Husband won't put me on title for new home

[soserious1]

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

 

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

 

Name one nice place where you can live totally free of the obligation to pay a mortgage or rent?

[soserious1]

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.

 

I get loud & clear that you don't feel the bread winner's contribution is worth a squat compared with the noble sacrifices of the stay at home spouse.

 

 

Yeah, I "chose" to be the breadwinner .. but funny how when I unselected that role the courts require me to continue forking over money.

 

The money isn't important at all eh? From where I sit it appears it's quite important ..

[nofool4u]

I’ve been married for four years. My husband is in the process of purchasing a home; scheduled to close in 11 days. He did not and will not put my name on title. We picked out the house together, but when it was time to do all of the paperwork, my husband excluded me.

 

My husband is using his separate money to pay cash for the home. My father-in-law passed away last year and left my husband a large sum of money, with which a large portion is being used to pay cash for the home. I am not contributing (financially) to the purchase of the home; I am a student and my only income is a student loan.

 

I realize that this is my husband’s money; he received it at a high price; the loss of his father, and even though I’ll live in the house, I feel as if I am being slighted because my husband refuses to put my name on the title. My husband has always kept our finances separate. Whenever I have mentioned getting joint bank accounts, he always promises “one day we will get a joint account”. I feel that, with him not putting me on title, is just another way for him to keep things separate.

 

The home will be for me and my husband. We don’t have children, and due to medical reasons, we will not have children. I feel resentment toward my husband and the house. I do not plan on going to the inspection on Wednesday or to the closing at the end of the month? Am I wrong for feeling this way?

 

No, you are not wrong, he THINKS he is protecting himself in the event you two are no longer together.

 

If thats the case, how wrong he could be. Doesn't matter if your name is on the title or not if something happened in the future.

 

It was bought WHILE you were married. Doesn't matter where the money came from or when. Once he purchases something while he is married to you, it becomes half yours.

 

Keeping things out of the wife's name to keep her from getting it in a divorce is a myth.

 

Marital assets are marital assets, name on a document or not.

[nofool4u]

Even though it may be emotionally upsetting, it's financially prudent for him to keep his finances isolated.

 

I can assure you, it will be a futile endeavor on his part if they divorce and she lays claim. Again, marital assets are marital assets. One spouse doesn't get to try to hide money or keep it away from the other. The law won't allow it.

[nofool4u]

So may we assume you married him for his wealth?

 

Did you read her story? At the beginning she was making 87K a year and he was making nothing.

[soserious1]

I can assure you, it will be a futile endeavor on his part if they divorce and she lays claim. Again, marital assets are marital assets. One spouse doesn't get to try to hide money or keep it away from the other. The law won't allow it.

 

There are special laws covering inherited money, if you don't put funds you inherited into joint accounts then it isn't considered automatically to be the property of both spouses.

[soserious1]

Did you read her story? At the beginning she was making 87K a year and he was making nothing.

 

and he's repaid her in kind by supporting her for the past 2 years & counting.

[Diamonds&Rust]

I can assure you, it will be a futile endeavor on his part if they divorce and she lays claim. Again, marital assets are marital assets. One spouse doesn't get to try to hide money or keep it away from the other. The law won't allow it.

I'm not sure you're correct. The house was bought with an inheritance, which is typically excluded from divorce settlements.

 

Of course, a lawyer would be a better person to ask.

[Black Jack]

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

 

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

 

They don't work out because the spouse who's working their ass off got tired of the gold-digger's bitchy complaints.

 

I did the same thing OP's husband did with my ex-wife. She wanted to cheat and I already had contingency plans in place to protect myself and as I predicted, she tried to take me to the cleaners but she failed.

 

Most women think they're so entitled to a man's fruits of labor when half of them sit on their asses all day picking their manicured toes, watching their feminist misandrist daytime gossip shows about how men are peeping toms and disgusting. And the other half who DO have their own jobs they STILL want to spend their man's money.

 

But low and behold when the man has employment and financial issues and he asks HER for a few hundred dollars? She looks at him as if he's an insect she's about to step on.

 

Just want to wrap their sharp claws around the man's throat and suck him for all he's worth until he can't breathe, then when they get good and ready, they're onto their next victim to maul and cuckold.

 

Point blank if it's his money he has every right to spend it how he sees fit, including the house he has. That doesn't mean he's gearing up to divorce you or doesn't love you. I don't think he would go through all that paper work of buying a brand new home for the two of you just so he could dump you.

[Black Jack]

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.

 

Earned. Past tense. And to add on to that he's supported her for two years and some.

 

The fact remains it's his inheritance money unless he puts it in join account.

[soserious1]

Just want to add here that just because I support the idea of a person holding separate & sole title to a home they purchased with inherited family money doesn't mean that i support the idea of leaving the other spouse unprotected.

 

When I was married, I drew up a will that stated if I passed away first my husband would be allowed to continue on living in my home until he passed away, at that time the house would be added to my estate & passed to my adult children & grandchildren. I also had insurance policies with him named as sole beneficiary, in addition to my 401K funds which would have passed it him in their entirety.

[Forever Learning]

I’ve been married for four years. My husband is in the process of purchasing a home; scheduled to close in 11 days. He did not and will not put my name on title. We picked out the house together, but when it was time to do all of the paperwork, my husband excluded me.

 

My husband is using his separate money to pay cash for the home. My father-in-law passed away last year and left my husband a large sum of money, with which a large portion is being used to pay cash for the home. I am not contributing (financially) to the purchase of the home; I am a student and my only income is a student loan.

 

I realize that this is my husband’s money; he received it at a high price; the loss of his father, and even though I’ll live in the house, I feel as if I am being slighted because my husband refuses to put my name on the title. My husband has always kept our finances separate. Whenever I have mentioned getting joint bank accounts, he always promises “one day we will get a joint account”. I feel that, with him not putting me on title, is just another way for him to keep things separate.

 

The home will be for me and my husband. We don’t have children, and due to medical reasons, we will not have children. I feel resentment toward my husband and the house. I do not plan on going to the inspection on Wednesday or to the closing at the end of the month? Am I wrong for feeling this way?

 

Hi Nessienu! I have only read your original post, and not the rest of the thread. Therefore, here are my 2 cents on what you wrote.

 

You asked, are you wrong for feeling resentful about him not putting you on the title of the house. No, you are not wrong for feeling this way.

 

Not according to the VERY famous "Money" guy, - Dave Ramsey, anyway.

 

He is the famous here in the USA anyway, especially Texas. I bet you've heard of him over in Arizona where you live. Many Christian churches across the USA have his programs now, "Financial Peace University" ( I am only giving you a history of who he is here, before I make additional comments). His big claim to fame is, people will feel less stress, and more inner peace, if they get themselves out of debt.

 

He has a daily, 2 hour AM radio show too, that teaches people how to get out of debt, pay off their credit cards, and save their money. He writes books too, one that comes to mind it the New York Times best seller, "The Total Money Makeover".

 

Interestingly enough, he now and then gives personal and marriage advice, along with money advice.

 

I heard him say something on the radio that I think relates to your situation.

 

Dave Ramsey said that once married people SHOULD have joint bank accounts.

 

He said money, and major purchases, should ALWAYS be openly discussed, budgeted, planned, spent wisely, but SHARED. Your money is his money. His money is your money. Same for paying off debts. You are a team. Your work together. You communicate, you discuss.

 

This, of course, is all going on the premise that everyone is honest, forthright, and has integrity in all things in the marriage. If someone is planning on eventually getting out of the marriage, they are less likely to follow these rules.

 

Dave Ramsey is a Christian based money guy. He advocates honesty in the marriage, and integrity. And that is the foundation for his money strategies. Honesty, cooperation, and both people working together. Not one spouse being good, while the other is a slacker/user/liar/ whatever. Both spouses doing the right thing, together, honestly, and with integrity.

 

Therefore, your husband not putting your name on the house title, is fishy, and dishonest, within the framework of the marriage. You guys are supposed to be a team, working together.

 

 

But apparently that is not the way your husband views it.

 

 

I wonder why.

 

 

So YES, you have a right to feel RESENTFUL. You are being SCREWED OVER.

 

This is what you need to get to the bottom of, in your marriage. You may need a marriage counselor to do so, a 3rd party to help you guys communicate about these type issues, if you can't get to the bottom of it on your own with talking with him.

 

I can tell you a little about Texas. It's a community property state.

 

BUT, money received from an inheritance, remains the spouse who inherited it (your husband).

 

UNLESS HE "CO-MINGLES" IT.

 

What does co-mingle mean? It means, puts it somewhere that's not separate from you. LIKE A JOINT BANK ACCOUNT.

 

In FACT, if he EVEN WRITES ONE, SINGLE CHECK FOR THAT HOUSE TO PAY FOR THE MORTGAGE FOR EVEN ONE MONTH'S PAYMENT, out of a JOINT BANK ACCOUNT, under Texas law, that house IS NO LONGER SEPARATE PROPERTY. It's now community property, and half yours.

 

Get it?

 

That's why he can't put you on that bank account, or on the house title.

 

Your husband is obviously well versed on the property and divorce laws in Arizona.

 

I wonder why.

 

 

Could he be thinking the marriage may eventually end in divorce, and want to protect himself and his assets?

 

Read up on the property laws and divorce laws in Arizona, and explore marriage counseling if you feel your marriage could benefit from such.

 

All the best to you.

Edited March 18, 2012 by Forever Learning

[soserious1]

Forever Learning,

 

Many couples have his,hers & ours bank accounts. I did as well & took great pains to make sure that every expense from upkeep to water, insurance & property taxes came from my sole account. Any money my ex-husband had in his sole account was placed there by me as he earned nothing during the years we were married.

 

This house was purchased with money I inherited and when I pass away it will go to the people I gave birth to & my grandchildren.

 

I understand it bothers many people that my ex-husband wasn't able to successfully challenge me on this, it bothered him greatly that he wasn't able to force me out into a cheap rooming house just so he could get his hands on half the profits from selling this place.

 

I got to keep my house & will make every effort to protect myself & my assets going forward, if a prospective partner doesn't like that, they can ease on down the road!

[carhill]

Point blank if it's his money he has every right to spend it how he sees fit, including the house he has. That doesn't mean he's gearing up to divorce you or doesn't love you. I don't think he would go through all that paper work of buying a brand new home for the two of you just so he could dump you.

 

That's an interesting point as, in this market, he'd be far better served financially lending the same money as private hard capital, collecting interest and keeping the asset liquid and clearly separate. Instead, he buys a home for he and his wife closer to her schooling and further from his work, creating an illiquid and potentially transmuted asset in the process. He might want to re-examine his priorities

 

Or continue being a loving husband....

[soserious1]

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.

 

Mme. Chaucer, after reading this post of yours again I feel compelled to also point out that the person giving the money may well have made a lot of sacrifices in order to do that.

 

Do you think I never cleaned? Do you think I never cooked a meal for my ex, never washed a pair of his crap streaked underwear? Do you seriously think I never gave up a leisure activity, something I'd much rather be doing than working in order to pay all of my ex's bills?

 

So no, I didn't lose "just money" I lost time, a huge chunk of my life that I will never get back! I'll also never recoup the monies lost, in fact the ongoing alimony I MUST pay ensures that will never happen.

 

I look around me now & note that I have to clean my own home, my ex-husband hasn't been court ordered to do it it, nor to cook or to do laundry, the only person who's been ordered to do anything under the threat of being placed in jail is me.. I fork over half of all my pension, money market accts & pay that monthly alimony in full and on time or I go to jail, directly to jail & risk having everything I own seized & sold. Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide from an obligation that won't even end upon my death as I'm also court ordered to provide insurance that will pay the alimony if I die before my ex does.

 

In the end, what I gave in the marriage didn't matter, what I lost & my ex's cruel behaviors including his infidelity didn't matter. All that mattered to the court was the money & making sure that my ex got half of every last red cent. So from where I sit the money is the ONLY thing that matters & going forward I will take every step possible to prevent myself from ending up in another mess like this one. I will also advise every person I can to take steps to protect themselves as well.

Edited March 18, 2012 by soserious1

[johan]

They don't work out because the spouse who's working their ass off got tired of the gold-digger's bitchy complaints.

 

I did the same thing OP's husband did with my ex-wife. She wanted to cheat and I already had contingency plans in place to protect myself and as I predicted, she tried to take me to the cleaners but she failed.

 

Most women think they're so entitled to a man's fruits of labor when half of them sit on their asses all day picking their manicured toes, watching their feminist misandrist daytime gossip shows about how men are peeping toms and disgusting. And the other half who DO have their own jobs they STILL want to spend their man's money.

 

But low and behold when the man has employment and financial issues and he asks HER for a few hundred dollars? She looks at him as if he's an insect she's about to step on.

 

Just want to wrap their sharp claws around the man's throat and suck him for all he's worth until he can't breathe, then when they get good and ready, they're onto their next victim to maul and cuckold.

 

Point blank if it's his money he has every right to spend it how he sees fit, including the house he has. That doesn't mean he's gearing up to divorce you or doesn't love you. I don't think he would go through all that paper work of buying a brand new home for the two of you just so he could dump you.

 

That seems like a charicature to me. I'm sure there are some dastardly women in the world, just like there are men. The majority of married women love their lives and their husbands and aren't scheming to get rich off the relationship.

 

The bottom line here is that he is buying a house that they are going to live in, but isn't theirs. She doesn't feel respected or included or trusted, and those are all the foundations of a good relationship. When she sleeps it will be in his house, not their home. When she cooks, it will be in his kitchen, not theirs. If she breaks something, it will be something of his. She'll live there feeling like a guest. A guest in his house and a guest in his life.

[soserious1]

That seems like a charicature to me. I'm sure there are some dastardly women in the world, just like there are men. The majority of married women love their lives and their husbands and aren't scheming to get rich off the relationship.

 

The bottom line here is that he is buying a house that they are going to live in, but isn't theirs. She doesn't feel respected or included or trusted, and those are all the foundations of a good relationship. When she sleeps it will be in his house, not their home. When she cooks, it will be in his kitchen, not theirs. If she breaks something, it will be something of his. She'll live there feeling like a guest. A guest in his house and a guest in his life.

 

Sorry but 50% of marriages end in divorce, that's a pretty hefty number, too big for any sensible person to ignore. and again, so sorry but "prove that you love me by handing over 50% of the rights to your house" doesn't cut it anymore for a lot of people.

Edited March 18, 2012 by soserious1

[Black Jack]

That seems like a caricature to me. I'm sure there are some dastardly women in the world, just like there are men.

 

Agreed.

 

The majority of married women love their lives and their husbands and aren't scheming to get rich off the relationship.

 

And how many of them are saying they love their husbands because they have joint accounts?

 

Most of those women disguise their greed by saying they like to be protected by "security."

 

The bottom line here is that he is buying a house that they are going to live in, but isn't theirs.

 

Again nothing wrong with that. He's obviously buying it because he loves the woman.

 

She doesn't feel respected or included or trusted,

 

No. She's only making it seem that way because he won't let her within a foot of his large sum of money that was passed down by his blood relatives. She never said anything about him abusing her in any way, talking down to her, or whatever. If he didn't respect her, trust her, or included her, he would not be married to her, much less be in a relationship with her. And to say the man doesn't trust or love her speaks volumes about her intentions.

 

and those are all the foundations of a good relationship.

 

Sorry there's nowhere in the law or in marital vows where a man must share his inheritance money with his wife to prove he undoubtedly loves her.

 

Nothing wrong with looking out for oneself and making alternatives in case the future of their marriage becomes bleak in the next 3 to 10 years (if it ever makes it to that point).

 

When she sleeps it will be in his house, not their home. When she cooks, it will be in his kitchen, not theirs. If she breaks something, it will be something of his. She'll live there feeling like a guest. A guest in his house and a guest in his life.

 

Anything he brings into the marriage is automatically hers too, except for his inheritance money (unless he puts it in a joint account) so it's not like he's leaving her hung out to dry. The man has been supporting her for 2 years and counting, while she gets her education. That's not someone who isn't there for her. I'm sure she has absolutely no problem in spending the money he gives to her on a regular basis. I'm willing to bet that if he was still unemployed by now, she would be "resenting him" for not having a decent job because he doesn't have any money she could spend on herself. She says the marriage is good overall, so evidently it's not a problem per se on his part.

 

If I were him and she continued to make the inheritance money a bigger issue than what it really is, I would seriously reconsider being married to her. No way will I be with someone who's going to harp on me because I won't let her touch money of mine she doesn't have a right to, and that she didn't even earn herself. If I'm working hard and supporting both of us with my check, and buying a new home so that both of us can live in it, my love for her should not even be questioned in the matter she is doing now.

[frozensprouts]

i am absolutely no good when it comes to to the legalities of finance, but what if the husband bought the house for them to live in, and she starts to earn and income, the house could be sold and the fund put into something else in his name , with his wife and/or children to inherit it should something happen him.

 

Or , if the house has already been paid for in full, it could be rented out, and the profits banked for the future education of their children ( if they have any) or for something else they agree on. Or the house could remain in his name, but unless he is solely responsible for the renting of and property maintenance , they would both be responsible so both should benefit.

then, they could purchase a new home together that they would both own.

[soserious1]

i am absolutely no good when it comes to to the legalities of finance, but what if the husband bought the house for them to live in, and she starts to earn and income, the house could be sold and the fund put into something else in his name , with his wife and/or children to inherit it should something happen him.

 

Or , if the house has already been paid for in full, it could be rented out, and the profits banked for the future education of their children ( if they have any) or for something else they agree on. Or the house could remain in his name, but unless he is solely responsible for the renting of and property maintenance , they would both be responsible so both should benefit.

then, they could purchase a new home together that they would both own.

 

Or maybe she could suck it up, live in the house & be grateful that none of her earnings need be spent on making mortgage payments?

[johan]

Or maybe she could suck it up, live in the house & be grateful that none of her earnings need be spent on making mortgage payments?

 

You know, not everyone has been through what you have. It could be that what you've resolved to do in your life isn't what everyone else wants. I'm sure in your eyes that makes them all naive or dumb, but also seeing the other person's point of view isn't a half bad skill to have if your like relationships of any kind, let alone marriages.

[soserious1]

You know, not everyone has been through what you have. It could be that what you've resolved to do in your life isn't what everyone else wants. I'm sure in your eyes that makes them all naive or dumb, but also seeing the other person's point of view isn't a half bad skill to have if your like relationships of any kind, let alone marriages.

 

Sorry but the facts are clear 50% of marriages are going to end up right where mine did, divorced & fighting it out in court.

 

And yes, it's clear the OP wants half of a house she didn't pay for to be put into her name but it's equally obvious that her husband isn't interested in giving it to her & I say good for him!

[johan]

Doesn't that mean that 50% of marriages don't end in divorce? And you want them all to be operated as if divorce is right around the corner. I think it's right to be smart with your money. But if you want to treat your spouse like the enemy and who is someone not to be trusted or included, then don't get married.

 

If I felt like you do, I know I woudn't?

[soserious1]

Doesn't that mean that 50% of marriages don't end in divorce? And you want them all to be operated as if divorce is right around the corner. I think it's right to be smart with your money. But if you want to treat your spouse like the enemy and who is someone not to be trusted or included, then don't get married.

 

If I felt like you do, I know I woudn't?

 

Nobody has the right to feel "included" by demanding that another person fork over half a house to them in order to prove their love!

[johan]

Nobody has the right to feel "included" by demanding that another person fork over half a house to them in order to prove their love!

 

I'm not in favor of that. But where to live and how to acquire the house is a decision the couple should make. Not the one with the money.

 

The original poster wouldn't have felt the need to start the thread if the proper communication and collaboration had occurred with her husband. That's how it happens in a relationship. That's what should happen in a marriage.

 

Maybe they could decide together that the right thing to do is to put his inheritance into the house. Or maybe they could decide together that a home they both feel they have a stake in is more important, and his inheritance should be invested into something else.

 

And either way those assets must remain in the family, and she's welcome to take part as long as she's in the family. If those discussions had taken place, then she wouldn't have felt a need to come here.

 

I didn't get the impression she was lamenting the fact that she would lose out on half of what she didn't earn if there was a divorce. Only that she was being treated as a minority partner in the marriage, just because she can't bring equal financial assets to the table. I think she had a point.