Husband won't put me on title for new home

[frozensprouts]

Soserrious1

 

I can understand where you are coming from, but in many situations, it seems a bit unrealistic...things can come up that you don't forsee...

 

what if both spouses are working One spouse doesn't earn the same income as the other, even though they are working longer hours for less pay. They are working every bit as hard as the spouse with the higher income ( and maybe even harder), but they simply don't earn the same income.

 

What do you think would be a fair split in that situation?

 

What if both spouses went into the marriage making fairly equal incomes, but after several years, one looses his/her job and takes one that earns them much less of an income while still working really long hours? should they still be expected to contribute the same amount of funds/housework, etc. as their spouse?

 

what I am getting at is that there are times when being rigid about a 50/50 split may not work for everyone, and this does not make them a "gold digger' or "free loader"...rather, it makes them human...

 

now if all the want to do is sit on their butt doing nothing while their spouse does it all, then they are a "free loader"

[soserious1]

No, I'm not saying that. There are plenty of guys willing to have relationships on the same terms you are.

 

There also lots of guys who don't want to have to get accounting degrees to date someone. I never wanted to count things to the penny with anyone I ever dated. Lots of marriages function just fine that way.

 

Oh please, one doesn't need "an accounting degree" to fairly split shared costs in a relationship.

[johan]

Oh please, one doesn't need "an accounting degree" to fairly split shared costs in a relationship.

 

Nope. You're right. I was exaggerating a bit just to make the point that money doesn't have to be priority number one in a marriage. People who trust and respect each other have the option to think a lot less about it than you do.

[jwi71]

So then what you're saying is that I run the risk of ending up alone because not many men will want to be here unless they can live here rent free?

 

LOL, why wouldn't I rather be alone than to have to pay somebody to live with me?

 

You know, the one part of your position that I really cannot grasp is this one.

 

How are you paying someone to live with you if you allow them to live with you at no charge? The presence of another under your roof does not increase your mortgage payment. I guess I'm not seeing the financial loss you incur here.

 

The mortgage is the same if Joe Blow is living there. No increase there.

Taxes remain unchanged.

Insurance as well unless you amend the policy to cover his possessions.

Any HOA fees will also be fixed.

 

Utilities can go up but it's reasonable, IMO, to ask for him to cover half.

 

So, if you would, could you explain how you are paying?

 

Not seeing it.

[soserious1]

Nope. You're right. I was exaggerating a bit just to make the point that money doesn't have to be priority number one in a marriage. People who trust and respect each other have the option to think a lot less about it than you do.

 

One builds trust, it's NOT a given! a simple declaration " we've both worked hard to get to our respective stations fiscally, out of respect I propose that we each keep our own earnings & assets to do with as we will. Let's just share our mutually agreed upon lifestyle expenses & in order to lay this matter to rest, let's draft our agreement in a formal pre-nup"

[soserious1]

You know, the one part of your position that I really cannot grasp is this one.

 

Your argument reminds me of the same speech a divorced Daddy I briefly dated gave me regarding allowing him to move in.His reasoning was that if I loved him, I'd let him live here

rent free so he could make his child support payments & have a nice place to bring his offspring to during visitation.

 

How are you paying someone to live with you if you allow them to live with you at no charge? The presence of another under your roof does not increase your mortgage payment. I guess I'm not seeing the financial loss you incur here.

 

The mortgage is the same if Joe Blow is living there. No increase there.

Taxes remain unchanged.

Insurance as well unless you amend the policy to cover his possessions.

Any HOA fees will also be fixed.

 

Utilities can go up but it's reasonable, IMO, to ask for him to cover half.

 

So, if you would, could you explain how you are paying?

 

Not seeing it.

 

Letting somebody live here rent free is like handing them at least $1k per month. Why should I do that all the while retaining the full burden of upkeep on this place?

 

Most people have to pay a monthly rent or mortgage note, a romantic partner's fiscal woes that weren't caused by me really aren't my problem. If a guy isn't willing to consider paying some kind of monthly payment to live here ,he can continue on writing a monthly check to cover the rent or mortgage payment at his own place.

Edited March 27, 2012 by soserious1

[johan]

One builds trust, it's NOT a given! a simple declaration " we've both worked hard to get to our respective stations fiscally, out of respect I propose that we each keep our own earnings & assets to do with as we will. Let's just share our mutually agreed upon lifestyle expenses & in order to lay this matter to rest, let's draft our agreement in a formal pre-nup"

 

That sounds completely reasonable to me. If I ever get married, we'll have to have a discussion like this for sure.

 

I think there are two aspects to this discussion:

1) how do you handle day to day expenses

2) how do you protect your assets in case the relationship doesn't work out.

 

I'm pretty flexible on #1. More than you say you are.

 

As far as #2 goes, I think that's a critical discussion to have. I think the husband of the original poster didn't seem to handle things well. (That's my opinion. I don't require you to agree with me.)

[soserious1]

That sounds completely reasonable to me. If I ever get married, we'll have to have a discussion like this for sure.

 

I think there are two aspects to this discussion:

1) how do you handle day to day expenses

2) how do you protect your assets in case the relationship doesn't work out.

 

I'm pretty flexible on #1. More than you say you are.

 

As far as #2 goes, I think that's a critical discussion to have. I think the husband of the original poster didn't seem to handle things well. (That's my opinion. I don't require you to agree with me.)

 

Day to day expenses? things like food, utilities etc are generally handled weekly or monthly. A joint checking account funded equally by both partners easily takes care of those costs.

 

Protecting assets is done via a pre or post nup agreement.

[Art_Critic]

So then what you're saying is that I run the risk of ending up alone because not many men will want to be here unless they can live here rent free?

 

LOL, why wouldn't I rather be alone than to have to pay somebody to live with me?

 

Who says a man will live in your house ?

Just because a woman owns a house doesn't mean that is where the two of you will reside..

 

Almost every single woman I have ever dated owned her own home.

 

When I married my wife we both had homes.. me 2 of them and she had one.

We sold her house, the decision was made together that the house I was living in would become the marital home and the home in the mountains would also.

 

She took the money from the sale and put it in her own account and the understanding was it was to not be co-mingled even though the proceeds were gathered during the marriage.

 

I can't imagine what life would have been like if she had displayed the true bitterness I feel coming from you.

I also can't imagine what life would have been like with all my wood working tools sitting in her living room

[soserious1]

As far as #2 goes, I think that's a critical discussion to have. I think the husband of the original poster didn't seem to handle things well. (That's my opinion. I don't require you to agree with me.)

 

 

In the case of the OP there was nothing really to discuss, the money was an inheritance left solely to him & she has zero funds to contribute to a down payment or monthly mortgage payments.

 

He's allowing her to live rent free in his house, if that isn't enough, she's free to move to any other place she can find that will allow her to stay without paying anything.. I'm sure with the warmer weather coming that there will be ample bed space at a lot of homeless shelters

[soserious1]

Who says a man will live in your house ?

Just because a woman owns a house doesn't mean that is where the two of you will reside..

 

Almost every single woman I have ever dated owned her own home.

 

When I married my wife we both had homes.. me 2 of them and she had one.

We sold her house, the decision was made together that the house I was living in would become the marital home and the home in the mountains would also.

 

She took the money from the sale and put it in her own account and the understanding was it was to not be co-mingled even though the proceeds were gathered during the marriage.

 

I can't imagine what life would have been like if she had displayed the true bitterness I feel coming from you.

I also can't imagine what life would have been like with all my wood working tools sitting in her living room

 

My point being here that I would NEVER move into a home a man owned & assume that I had some sort of right to be there rent free, nor would I assume I had any sort of right to be put on the title to the property.

[soserious1]

 

 

I can't imagine what life would have been like if she had displayed the true bitterness I feel coming from you.

 

Oh I know all about that, I've met several divorced daddies over the past couple years who thought that it would be oh so swell to move in here because they could live rent free & have some extra money in their pockets after paying their child support. The bitter hissy fits that ensued after I ended those particular fantasies were quite a sight to behold .

[nofool4u]

Well, again not quite accurate.

In community property states there are three sources of funds which are universally considered separate:

 

1) Inheritance

2) money gifted to one spouse

3) money awarded in a personal injury case (but not money to compensate for lost wages)

 

4) any asset purchased with funds from one of the above will also be considered separate property.

 

I agree, but again depending on the state.

 

But I was talking about money EARNED, hence the statement "Half of any money she will make is his too, and vice versa"

 

Making money, in the context I was speaking, doesn't fall under any of the categories above.

[jwi71]

Letting somebody live here rent free is like handing them at least $1k per month. Why should I do that all the while retaining the full burden of upkeep on this place?

 

Most people have to pay a monthly rent or mortgage note, a romantic partner's fiscal woes that weren't caused by me really aren't my problem. If a guy isn't willing to consider paying some kind of monthly payment to live here ,he can continue on writing a monthly check to cover the rent or mortgage payment at his own place.

 

Ah. Thank you for the reply.

 

Well, I'll respectfully disagree. You are NOT paying him anything and you incur no loss. This is an accounting concept.

 

I think you are, at times, switching between an accounting loss ( I pay him verbiage) and an economic concept of a windfall gain. They are not the same.

 

Joe Blow costs you nothing for him to live there. Not one red cent.

Joe Blow, by virtue of living there, gets a economic (and accounting really) gain. That is, he gains cost free accommodation.

 

His gain comes at no loss to you.

 

So you are really saying that you dont want anyone to even gain off of you even though such gains are cost free to you.

 

So I guess what I really don't understand that if your relationship with Joe Blow has progressed to the point of cohabitation Why you would be against his material gain especially as you carry no cost for it. It seems the opposite of what I would expect.

 

I know. It's all academic anyway. You haven't intention of letting close, strictly pump and dump as you say. I hope that you can overcome your fears one day. Life is so much better with faith, love and trust in others (yes, to a degree. I'm a trust but verify kinda guy myself).

[soserious1]

Ah. Thank you for the reply.

 

Well, I'll respectfully disagree. You are NOT paying him anything and you incur no loss. This is an accounting concept.

 

I think you are, at times, switching between an accounting loss ( I pay him verbiage) and an economic concept of a windfall gain. They are not the same.

 

Joe Blow costs you nothing for him to live there. Not one red cent.

Joe Blow, by virtue of living there, gets a economic (and accounting really) gain. That is, he gains cost free accommodation.

 

His gain comes at no loss to you.

 

So you are really saying that you dont want anyone to even gain off of you even though such gains are cost free to you.

 

So I guess what I really don't understand that if your relationship with Joe Blow has progressed to the point of cohabitation Why you would be against his material gain especially as you carry no cost for it. It seems the opposite of what I would expect.

 

I know. It's all academic anyway. You haven't intention of letting close, strictly pump and dump as you say. I hope that you can overcome your fears one day. Life is so much better with faith, love and trust in others (yes, to a degree. I'm a trust but verify kinda guy myself).

 

Hey if " Joe Blow" balks at the idea of contributing a modest monthly payment to live here, he's free to continue to live separately, writing a check each month to his landlord or his mortgage company.

 

My days of giving "Joe Blows" "material gain" are over.

[Mme. Chaucer]

BlackJack:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mme. Chaucer

Really, I'm defending myself. I don't agree that your way is the only way, and I strongly believe that one goal of feminism was to provide opportunities for EVERYONE to make choices rather than to be bound by traditional gender roles. I have not embraced a traditional gender role in most aspects of marriage, but I could have chosen to. AS LONG AS MY PARTNER WAS CONSCIOUSLY MAKING THE COMPLEMENTARY CHOICE.

 

Thought you weren't a sexist?

 

Hm. Please show me where my supposed sexism is revealed in the part of my post you quoted. I'm sure you can't, because it's not there.

 

Quote:

Maybe I have not read every post you've made, but honestly I cannot recall EVER seeing you get reamed for not wanting to share your assets in a relationship. Or, ever seeing even a suggestion that you should "allow" a man to live with YOU rent free.

 

 

That's the problem right there. You just pick and choose what you want to hear to suit your agenda.

 

I don't know what you're talking about. If I have not read EVERY post soserious1 has ever contributed to LoveShack, it's not because I'm "picking and choosing to suit my (heh, heh) "agenda." It's because I might have missed some of them. I can't claim to read every word on this site. Can you?

 

I don't have an "agenda" here, except that I believe that all of us should be open to considering that there are different ways to live life than whichever ways we've chosen for ourselves. I guess I also have an agenda against racism, sexism, and embracing ignorance on any level.

 

Even though soserious1 and I have had a few "words," I'm pretty sure she realizes that I am usually striving towards real communication with her and not to impose any "agenda" of mine on her.

 

 

 

The only folks doing it are you and Johan. Nobody else here is harping on her. If you think everything is rent free and inheritance money is supposed to be shared then I'd advise you to stop paying your bills.

 

It's funny that you posted solely to accuse me of promoting my so-called agenda and of picking and choosing what I read (I have, in fact, read every post on THIS thread, which is my habit when I want to participate in one) when you clearly have not read my posts here.

 

I have not said that I believe "everything is rent free and inheritance money is supposed to be shared," and that is NOT what I believe.

 

What I DO believe about the topic at hand is that if people are going to be married, and plan to live the rest of their lives together, they'd be well advised to get on the same page about these things. I DO believe that it's possible to balance a relationship without needing to divide every single thing exactly down the middle. But the people involved NEED TO AGREE ON IT.

[nofool4u]

These are universal. I cannot find a state where the above is not the case. As always, seek legal counsel in your jurisdiction when one has questions regarding the law.

 

Well I'll give you an example of just how non-universal it can be. In good old socialist Illinois, a coworker here lost his leg in an accident, on the job. He got a huge settlement. His wife left him less than a year later and got half of that money too.

 

And another person I know divorced a husband who had a home already paid for before marriage, then sold it and bought a new home. She wasn't entitled to the first home, but she got half the equity in the 2nd.

 

I think you are correct about the laws, but seems that they don't mean much when fighting it in court depending on who has a better lawyer.

[soserious1]

Well I'll give you an example of just how non-universal it can be. In good old socialist Illinois, a coworker here lost his leg in an accident, on the job. He got a huge settlement. His wife left him less than a year later and got half of that money too.

 

And another person I know divorced a husband who had a home already paid for before marriage, then sold it and bought a new home. She wasn't entitled to the first home, but she got half the equity in the 2nd.

 

I think you are correct about the laws, but seems that they don't mean much when fighting it in court depending on who has a better lawyer.

 

All the more reasons to NOT get married & to simply pump and dump

It sure is a lot better than being a slave for life.

[jwi71]

Well I'll give you an example of just how non-universal it can be. In good old socialist Illinois, a coworker here lost his leg in an accident, on the job. He got a huge settlement. His wife left him less than a year later and got half of that money too.

 

And another person I know divorced a husband who had a home already paid for before marriage, then sold it and bought a new home. She wasn't entitled to the first home, but she got half the equity in the 2nd.

 

I think you are correct about the laws, but seems that they don't mean much when fighting it in court depending on who has a better lawyer.

 

Apologies as I wasn't clear. I was referring to community property states.

Illinois is not a community property state.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

[soserious1]

Well I'll give you an example of just how non-universal it can be. In good old socialist Illinois, a coworker here lost his leg in an accident, on the job. He got a huge settlement. His wife left him less than a year later and got half of that money too.

 

And another person I know divorced a husband who had a home already paid for before marriage, then sold it and bought a new home. She wasn't entitled to the first home, but she got half the equity in the 2nd.

 

I think you are correct about the laws, but seems that they don't mean much when fighting it in court depending on who has a better lawyer.

 

The high point if there was one of my divorce was getting to be here as the police supervised my ex during the packing of his clothing & personal effects & making him hand over his house keys & then escorting him off my property with stern warnings that he was court ordered to never return.

 

I wish I'd made a YouTube video of it, gold diggers like your friends would be weeping world wide.

[zengirl]

Please, I get "castigated" on a regular basis here for my unwillingness to share my assets in a relationship. Nasty things are attributed to my character, I'm regularly warned about how I'll be "undermining" a relationship if I'm not willing to fork over the bucks. I'm told what a horrible, selfish person I am for refusing to allow a man to live here rent free simply because I own the place.

 

People here are more than good at also dishing it out & I fail to see why they need you to defend them.

 

I don't think you have poor character at all. I do think the way you write about it and harp on it is very negative and needlessly confrontational and that it appears that you not only want to live your life this way but defend why it is better. In response, others will point out the downside to such a way of life.

 

SS, do you really feel you are in any way emotionally ready for a strong, committed relationship? It's not your financial views that make me feel you are not currently seeking that but your anger -- such things as saying you'd rather "pump and dump" and calling people freeloaders and so forth. When people criticize you, I believe they are responding to this anger. I know I am.

 

I understand why you are so angry. I don't think it's a good idea to live angry, and I'm glad the anger does not seep into your day-to-day life, you say, but it seems like whenever the topic of marriage and finances and sex come up, you still have some anger, from your 1st marriage. That is understandable, but we don't have to operate from that same place or feel the same anger about situations as you do.

 

Really, I'm defending myself. I don't agree that your way is the only way, and I strongly believe that one goal of feminism was to provide opportunities for EVERYONE to make choices rather than to be bound by traditional gender roles. I have not embraced a traditional gender role in most aspects of marriage, but I could have chosen to. AS LONG AS MY PARTNER WAS CONSCIOUSLY MAKING THE COMPLEMENTARY CHOICE.

 

Right. Feminism is about choices. And, really, there are many financial styles that work.

 

All you're doing is fretting because you don't like the fact that there are women out there who don't need to rely on a man's paycheck, or lack of one.

 

This seems extreme. I've never gotten the impression johan was not supportive of women working and earning paychecks. The fact that he's willing to share what he has and happened to make more (he says) than some of his partners doesn't suggest he's controlling in the least to me.

 

That sounds completely reasonable to me. If I ever get married, we'll have to have a discussion like this for sure.

 

I think there are two aspects to this discussion:

1) how do you handle day to day expenses

2) how do you protect your assets in case the relationship doesn't work out.

 

I'm pretty flexible on #1. More than you say you are.

 

As far as #2 goes, I think that's a critical discussion to have. I think the husband of the original poster didn't seem to handle things well. (That's my opinion. I don't require you to agree with me.)

 

I actually think #1 is more of a critical discussion, personally. I think they're both good conversations to have -- #2 is a bit harder to have, naturally -- but I think #1 impacts a marriage and overall finances a lot more than #2. It's like looking at safety practices and then looking at contingency plans. Personally, I think the actual safety practices are more important than the contingency plans (though you need both). Like you, I have far more leeway than SS does on #1. As does hubby. But if two people are not closely aligned on #1, then #2 is probably going to become a reality.

[Black Jack]

This seems extreme. I've never gotten the impression johan was not supportive of women working and earning paychecks. The fact that he's willing to share what he has and happened to make more (he says) than some of his partners doesn't suggest he's controlling in the least to me.

 

When one says paying bills is voluntary:laugh:, that's all there is to know about them.

[soserious1]

I don't think you have poor character at all. I do think the way you write about it and harp on it is very negative and needlessly confrontational and that it appears that you not only want to live your life this way but defend why it is better. In response, others will point out the downside to such a way of life.

 

SS, do you really feel you are in any way emotionally ready for a strong, committed relationship? It's not your financial views that make me feel you are not currently seeking that but your anger -- such things as saying you'd rather "pump and dump" and calling people freeloaders and so forth. When people criticize you, I believe they are responding to this anger. I know I am.

l

 

You raise a good point & no, truthfully I'm not interested in a so called "strong committed relationship" I've carefully weighed the potential risks & benefits of such & have concluded that the costs involved in marriage far,far,far outweigh anything I might gain.

 

I've been surprised to find that being a casual piece of arse has offered me so much more satisfaction than being a loving wife ever did, that I cannot fathom ever giving up my freedom ever again.

[Mme. Chaucer]

When one says paying bills is voluntary:laugh:, that's all there is to know about them.

 

Who said that??

[soserious1]

When one says paying bills is voluntary:laugh:, that's all there is to know about them.

 

I just want the addresses of all the great places that people are allowed to move into & live totally rent free