Husband won't put me on title for new home

[johan]

And you've made it VERY clear that if the one with the assets isn't willing to "volunteer" to fork them over that they're going to have a hard time finding relationships.

 

That's not really what I was getting at. I don't really think that's true at all. I think, like others, that your general inability to trust and listen to alternative viewpoints is going to lead to that problem. Anyone would respect your need to protect your assets, in light of what you you've supposedly been through. But how you go about it also matters.

 

And yes, I know, if some gold digging guy doesn't like your approach, he can go to hell. I got that.

[donnamaybe]

The OP of this thread isn't working, hasn't worked for 2 years & has zero money to put on a down payment for a house & no timeline in the immediate future as to when she'll be able to pay for half that down payment or ongoing monthly mortgage payment. Yet she's all butt hurt because she isn't on the title & he won't just give her half of his house.

She paid hubby's way while he went through college and now that HER hard work is paying off for him via a good job, it is HER turn to go to college. Last I looked, going to college was a LOT of work.

[Black Jack]

Frankly, I'm amazed at the number of people who will allow romantic partners to just move into their houses totally rent free, it's mind blowing to me.

 

Yea most likely whoever does that is probably not working either. Probably feeding off taxpayers money and living on Section 8.

[johan]

Good then fully stand by it, instead of trying to play both fields.

 

I fully stand by it. Not your obtuse, deliberately hostile interpretation of it. But my own. I quoted the original text for all to see, and anyone with even a quarter of a brain can see what I was trying to say.

[soserious1]

As I have said many times here on this thread and other places, I don't believe that contributing $$ is more valuable than many other contributions people make in a union.

 

He's not a freeloader, and he has to work long and hard at a job he does not love because he was not as successful and fortunate as I was in earlier life. His job also provides for our health insurance. Still, the financial stuff in this marriage are not equal; I brought and continue to put in more $$. He brings a lot more of other stuff than I do. Like hard labor on this 60 acre working farm. And if we did divorce, he would not have any equity in this home despite his ridiculous amount of work here, because I owned it before I knew him and no, his name is NOT on the title.

 

I could go a lot further explaining the ways that this particular relationship feels equitable to BOTH of us, but I really don't feel like it.

 

I just want to keep the idea alive that it is possible to have a fair give and take without dividing every single thing smack down the middle. AND, I don't care about $$ that much. AND, I still believe in love. Though I had an experience practically as bad as yours (but with the saving grace that it did not go on forever with the financial drain, as yours is. I was told that if I kept our successful and lucrative family business, I would be paying alimony to my drug addicted ex husband who had stolen many thousands from that business and from our daughter's savings for school. So I chose to walk).

 

if he's WORKING every day seriously helping to run the place then that's a different story.

 

This isn't a working farm, it's a half million dollar home located in a very desirable location. I see nothing to be gained by allowing some guy to just move in here rent free while I continue to foot the work & bills involved in keeping the place up.

[donnamaybe]

Their selfish lazy attitudes are a good indicator they're freeloaders.

 

The comments about how one doesn't love them because their partner isn't sharing all of their assets is ridiculous, when one has the elementary state of mind that paying bills and actually having a job is voluntary, and claiming that's the way to have a good relationship.

Now you and I seem to have a lot of the same POV in things, but there's no way to have an authentic discussion while twisting words and making unfounded claims about people and such. Come on, man.

[jwi71]

Frankly, I'm amazed at the number of people who will allow romantic partners to just move into their houses totally rent free, it's mind blowing to me.

 

Why would anyone not allow such if they bear no financial cost or loss and simultaneously provide a gain to a romantic partner. Is there a compelling fiduciary reason for that?

 

I must be dense as I'm not seeing it.

[Black Jack]

I fully stand by it. Not your obtuse, deliberately hostile interpretation of it. But my own. I quoted the original text for all to see, and anyone with even a quarter of a brain can see what I was trying to say.

 

You clearly said paying bills is involuntary.

 

Either way it's a teenager's state of mind against cold hard reality.

[Black Jack]

Now you and I seem to have a lot of the same POV in things, but there's no way to have an authentic discussion while twisting words and making unfounded claims about people and such. Come on, man.

 

Right and constantly calling SS bitter bitter bitter and selfish is a way to have a good discussion? Come on, woman.

[soserious1]

She paid hubby's way while he went through college and now that HER hard work is paying off for him via a good job, it is HER turn to go to college. Last I looked, going to college was a LOT of work.

 

she paid his way for 2 years, he's paid her way for 2 years and continues to pay her way.. why does he also owe her half a house he purchased with inherited money.

 

 

Going to school is also HER choice! She ought to be grateful she's not working full time to pay her share of the bills & going to school in her free time.

[donnamaybe]

Right and constantly calling SS bitter bitter bitter and selfish is a way to have a good discussion? Come on, woman.

Now I didn't say that, and I do agree with you, but call those people out on that particular issue then. But really, you are putting words in people's mouths and declaring their life as if you know them.

 

Although SS is bitter, and I'm sure she knows it. But she has every right to be. Her ex took her trust and used it against her. He's the scum of the earth. I don't wish ill on people, but he's one the world could do without. I don't even know him, but I would probably do a happy dance on her behalf if his car *oops* slid off the road and catapulted off a cliff and I found out about it somehow.

[Black Jack]

she paid his way for 2 years, he's paid her way for 2 years and continues to pay her way.. why does he also owe her half a house he purchased with inherited money.

 

 

Going to school is also HER choice! She ought to be grateful she's not working full time to pay her share of the bills & going to school in her free time.

 

But somehow he's still a selfish bitter, paranoid man who doesn't love her and never has.

 

This is what happens when you give folks a little money. They keep having their hand out expecting you to keep giving and giving, until one day you surprisingly say no and you're their worse enemy.

[Els]

if he's WORKING every day seriously helping to run the place then that's a different story.

 

This isn't a working farm, it's a half million dollar home located in a very desirable location. I see nothing to be gained by allowing some guy to just move in here rent free while I continue to foot the work & bills involved in keeping the place up.

 

So it's entirely impossible to just split bills with him, as many couples do, instead of charging him rent for the room, which is what rental agencies do? Rent does not equal bills, not unless you live in a university apartment or something. Splitting the bills is sharing an expense. Charging rent goes above and beyond that into the realm of profiting from a partner.

 

Your 'if he wasn't paying rent to me, he would be paying it to someone else' is about as valid an argument as charging a partner money to receive a blowjob, or eat a meal that you cooked, or have you take care of the kids. After all, if he wasn't paying you that, he would be paying it to the prostitute, or restaurant, or nanny, wouldn't he? Why should he get it for free?

[soserious1]

Why would anyone not allow such if they bear no financial cost or loss and simultaneously provide a gain to a romantic partner. Is there a compelling fiduciary reason for that?

 

I must be dense as I'm not seeing it.

 

This house didn't fall from the sky & upkeeping the property isn't free?

 

"Joe Blow" has to pay rent or a mortgage payment every month, why should he be feel he's entitled to gain from my assets by living here for free?

 

What exactly do I gain by assuming all the housing obligations of a landlord for a person who never pays a dime of rent?

[zengirl]

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

 

He suggested that both people in the relationship volunteered (voluntary) to pay various bills and that was healthy. I'd certainly rather be with someone who paid bills voluntarily than involuntarily. Actually, most bills ARE voluntary. We decide to pay them to live somewhere / purchase something / keep a service going / etc.

 

The thing is, if one person is ready to purchase a home or already owns a home, financially, and the other partner is not, then probably accommodations would have to be made to get the home and make it a mutual asset. If it is only one person's asset, I don't think asking the other person to pay anything towards it is really fair -- they should continue to rent in that case, together, if equality is more valued than the property, but no one should be forced to pay into a partner's assets (unless it's of their choosing, but the OP is about a situation where it was not properly discussed) where one partner benefits financially and the other does not. That seems unbalanced to me -- as unbalanced as I suppose not charging rent does to SS.

 

People can take several strategies: They can live to the "means" of the lowest-earning partner, they can live in a way that overstretches the lower-earning partner where the higher earning partner doesn't want to put in anything extra (personally, I doubt that'd last or go well without building up resentment but perhaps someone has done it), or the higher earning partner can give a little (or a lot!) extra to get a higher lifestyle than the other person could afford.

 

Theoretically, you could also marry someone who made roughly equal what you make, but it's hard to guarantee that for any length of time -- one person could have great success or great failure after the marriage.

 

Typically, what we most often see is the higher-earning partner is willing to pitch in extra and live the better lifestyle, rather than live a lower lifestyle OR make their partner feel inadequate. Certainly, if you're willing to scale down your lifestyle for a lower-earning partner, I think that could work too----or you'd better be pretty sure you have a partner with equal or greater earning power and hope nothing happens.

 

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.

 

I can certainly understand that, after what you've been through.

 

The people here who are trashing OP's husband for his considerable amount of work and the people who are currently trying to shove their freeloader view down SS's throat.

 

He inherited the money -- he didn't work for it. Both he and the OP were breadwinners at alternate times. The OP is going to school and will likely have a lucrative career after law school. No one is suggesting "freeloading" is great -- we're saying we don't see THIS as a situation with a freeloader in it.

[Black Jack]

Now I didn't say that, and I do agree with you, but call those people out on that particular issue then. But really, you are putting words in people's mouths and declaring their life as if you know them.

 

I never said you said it, I was referring to the others and I have called them out on it, but there's so much you can do when they're so persistent that their elementary view of relationships and money is the right way.

 

Although SS is bitter, and I'm sure she knows it. But she has every right to be. Her ex took her trust and used it against her. He's the scum of the earth. I don't wish ill on people, but he's one the world could do without. I don't even know him, but I would probably do a happy dance on her behalf if his car *oops* slid off the road and catapulted off a cliff and I found out about it somehow.

 

Right.

[donnamaybe]

she paid his way for 2 years, he's paid her way for 2 years and continues to pay her way.. why does he also owe her half a house he purchased with inherited money.

I didn't say he owed her half a house.

 

Going to school is also HER choice! She ought to be grateful she's not working full time to pay her share of the bills & going to school in her free time.

And going to school was HIS choice when SHE was paying all the bills. He's lucky he wasn't going to school AND working full time to pay his share of the bills when she was taking care of him.

 

Look, it's about loving the one you're with. I get that he doesn't want to give half his inheritence away. It would be nice, though, if he made SOME kind of way that she could gain some kind of equity of her own if he intends that she share in the financial upkeep, the property tax, the insurance, etc. of that house. Papers could be drawn up whereby he keeps fully what he put into that house, and they could then share a percentage of the appreciation - a percentage they agree upon. Of course his percentage would be greater - that's a no brainer.

[soserious1]

So it's entirely impossible to just split bills with him, as many couples do, instead of charging him rent for the room, which is what rental agencies do? Rent does not equal bills, not unless you live in a university apartment or something. Splitting the bills is sharing an expense. Charging rent goes above and beyond that into the realm of profiting from a partner.

 

Your 'if he wasn't paying rent to me, he would be paying it to someone else' is about as valid an argument as charging a partner money to receive a blowjob, or eat a meal that you cooked, or have you take care of the kids. After all, if he wasn't paying you that, he would be paying it to the prostitute, or restaurant, or nanny, wouldn't he? Why should he get it for free?

 

What you are saying is that I'm like a trick or a prostitute's customer, I must let a man live here totally rent free because after all he's slipping me his sausage occasionally.

 

Sorry but no, if a man isn't willing to make a modest monthly payment to live here, he''s more than welcome to continue staying in his own place, writing that monthly rent or mortgage check.

[Mme. Chaucer]

if he's WORKING every day seriously helping to run the place then that's a different story.

 

Well, he's working every day at his hard and unfulfilling blue collar job every day, and when he's not doing that, he is working hard here.

 

This isn't a working farm, it's a half million dollar home located in a very desirable location. I see nothing to be gained by allowing some guy to just move in here rent free while I continue to foot the work & bills involved in keeping the place up.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that you ought to do that.

 

Where this is stemming from, though, is the accusation that the OP is some kind of freeloading golddigger because she wishes to be on the title.

 

There is a lot to her situation that we don't know, obviously, but the point I KEEP trying to make is that I truly do not believe that everything has to be split 50/50 or else somebody's getting screwed.

 

In her story, she worked and brought more money in than he did.

 

Now she is in school.

 

I don't think it's off base to conjecture that her school might well be in service of bringing even MORE assets to the FAMILY in the future (as opposed to just herself).

 

Marriages are not static. The roles people play in their marriages are often not static as well.

 

As I said, my mom supported my dad through his med school and while he was a low paid intern / resident. She (a nurse) worked in his office as he established his practice. Then she never worked another day.

 

If they posted here on LoveShack, one of them would be trashed as a freeloader, depending completely upon which one posted during what phase of their lives

 

People can work things out in all different ways.

[donnamaybe]

But somehow he's still a selfish bitter, paranoid man who doesn't love her and never has.

I don't believe the OP ever said that or even hinted at it. You REALLY want her to be a demon for some reason. I wonder why...

[Mme. Chaucer]

I fully stand by it. Not your obtuse, deliberately hostile interpretation of it. But my own. I quoted the original text for all to see, and anyone with even a quarter of a brain can see what I was trying to say.

 

I honestly don't think he's even reading what people he already deems as "feminist" or as a supporter of "feminists" is saying, or else he can't understand normal English.

 

Ironic that he continues to accuse folks of twisting things to suit an "agenda."

[donnamaybe]

This house didn't fall from the sky & upkeeping the property isn't free?

 

"Joe Blow" has to pay rent or a mortgage payment every month, why should he be feel he's entitled to gain from my assets by living here for free?

 

What exactly do I gain by assuming all the housing obligations of a landlord for a person who never pays a dime of rent?

You share in the upkeep 50/50. That's not rent. That's sharing the financial responsibilities of life.

[Black Jack]

He suggested that both people in the relationship volunteered (voluntary) to pay various bills and that was healthy. I'd certainly rather be with someone who paid bills voluntarily than involuntarily. Actually, most bills ARE voluntary. We decide to pay them to live somewhere / purchase something / keep a service going / etc.

 

You're arguing semantics.

 

You know darn well that almost nobody wants a bum, and if you don't want to be a bum then you have to go out there and get a job to take care of yourself, and buy the things you want.

 

Now if one wants to be homeless then they sure can don't have to pay for anything, or work for anything.

 

The thing is, if one person is ready to purchase a home or already owns a home, financially, and the other partner is not, then probably accommodations would have to be made to get the home and make it a mutual asset.

 

Based on what law? The house is in his name and he had a right to do it. If she wants to invest in something else when she gets her job then she has a right to.

 

If it is only one person's asset, I don't think asking the other person to pay anything towards it is really fair -- they should continue to rent in that case, together, if equality is more valued than the property, but no one should be forced to pay into a partner's assets (unless it's of their choosing, but the OP is about a situation where it was not properly discussed) where one partner benefits financially and the other does not. That seems unbalanced to me -- as unbalanced as I suppose not charging rent does to SS.

 

You're right, it really isn't fair especially when the spouse who's working is being criticized for their outstanding efforts.

 

No way would I let a freeloader live with me.

 

People can take several strategies: They can live to the "means" of the lowest-earning partner, they can live in a way that overstretches the lower-earning partner where the higher earning partner doesn't want to put in anything extra (personally, I doubt that'd last or go well without building up resentment but perhaps someone has done it), or the higher earning partner can give a little (or a lot!) extra to get a higher lifestyle than the other person could afford.

 

Theoretically, you could also marry someone who made roughly equal what you make, but it's hard to guarantee that for any length of time -- one person could have great success or great failure after the marriage.

 

Typically, what we most often see is the higher-earning partner is willing to pitch in extra and live the better lifestyle, rather than live a lower lifestyle OR make their partner feel inadequate. Certainly, if you're willing to scale down your lifestyle for a lower-earning partner, I think that could work too----or you'd better be pretty sure you have a partner with equal or greater earning power and hope nothing happens.

 

While that's nice on paper, she decided to not pursue one of those options and why? Because she wants his money only.

 

He inherited the money -- he didn't work for it. Both he and the OP were breadwinners at alternate times. The OP is going to school and will likely have a lucrative career after law school. No one is suggesting "freeloading" is great -- we're saying we don't see THIS as a situation with a freeloader in it.

 

Here we go again.

 

It's still HIS MONEY.

[soserious1]

You share in the upkeep 50/50. That's not rent. That's sharing the financial responsibilities of life.

 

Actually I'm more comfy with the idea that he keeps his own place & keeps on writing those monthly rent or mortgage checks for it.

[Black Jack]

I don't believe the OP ever said that or even hinted at it. You REALLY want her to be a demon for some reason. I wonder why...

 

Demon her? Nah. Pointing out what these other posters said about OP's husband? True.