and let YOU cook all the dinners and other non monetary services, you would quickly tire of it.

 

"Did you pay the phone bill" "No it's voluntary, money doesn't matter, only love matters, so you pay it."

 

"Well then did you at least cook dinner for us tonight?" "No, why should I barter my services as a currency, money doesn't matter, it's voluntary, why don't you cook tonight."

 

In both cases you are talking about day to day obligations which need to be done if the relationship is to function and it is not really related to abstract notions of love. If dinner is not cooked there will be no dinner. And we all want to eat, don't we?

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the obligations in your relationship are truly "voluntary" there is nothing to discuss and there is no refusing to do their share since there is no obligation for a reasonably equivalent contribution of money or in kind goods and services to the functioning of the relationship.

 

If you have an expectation that someone is going to do something for you in exchange for your paying the phone bill, such as cook you dinner, that's not love, that's a quid pro quo. The only difference is you are accepting services in lieu of cash. This is pretty much how a lot of one income families function, with the bulk of the in kind household services being provided for by the stay at home parent, while the other works outside the home for cash.

 

 

 

 

Isn't that exactly what happened to soserious? Yet you were repeatedly critical of her.

 

 

 

 

 

 

All you are doing is exchanging your money to have a woman in the relationship with you. The fact that this is a pattern in ALL your relationships suggests you don't have the confidence or perhaps the ability to get into a truly equal relationship. Somewhere in the back or maybe the front of the head you are computing and calculating in some way what you are "putting into" the relationship and what you are "getting out" of it.

 

If you want to tell yourself that your relationships have always been about love and these women you get involved with aren't possibly attracted to you primarily for the financial aspect then go right ahead, but it doesn't have to be that way, there are lots of women who are financially competent and don't need to rely on a man paying their way for them, they share equally the finances and every other aspect of the relationship.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No it's not. The message you are sending out is "I have money which I will exchange in an unstated quid pro quo to get women who are financially inferior to me to stay in a relationship with me." Contrary to what you are accusing soserious of, it is you who have the money-centric relationships, in fact the very existence of your relationships is directly dependent on your ability to contribute the money aspect. Money is first in your relationships because if you didn't have the money you wouldn't have the relationships. If you doubt that then just tell your current girlfriend "Look it's time for you to pull your weight equally on a financial basis, you need to go out and get a job/get a better job." If she is worth a darn she won't be offended, but most likely you'll never have the conversation because the only reason she is with you in the first place is for your money, the both of you realize that, which would explain your antagonism towards soserious.

 

 

 

You're saying this because from your perspective, the way you run your relationships, your particular quid pro quo is that you exchange your money in order to have the woman do stuff for you, probably including the sex part. Not all men feel the need to treat their women like prostitutes, however, some of us have more respect for women than that.

 

Do I actually have to respond to all this? I feel like it's a great compliment to know I inspire you so much. But I know if I try to untwist all the parts where you twisted my words, you'll just respond and distort them again. That's the game we're playing. Your rules. Sounds like a losing proposition for me.

 

I think I'll pass. Think what you want.

[donnamaybe]

Ok, fair enough, if i were to remarry and my new spouse demanded to be put on the deed and threatened that if they weren't they'd never pay a dime towards living here, my decision would be quite easy. Divorce lawyer here we come. My then soon to be ex-spouse could go find a new free place to live elsewhere.

There is a vast difference between "never pay a dime towards living here" and not putting money into HIS sole investment. I'm sure she expects to share bills, food expenses, time spent cleaning, etc. But I would NOT put a dime toward property tax, insurance, or improvements to the home NOR would I put a dime toward repairs. It's HIS home which will appreciate in value. If he wants to keep his home HIS home and not share it with her as an investment, it should be treated as such.

[soserious1]

If that makes her happy, so what? Hopefully she wouldn't do it with a guy who treated it like he won the lottery. If he did, then he's not someone to be with. I personally couldn't do that. I'd feel disgusted with myself.

 

Maybe your problem is not marriage and divorce and family finance so much as how you chose the guys you got involved with, and the signals you missed. If you are prone to missing signals like that, then yeah, protecting yourself up front is a solution.

 

 

All that matters in the end is that I get to avoid guys who think they should be allowed to live here totally rent free just because I own the place. If those guys decide they don't want to be with me, I promise I won't shed a single tear.

[donnamaybe]

Hubby and I brought all kinds of things to the marriage. We don't "rent" them to each other. If we already own them, why would we charge each other for using them? That's what paying rent on a paid-for-house sounds like to me.

Exactly. I paid for the lawn tractor. Do I charge my guy "rent" to use it to cut the lawn? Or perhaps I should make him use the push mower when it's his turn to mow.

[soserious1]

There is a vast difference between "never pay a dime towards living here" and not putting money into HIS sole investment. I'm sure she expects to share bills, food expenses, time spent cleaning, etc. But I would NOT put a dime toward property tax, insurance, or improvements to the home NOR would I put a dime toward repairs. It's HIS home which will appreciate in value. If he wants to keep his home HIS home and not share it with her as an investment, it should be treated as such.

 

 

 

Ok, if a guy told me what you just said, I'd kiss him on the cheek & help him pack his bags so that he could move into a new place where he didn't need to ever pay any rent.

[donnamaybe]

I wonder why, particularly with the poster being so new.

[denise_xo]

I wonder why, particularly with the poster being so "new".

 

I edited that a bit for you.

[soserious1]

Well it seems pretty clear to me that I've been doing things incorrectly. I should go out & find a guy who owns a nice house, get him to let me move in. He'll have to keep all the responsibilities of a landlord & I'll never have to pay a thin dime of rent.

[zengirl]

So you'd let a guy just move in, rent free? Nice score for him! around here that would be like hitting the lottery for a cool 12k year.

 

When I rented, I understood that my payment ensured that I had a safe decent place to live, if the plumbing blew up I wasn't getting a bill to fix it, if the electrical needed updating I didn't see a bill for that either, snow was shoveled, grass cut, walls repainted every few years, worn carpets & flooring replaced.

 

But in this case, the person is not getting the choice to rent or buy. There is no mortgage to split in half. You're just "collecting" money from your own spouse. To me, that would feel wrong.

 

Exactly. I paid for the lawn tractor. Do I charge my guy "rent" to use it to cut the lawn? Or perhaps I should make him use the push mower when it's his turn to mow.

 

Right! That's a good illustration of my point, thank you.

[donnamaybe]

Ok, if a guy told me what you just said, I'd kiss him on the cheek & help him pack his bags so that he could move into a new place where he didn't need to ever pay any rent.

This is different. They are married and he is refusing to allow her to share in an investment, which, granted, is his right. Now she could go buy her own house and go move into it I suppose. If that's what he wants, then that may very well be what he gets if he takes your ultra rigid point of view. But if she is to be able to have an investment of HER own, she is going to NEED her own money to be able to do so and can't be spending it on HIS homeowner's insurance or HIS property tax or improvements to HIS home. It's HIS investment, so HE can take care of it just as SHE will need to be solely responsible for HER investment.

 

Why is that so difficult to understand?

[donnamaybe]

I edited that a bit for you.

Ah, yes. And rightfully so.

[denise_xo]

Well it seems pretty clear to me that I've been doing things incorrectly. I should go out & find a guy who owns a nice house, get him to let me move in. He'll have to keep all the responsibilities of a landlord & I'll never have to pay a thin dime of rent.

 

Of course you should have. Duh :laugh:

 

I've only been in two long term relationship but they were night and day in terms of finances. In my first relationship, I had no money and my ex made lots. My current relationship started out completely on the opposite scale (well, I didn't make much money, but I was the only one who made much at all). In my first one, my partner footed most of the bills and various expenses, in my second it has been completely opposite. I think it worked in well in both cases because there was never any feeling or suspicion of one person trying to free ride, and everyone was always trying to contribute in whatever way they could. When that kind of trust and mutual effort is there, it's a real blessing to a relationship.

[soserious1]

But in this case, the person is not getting the choice to rent or buy. There is no mortgage to split in half. You're just "collecting" money from your own spouse. To me, that would feel wrong.

 

 

 

Right! That's a good illustration of my point, thank you.

 

Telling me that since I own the house that not only should my new partner be allowed to live here totally rent free and that I also need to continue having all the burdens and obligations of a landlord in terms of keeping the place up is not an attractive option to me.

 

He can continue to live on his own, writing his monthly check to his landlord or mortgage company, I'm not interested in playing sugar momma again.

[donnamaybe]

Sorry to break your bubble but all those ongoing housing expenses are payable by any of the residents and it has nothing to do with who owns the title or appreciation of the property, if any, those are not capital expenses, unless you are talking about major additions or repairs to the property in which case I agree she should not have to contribute.

Well I'd wish him luck with getting me to pay it with his attitude.

 

Look, I own my own house. MY house. I know what it takes to keep one up. If I were living in a home my husband refused to share with me fully I would feel compelled to buy my own for investment purposes, and then I would have to come up with the money to support said investment.

 

Fortunately, I am with a guy who doesn't work that way. We both share what we have with the other. And, yes. He LOVES my lawn tractor.

[donnamaybe]

Don't forget he also has to agree to put your name on the title to his property as well as giving you the free rent, if he doesn't, that means he's a greedy money obsessed pig who doesn't love you.

Nope. Wrong. If her name WERE put on the title, then she should feel obligated to share fully in everything financial that is required to maintain or upgrade the home.

[soserious1]

Well I'd wish him luck with getting me to pay it with his attitude.

 

Look, I own my own house. MY house. I know what it takes to keep one up. If I were living in a home my husband refused to share with me fully I would feel compelled to buy my own for investment purposes, and then I would have to come up with the money to support said investment.

 

Fortunately, I am with a guy who doesn't work that way. We both share what we have with the other. And, yes. He LOVES my lawn tractor.

 

Hey if it works for you great, I'm not interested in providing somebody with a totally rent free place to live while retaining all the legal obligations a landlord does. If a man expected to live here for free it would be a deal breaker, I'd cheerfully set him free so he could go seek out another sugar momma.

[soserious1]

This is different. They are married and he is refusing to allow her to share in an investment, which, granted, is his right. Now she could go buy her own house and go move into it I suppose. If that's what he wants, then that may very well be what he gets if he takes your ultra rigid point of view. But if she is to be able to have an investment of HER own, she is going to NEED her own money to be able to do so and can't be spending it on HIS homeowner's insurance or HIS property tax or improvements to HIS home. It's HIS investment, so HE can take care of it just as SHE will need to be solely responsible for HER investment.

 

Why is that so difficult to understand?

 

Then she can buy her own place & move into it or she can rent it to offset her investment costs can't she? Her lack of ability to swing a modest rent payment along with the payments on her investment property isn't & shouldn't be made his problem.

[johan]

I wonder why, particularly with the poster being so new.

 

I'm pretty sure he's not all that new. He posts just like someone else who has had three or four user names deleted. Time will tell on that. For some reason I attract his attention. It's always struck me as a bit over-the-top and weird, but there's nothing I can do about it.

 

If anyone wants to know why I avoid posting any personal details about myself, now you know.

 

This is just what LS is going through. Vendetta Central.