Husband won't put me on title for new home

[Lauriebell82]

Isnt curious that its always a woman who complains that she doesnt get to be entitled to a portion of her man's money?

 

Its never the other way around. You dont hear a man complaining that a woman isnt buying him this or that or she isnt sharing her financial possession with him.

 

Personally I think my husband would be upset if I bought a house with inheritance money and refused to put his name on the deed. He'd be upset if I refused to share inheritance money with him also. We see marriage as an equal partnership in which our assests are shared and everything is equal among us.

 

OP and her husband do not see eye to eye on this issue. This thread could JUST as easily be posted by a man IMO.

[donnamaybe]

Isnt curious that its always a woman who complains that she doesnt get to be entitled to a portion of her man's money?

 

Its never the other way around. You dont hear a man complaining that a woman isnt buying him this or that or she isnt sharing her financial possession with him.

Actually, in the case of soserious1, her ex took her for nearly everything she had AND she is paying the louse in excess of two grand a month in spousal maintenance after he cheated on her!

 

So, yeah. There ARE "men" who feel they are entitled to someone else's money.

[g450]

And if she doesn't?

 

She already told me she would. I trust what she told me.

 

If it turns out otherwise then I will need to reevaluate our relationship. The big issue is not really her. I have no problem supporting just her.

 

It's her youngest Son I am concerned with. His father has yet to make a single CSP and he genuinly does not give a sh** about his own Son. It's been almost six months post divorce for her and the TX AG has yet to do anything against him AFAIK. I told her to call the AG and find out what's going on.

 

If neither of them are going to contribute to his bills then I will have a major issue with that. She already knows this.

[Funsize]

It really doesn't matter if your name is on the deed or not, You were married when he purchased the house so you are entitled to half regardless.

 

Its a listed asset, regardless of the inheritance or not. (Unless the house is in a protected trust?)

 

But maybe you need to consider the fact he was just trying to protect himself against the worst case scenario. It really doesn't seem fair to castrate him over it. Just make sure you keep documented evidence of purchase price, Bank balances, tax returns. That kind of detail to protect yourself as he is.

[zengirl]

She's not complaining that she wants his inheritance--she wants to feel that they are in a partnership, and equal partners in their marital home. If he wants to keep his inheritance separate, fine; he should invest it in some other way, or if he is dead-set on real estate, invest in a rental. When she graduates law school and is making money again, they can work together to buy their home. There is a distinction between married life in one partner's sole property, and married life in a shared home, which is an investment for both of them. Just because some posters deem it an unimportant distinction, doesn't indicate that others who see more significance in it should be castigated or reproached.

 

This is the distinction for me and well-said. I don't necessarily think there's something wrong with maintaining an inheritance separately in a trust but it seems inherently wrong to make the marital home "your home" rather than "our home" and ownership matters in that.

[donnamaybe]

To be fair, I assumed muse's post was referring to some women in general, not soserious specifically.

Muse made it out to be like only WOMEN are the ones bitching about wanting other people's money. Not true, as in the case of SS1. And I know of others IRL.

[carhill]

Can you at a later date go back and put someone's name on a title deed to house?

 

Yes, it is possible, and, here in Cali, is accomplished through a grant deed. Generally, though, in community property states, customarily a married person buying property as 'John Doe, a married man, as his sole and separate property' will also record, or cause to be recorded, a quit claim deed from 'Jane Doe', relinquishing right to title in said property. This shows agreement amongst the parties that this piece of property is John Doe's, solely. Combined with financial records which show the source of funds for purchase as well as expenses/maintenance to be John Doe's alone, like an inheritance, as well as a pre-nuptial agreement in support of and/or a living/irrevocable trust pertinent to, such methods preserve the intents and purposes of the parties. The key is 'parties', in that the process is entirely arm's length, disclosed, in proper legal written form and agreed to by both spouses. It can be complex, which is why estate planning and real estate attorneys exist.

 

My D included a bunch of aspects, as I had S&S properties during the M, in addition to being a trustee and inheriting during the divorce process, hence having to spend money on lawyers and court time to keep everything sorted properly, the costs of which were funded by sole and separate property, meaning moneys other than earned during the M.

 

Marriage is a lot of things, with this thread being a great example of the business and financial part. As society has changed and evolved, so has the business of marriage.

[Mme. Chaucer]

She already told me she would. I trust what she told me.

 

If it turns out otherwise then I will need to reevaluate our relationship. The big issue is not really her. I have no problem supporting just her.

 

It's her youngest Son I am concerned with. His father has yet to make a single CSP and he genuinly does not give a sh** about his own Son. It's been almost six months post divorce for her and the TX AG has yet to do anything against him AFAIK. I told her to call the AG and find out what's going on.

 

If neither of them are going to contribute to his bills then I will have a major issue with that. She already knows this.

 

Off topic, but:

 

It concerns me that you are about to embark in a marriage with a woman who has children who evidently lack a father figure, but you have strong boundaries about how the kids' needs are HER problem, or his bio dad's.

 

This is probably going to have a terrible effect on the kid.

 

And the woman is only 6 months out from divorce? Has the dust even begun to settle yet?

 

I don't think people ought to marry others who have dependent children living in the home unless they are willing and ready to take on the family, not just the man or woman.

 

Just my opinion.

[g450]

Off topic, but:

 

It concerns me that you are about to embark in a marriage with a woman who has children who evidently lack a father figure, but you have strong boundaries about how the kids' needs are HER problem, or his bio dad's.

 

This is probably going to have a terrible effect on the kid.

 

And the woman is only 6 months out from divorce? Has the dust even begun to settle yet?

 

I don't think people ought to marry others who have dependent children living in the home unless they are willing and ready to take on the family, not just the man or woman.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Oh but he does have a father figure...me. You are making assumptions in that regard. I am the closest thing to a father figure that he has seen in years. And he is living with me right now.

 

My beef is that I dont think it would be fair for me to fork the bill 100% to feed and cloth etc his and her Son. He is not my child after all. I want at least one of them to contribute to their Son's cost on me. Preferabley him!

 

If you cant understand the logic and logistics behind that then I dont know what else to tell you.

 

Let me put it this way. Had it not been for me, the kid would not have had a Christmas last year. Neither his mother or his loser dad could afford what he wanted for Christmas so I stepped up to the plate and took care of him.

 

And I guarantee you that me not being involved with him like I am now, would defenitely "have a terrible effect on the kid" (as you put it) because his mother is unreliable with money and employment and his father doesnt give a rat's a$$ about him at all. At least I actually care.

 

For lack of being humble, Fact is that as far as the kid and his mother are concerned, I am a godsend for both of them. You have absolutely no idea.

 

And as far as her divorce being six months old, that is irrelavent. They have been separated for 5 years while he cheated on her and lived with another woman that entire time. Prior to her going back to her H I asked her to divorce him with a free legal aid lawyer. Her pro-bono Lawyer dropped her because she dragged her heels on the divorce for over six months. She did this because she really did not want to divorce him so she lied to me about that.

 

So then she went back to him and he cheated on her again within 2 weeks. I actually knew that would happen. She came back to me and realized what a mistake she made so I told her I would pay for her divorce, which I did. Unlike my XW, I believe in 2nd chances.

 

Four months ago I proposed to her and she accepted. She is a good woman but her priorities were all screwed up. Otherwise I would have proposed a lot sooner. She is 100% into our marriage now as am I. And I guarantee you her kid will never starve while with me.

 

But I will digress as this subject is OT here and I have my own situation under control so a separate thread is not required. Just wanted to put in my two cents here.

[johan]

I assume she married him to feel like an equal, respected, cherished member of a loving partnership. She's finding out that he loves her, sort of, and she isn't trusted or respected. She resents that, probably because it isn't what he led her to believe. She's just finding out what he really thinks now.

 

That's probably the definition of a great marriage for a bitter guy that likes to see scary, mean women put in their place. It would be great to lure a woman into a marriage only to turn the tables and become her landlord. Then do a wicked laugh and show her where she sleeps: in the unfinished basement.

[maybealone]

Since I don't have kids, I am curious about how the parents here feel. If you worked hard for your money and then died, leaving your money to your child, what would you want them to do with their money? Would you want them to share it with their spouse, knowing that if something happened between them, your child would lose out on the money you left them?

 

Personally, I agree with the other posters that suggested that he do something with the money other than purchase the home. For example, he could have set up a retirement account for himself and then they could purchase a home when they could afford to do it together.

 

But as far as keeping the inheritance separate, I don't really blame him. I remember when I was buying a home, my parents said that if I needed help that they would help as long as my husband and I were willing to sign an agreement that if anything happened between us the house would go to me. Fortunately I did not need their help, but I can see their point -- it would have been their hard-earned money and their goal is to look out for me, not him. And the OP's husband should look out for her by making sure his will is updated the day of the closing to leave the house to her should anything happen to him.

[zengirl]

So may we assume you married him for his wealth?

 

A particularly odd assumption for a woman who earned 87K a year, supported him for two years, and is currently in law school, presumably to make another large salary when she gets out.

[Els]

From the sounds of things there's no mortgage, all the OP would be expected to help pay for would be utilities & food. Property taxes, insurance, etc would be all on her husband.If I were him I'd come up with a figure to charge the OP as her rent, after all if she wasn't living there she'd have to live somewhere & she would be paying rent.

 

You would charge your HUSBAND rent to live in your house???

 

Uhhh.. right. And people wonder why marriages don't work out.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Originally Posted by soserious1

From the sounds of things there's no mortgage, all the OP would be expected to help pay for would be utilities & food. Property taxes, insurance, etc would be all on her husband.If I were him I'd come up with a figure to charge the OP as her rent, after all if she wasn't living there she'd have to live somewhere & she would be paying rent.

 

soserious, with respect, I would like to tell you that your perspective about marriage is completely skewed because of your own experience (or experiences; I believe you have been married twice?)

 

A successful marriage is not based on a power struggle or a constant, angry accounting to make sure that everything is exactly equal, or else somebody's getting screwed. It just is not.

 

The person bringing the money into a family is not necessarily the person contributing the most of what makes that family.

 

You seem to constantly elevate and want to protect "breadwinners." I get where you are coming from, but a person in that position, including yourself in your marriage, has chosen it. If it does not work out, that person has sacrificed money. There are many other sacrifices that can be made. And there are many other aspects of a successful partnership. Not all of them require that both partners put money in the pot.

 

Disclaimer: I am not championing any kind of traditional roles here.

[frozensprouts]

Originally Posted by soserious1

 

 

soserious, with respect, I would like to tell you that your perspective about marriage is completely skewed because of your own experience (or experiences; I believe you have been married twice?)

 

A successful marriage is not based on a power struggle or a constant, angry accounting to make sure that everything is exactly equal, or else somebody's getting screwed. It just is not.

 

The person bringing the money into a family is not necessarily the person contributing the most of what makes that family.

 

You seem to constantly elevate and want to protect "breadwinners." I get where you are coming from, but a person in that position, including yourself in your marriage, has chosen it. If it does not work out, that person has sacrificed money. There are many other sacrifices that can be made. And there are many other aspects of a successful partnership. Not all of them require that both partners put money in the pot.

 

Disclaimer: I am not championing any kind of traditional roles here.

 

 

each marriage is different, and each couple has to figure out what works for them.

when my mom and dad were "newlyweds", my mom had just graduated from nursing school, and she went to work full time ( 70 hrs a week)to support him while he was in school getting his masters ( which they considered his "full time job"). When he graduated, she stopped working and he began working full time as a prof. at a university, and financially supported the family.

There was no accounting of "mine vs. yours", things were simply "ours". When we were older and could be on our own, she went back to work, and when he wanted to go for his doctorate, she increased her work to help with paying for that. Their opinion was that he was going to school to help the family.

[Lauriebell82]

When we were older and could be on our own, she went back to work, and when he wanted to go for his doctorate, she increased her work to help with paying for that. Their opinion was that he was going to school to help the family.

 

That's a good point, OP IS going to school to help the family financially. I don't think she is trying to deliberately spounge off of her husband's money. After I have our son, I am going to go back to work part time so that I can be home with him, my husband will be the primary breadwinner and he doesn't mind at all. It works out because we are both doing something to help our family grow and thrive.

 

Unfortunately it doesn't appear that OP's husband feels this way about marital finances. Which is a shame, since she does. I have to wonder what the plans are for when they have children...

[zengirl]

That's a good point, OP IS going to school to help the family financially. I don't think she is trying to deliberately spounge off of her husband's money. After I have our son, I am going to go back to work part time so that I can be home with him, my husband will be the primary breadwinner and he doesn't mind at all. It works out because we are both doing something to help our family grow and thrive.

 

Unfortunately it doesn't appear that OP's husband feels this way about marital finances. Which is a shame, since she does. I have to wonder what the plans are for when they have children...

 

I believe the OP has said they cannot/will not have children. I suppose a lot of people would find that a reason to keep finances separate, but I don't really get that. My parents never "had" children (I already existed and simply came with my Mom---I suppose my stepfather could've been sure she supported me 100% if he'd wanted, but instead he wanted to contribute to my life in a variety of ways, including financially) and I don't plan to. There are still a lot of sacrifices one can make in a marriage that don't revolve around children.

 

There is a VERY good chance I will sacrifice in my career at some point for hubby. We both know and realize this, because he has a very specific thing he wants to do that he's not doing at present and that would mean a move to the West coast. Now, with my skills and education (I'll have the PhD by then) I can probably find a job, whether teaching or in nonprofits, related to my field just about anywhere, but it won't necessarily be as high-status as the one I currently have or as good as the opportunities I'd have here, where I have greater connections and my skills are more rare. Also, while we'll probably move when he has a job, I'll have to wait to find one there---the gap will bother me for sure (I love working) but it will be worth it if he gets to do what he wants.

 

I would NEVER make that sacrifice if we had separate finances; too much risk. We would be stuck here, in stasis, forever, and honestly, we'd probably divorce as hubby would be restless and frustrated with not being able to follow his dreams. A marriage is a partnership, not a contest.

[carhill]

He particulary wanted this house because it cuts down on my 1.5 hour commute to school, now making it 1 hour and it increases his commute to work from 1 hour to 1.5 hours.

 

So, H has not only paid for the house, he has increased his commute to the job which provides community funds for the family as well as reduced the OP's commute to her schooling. While frugal, using his wife's description as fact, I'm not seeing selfish here.

[zengirl]

So, H has not only paid for the house, he has increased his commute to the job which provides community funds for the family as well as reduced the OP's commute to her schooling. While frugal, using his wife's description as fact, I'm not seeing selfish here.

 

I'm not really seeing selfish either. I would question whether he was controlling or not. But only the OP would know.

[Els]

So, H has not only paid for the house, he has increased his commute to the job which provides community funds for the family as well as reduced the OP's commute to her schooling. While frugal, using his wife's description as fact, I'm not seeing selfish here.

 

Yep, agreed.

[carhill]

She says the marriage has been otherwise great and neglects to mention that any changes occurred, inferring that H has always been 'frugal', which generally results from FOO origins. He's continuing in the family tradition, one which she was likely well aware of during their courtship and engagement. She knew his father before he died so had clear knowledge and impression of how things went. To my eyes, without further information, no surprises were foisted upon her. She went in with her eyes wide open. That's her responsibility. If he is indeed controlling, that's his responsibility.

[zengirl]

She says the marriage has been otherwise great and neglects to mention that any changes occurred, inferring that H has always been 'frugal', which generally results from FOO origins. He's continuing in the family tradition, one which she was likely well aware of during their courtship and engagement. She knew his father before he died so had clear knowledge and impression of how things went. To my eyes, without further information, no surprises were foisted upon her. She went in with her eyes wide open. That's her responsibility. If he is indeed controlling, that's his responsibility.

 

Oh, true. And I don't think either of them are 'wrong' or bad people. I just wanted to clarify that I never saw him, not for a minute, as particularly selfish. It seems he's very afraid of losing any sort of control over his finances however.

 

I don't think it sounds particularly surprising either. I do think she's entitled to feel and express dissonance over this particular event and that if she feels she cannot express her dissonance to him, that's unfortunate. Whether he puts her on the title or not, he should respect her feelings of frustration over the matter.

[carhill]

So, what would be a good compromise? A living trust with W as beneficiary? A life insurance policy with H as insured and W as beneficiary? Something which inspires confidence that he is indeed looking out for her safety and security? Suggestions? I'd probably do a trust or annuity, respectful of any pre-nuptial contracts extant.

 

OP, if you're still reading, do you and H have a will or estate planning vehicle in place?

 

What I'm doing is imagining my wife came at me with such a proposal (which she in fact did) that she buy a house and title it in her name only. What middle ground could we seek that respects both party's perspectives? I know how our situation turned out, but the OP says they have an otherwise 'great' marriage, far different from what our situation was. What could work for them?

[zengirl]

So, what would be a good compromise?

 

I'm not sure. I think that his being open to buying a home with her in future (when she can provide a share) and renting this home out and/or selling it for further investment or whatever may be good or allowing her to "buy in" somehow (I'm not sure if that could really be done with the inheritance money still remaining separate). Frankly, from the original OP, I think she'd be happy with just a discussion, depending on what was said.

 

A living trust with W as beneficiary? A life insurance policy with H as insured and W as beneficiary? Something which inspires confidence that he is indeed looking out for her safety and security? Suggestions? I'd probably do a trust or annuity, respectful of any pre-nuptial contracts extant.

 

All good ideas, too.

 

I think the issue that more had me think he was controlling (and I simply mean with money---which is different than being frugal but does not make one a bad person or partner necessarily) was that he seems unwilling to discuss joining their finances in any way, ever, based on her description. Not simply that he kept a particular inheritance separate.

 

Hopefully OP hasn't come back because they've worked out the dissonance and moved along!

[carhill]

I think that his being open to buying a home with her in future (when she can provide a share) and renting this home out and/or selling it for further investment or whatever may be good or allowing her to "buy in" somehow (I'm not sure if that could really be done with the inheritance money still remaining separate).

 

Here's something with traction. Great suggestion regarding the latter. Put the 'inheritance' home into a land trust/LLC and apportion 'shares' after buying a new home with marital property. W/H wouldn't actually 'own' the home itself but rather a share of the entity which does, and the trust/LLC could be set up to respect the wishes of the parties as well as become a vehicle for future investments (in other assets) after W's education concludes and she begins contributing financially to their marriage. Win-win. H could still will/encumber/control his original portion. I think I'll run this strategy by my lawyer. Thanks