Husband won't put me on title for new home

[Black Jack]

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.

 

Then why bring up the inheritance if that's not the issue.

[Black Jack]

Well what words were used, please enlighten.

 

You know exactly what you meant.

[nofool4u]

You know exactly what you meant.

 

No, I don't. And apparently you can't elaborate.

 

First off were you talking about the OP, or the friend I know and her situation?

 

Either way I eluded to nothing of the sort that either one of these women want to clean their husband out.

 

OP never said any such thing, and the woman in my real life example didn't want a thing from her husband when she had told him she had enough of him reminding her that everything is his and she owns nothing.

 

She simply wanted to leave him, it was his assumption that she would try to go for his nuts that scared him. She just wanted someone that didn't look down upon her.

 

So again, please elaborate. If you can't, don't waste my time.

[nofool4u]

Then why bring up the inheritance if that's not the issue.

 

Ever hear of the straw that broke the camel's back?

[Black Jack]

No, I don't. And apparently you can't elaborate.

 

First off were you talking about the OP, or the friend I know and her situation?

 

Either way I eluded to nothing of the sort that either one of these women want to clean their husband out.

 

OP never said any such thing, and the woman in my real life example didn't want a thing from her husband when she had told him she had enough of him reminding her that everything is his and she owns nothing.

 

She simply wanted to leave him, it was his assumption that she would try to go for his nuts that scared him. She just wanted someone that didn't look down upon her.

 

So again, please elaborate. If you can't, don't waste my time.

 

You don't even have an argument to stand on so this whole "pleas elaborate" thing is moot. The fact remains it's his money.

 

If a woman who was the only breadwinner in the marriage, making $100,000 a year talking about how broke her husband is trying to go after her large sum of inheritance, lord have mercy it would be tons of messages from the feminists saying how she needs to divorce his broke ass or have an affair with her powerful boss.

 

If a man works hard he's criticized as being overly selfish, and he deserved to be cheated on and/or cleaned out. If he's sitting at home he's a boring, no-ambition man that deserves to be cheated on and/or divorced.

[Black Jack]

Ever hear of the straw that broke the camel's back?

 

Nice try but that doesn't answer the question.

[soserious1]

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.

 

A post-nuptial agreement that states both parties will retain their pensions, 401k funds in event of a divorce along with language that spells out exactly what shared living costs the couple will split 50/50 would go a long way towards protecting each spouse.

 

 

I've got friends that use post-nups

 

She owns their primary residence lock stock and barrel, he owns their vacation/retirement home.

 

Each spouse owns their own cars & retain sole responsibility for payments, insurance & upkeep.

 

They each retain sole ownership of their respective retirement funds.

 

They have a list of mutually agreed upon household expenses that are divided up 50/50.

 

They've set it up so that each & every big ticket item in the house is owned by one spouse ie: she purchased the sofa, he purchased the big TV. -In the event of a split ownership is clear

 

They decide on health insurance based on which spouse's employer offers the most bang for the buck- they split the cost of the premium payments.

 

 

They have mutually agreed upon expenses that they share.. any other money that either of them makes belongs to the person who earned it.

Edited March 23, 2012 by soserious1

[nofool4u]

You don't even have an argument to stand on so this whole "pleas elaborate" thing is moot.

 

Uh, you are the one that said I insinuated someone wanted to clean out the husband. I said no such thing, and neither woman, depending to which story you are referring, wanted to clean out the husband. Show me where I said that, show me where OP said that, then we'll talk.

 

If a man works hard he's criticized as being overly selfish, and he deserved to be cheated on and/or cleaned out

 

Nobody said anything of the sort, and you can't indicate otherwise. You just pulled that out of your ass because you are a misogynist who thinks all women are out to get you.

[nofool4u]

Nice try but that doesn't answer the question.

 

If you could comprehend, you'd see that it does. The point of bringing it up is that it is just one more thing that the husband is doing that indicates he has no respect for her. Just like you thinking women just want to clean out the husband.

 

It wasn't true in this person's thread, but you like to say things that aren't happening.

[nofool4u]

A post-nuptial agreement that states both parties will retain their pensions, 401k funds in event of a divorce along with language that spells out exactly what shared living costs the couple will split 50/50 would go a long way towards protecting each spouse.

 

I agree, but in order for that to be equitable to the wife in this situation that isn't going to have a primary residence of her own to build equity on, then the husband needs to allow her to put whatever money of hers, when she is done with school, into her own investments without him laying claim to it.

 

And really, he shouldn't have any problem with that since he is wanting to keep assets from her. Its only fair, right?

[soserious1]

I agree, but in order for that to be equitable to the wife in this situation that isn't going to have a primary residence of her own to build equity on, then the husband needs to allow her to put whatever money of hers, when she is done with school, into her own investments without him laying claim to it.

 

And really, he shouldn't have any problem with that since he is wanting to keep assets from her. Its only fair, right?

 

After she's paid 50% of their basic, shared living expenses, she's free to do whatever she wants with the rest of her earnings.

[Black Jack]

Uh, you are the one that said I insinuated someone wanted to clean out the husband. I said no such thing, and neither woman, depending to which story you are referring, wanted to clean out the husband. Show me where I said that, show me where OP said that, then we'll talk.

 

All your posts here says it.

 

Nobody said anything of the sort, and you can't indicate otherwise. You just pulled that out of your ass because you are a misogynist who thinks all women are out to get you.

 

And you put women on a high pedestal.

[Black Jack]

If you could comprehend, you'd see that it does.

 

If you had a strong argument that wasn't based on your bias in favor of women, you'd see that it doesn't.

 

The point of bringing it up is that it is just one more thing that the husband is doing that indicates he has no respect for her. Just like you thinking women just want to clean out the husband.

 

It wasn't true in this person's thread, but you like to say things that aren't happening.

 

Yea keep deflecting as always.

 

Sorry but pulling statements out of your own arse such as "He's getting ready to divorce her" and other assumptions because you hold women on a golden platter is flawed.

[nofool4u]

After she's paid 50% of their basic, shared living expenses, she's free to do whatever she wants with the rest of her earnings.

 

Sure, as long as those living expenses have nothing to do with investment or upkeep on the house. She buys nothing for the house if this is the way he is going to be about it.

[nofool4u]

All your posts here says it.

 

 

 

And you put women on a high pedestal.

 

Can't back up your statement. Thats what I thought.

[nofool4u]

Sorry but pulling statements out of your own arse such as "He's getting ready to divorce her" and other assumptions because you hold women on a golden platter is flawed.

 

Again, I never said any such thing. Keep trying to put things out that aren't there.

[oldguy]

I haven't read the thread but I'm guessing you either do not live in the U.S. or you live in one of the few states that the marriage license doesn't automatically attach you.

[soserious1]

Sure, as long as those living expenses have nothing to do with investment or upkeep on the house. She buys nothing for the house if this is the way he is going to be about it.

 

I don't feel she should have to pay property taxes or insurance on his property but have to ask you a question here. Please name a place aside from a skid row shelter where you can live totally rent free?

[johan]

I don't feel she should have to pay property taxes or insurance on his property but have to ask you a question here. Please name a place aside from a skid row shelter where you can live totally rent free?

 

I have a question for you: Would your perfect mate be an ATM?

[soserious1]

I have a question for you: Would your perfect mate be an ATM?

 

I have a question for you, if i have to pay my "perfect mate" with gifts of cash & free housing wouldn't the correct name for my mate be "prostitute"?

 

Sorry but unless you're a dependent minor child, nobody rides for free on my back anymore around here.

[nofool4u]

I don't feel she should have to pay property taxes or insurance on his property but have to ask you a question here. Please name a place aside from a skid row shelter where you can live totally rent free?

 

Doesn't matter, a primary residence is the main place most people build equity. If he is going to exclude her from that, then she need not put any money into taxes, insurance, anything. And if she does, then it can be seen that she maintains the property and she is then entitled.

 

But my suggestion would be to not put a dime into the house if he is going to exclude her, and, like you said, after they pay for basic necessities, food, etc, then she should be able to put every bit into her own investments.

 

The "rent free", as well as her being able to invest for herself, is the trade off he should accept once he seeks to exclude her.

 

Again, OP needs to have this drafted by an attorney. Would be nice to here an update from her.

[johan]

I have a question for you, if i have to pay my "perfect mate" with gifts of cash & free housing wouldn't the correct name for my mate be "prostitute"?

 

Sorry but unless you're a dependent minor child, nobody rides for free on my back anymore around here.

 

Maybe your mate is a valuable person to have around in their own right. Someone you love and care for and so you aren't always interested in making sure perfect fairness to the penny is maintained.

 

You seem mostly joyless and loveless to me. It seems your answer to my question was "yes." To you, people ultimately equate to money.

[carhill]

Sure, as long as those living expenses have nothing to do with investment or upkeep on the house. She buys nothing for the house if this is the way he is going to be about it.

Under Cali's equitable distribution statutes, that's how it worked out for us. I maintained the separate property solely and, where exW made choices to materially 'improve' it, I compensated her for said improvements, including calculated appreciation, as part and parcel of the MSA, and relieved her of any responsibility for community debts, which include debts initiated on separate property post-marriage in California. So, she got the community house for 'free' (didn't have to pay me anything), plus a cash settlement. I think she's still buying those lottery tickets and I did hear her BF got a good job. Things are looking up. I was a useful tool. My success was getting hooked up with a great lawyer who's made me some good money and learning a lot about Cali's divorce and pre-nuptial statutes. Win-win.

 

Sorry but unless you're a dependent minor child, nobody rides for free on my back anymore around here.

 

I respect that perspective. Good on ya.

[soserious1]

Maybe your mate is a valuable person to have around in their own right. Someone you love and care for and so you aren't always interested in making sure perfect fairness to the penny is maintained.

 

You seem mostly joyless and loveless to me. It seems your answer to my question was "yes." To you, people ultimately equate to money.

 

No, what I seek to avoid is those people who'd have no qualms about using me for my money & there's no shortage of them.

[soserious1]

Doesn't matter, a primary residence is the main place most people build equity. If he is going to exclude her from that, then she need not put any money into taxes, insurance, anything. And if she does, then it can be seen that she maintains the property and she is then entitled.

 

But my suggestion would be to not put a dime into the house if he is going to exclude her, and, like you said, after they pay for basic necessities, food, etc, then she should be able to put every bit into her own investments.

 

The "rent free", as well as her being able to invest for herself, is the trade off he should accept once he seeks to exclude her.

 

Again, OP needs to have this drafted by an attorney. Would be nice to here an update from her.

 

 

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.