Husband won't put me on title for new home

[stillafool]

I can't believe in 9 pages the OP has only responded 4 times.

[soserious1]

Sorry, guess I read it wrong

 

 

 

 

 

 

You mean try to shield marital assets from his wife? He wasn't thinking about covering bases when she was the only income and he made nothing. Perhaps he needs to pay her back for supporting him the first part of their marriage then huh? I mean if he has this what's mine is mine mentality.

 

He has been "paying her back" she supported him for 2 years, he's supported her for 2 years and continues to support her ongoing while she is in school.

[anne1707]

I can't believe in 9 pages the OP has only responded 4 times.

 

Based on the fact that several posters here have accused her of basically being a heartless golddigger and that instead she should be an eternally grateful obedient little wife to her husband, it is not really surprising at all.

[Black Jack]

I wonder why people get married to someone they don't trust. If one is worried because of the divorce statistics, then isn't it better to not marry at all and not risk it?

 

It has nothing to do with trust.

 

It's called thinking ahead and anticipating the future. Not every couple stays together until they die. Hell just look at the divorce rate today. People can barely make it a year with each other.

 

So the OP's husband inherited money. Why bother to buy a house for them to live in when he can invest it elsewhere? Why stress his W?

Why stress his wife???

 

How is she in any type of stress? She gets to stay home for FREE with a fixed school schedule, while he's working his butt off.

 

After all, it is only natural that spouses share income as well as debt. these are the things that cause unnecessary resentments and make spouses question the state of the M.

That's selfishness. Just because millions of married couples before OP and her H shared their assets and liabilities doesn't mean it's wrong for him to use the logical side of his brain and think ahead and protect himself.

 

The W is studying law? Surely she can figure out how to win in an ugly divorce whether the house is in her names or not. All it requires is for her to live in it and it becomes her marital home.

Oh so now we're advocating that she use her law training and find some loophole in the system to clean him out of money he rightfully owned, eh?

 

No inheritance law in the world will deprive a woman of a share of her marital home. If her H's intention is to make sure she doesn't get a hold of his inheritance, then he is plain wrong.

Not to be rude but this type of feminist thinking, is why many men today are so scared at the idea of getting married or divorcing their long-term wife.

 

OP, go attend the closing. The fact that you made the decision together and will live in that house is enough to give you part ownership. Your main problem is understanding what your H is thinking. If he has a good reason (which I can't for the life of me imagine), then go with it. If not, you need to re-evaluate your choices.

He has a good reason: It's HIS MONEY.

[Black Jack]

I'd like to know what states those are then. Because the laws are set up so that one spouse can't hide assets acquired during marriage, or seek to keep it from the other

 

I think Georgia (?) is one of them. I don't know all of them but I'm sure every state isn't like that.

 

Uh, ya, that was my point.

 

Okay.

[nofool4u]

He has been "paying her back" she supported him for 2 years, he's supported her for 2 years and continues to support her ongoing while she is in school.

 

And thats all fine. But Gumby's assertion was that we were to assume she married him for his wealth. The question was, what wealth?

 

But again, now there is this notion that he gets to "cover his bases". Marital assets are marital assets. Doesn't matter whose name its in, or how bad a spouse tries to hide it or keep the other's name off.

[Black Jack]

Sorry, guess I read it wrong You mean try to shield marital assets from his wife?

 

It's not a marital asset! It's his money!

 

He wasn't thinking about covering bases when she was the only income and he made nothing.

 

Yea he's going to protect himself when at the time he had nothing of value.

 

Perhaps he needs to pay her back for supporting him the first part of their marriage then huh? I mean if he has this what's mine is mine mentality.

 

She said he's been supporting her for the last 2 years.

 

And counting.

[nofool4u]

It's not a marital asset! It's his money!

 

Not if he acquired it WHILE they were married.

 

 

 

Yea he's going to protect himself when at the time he had nothing of value.

 

Uh, of course. That was the point. The sarcasm eluded you. Point was, he didn't have an income when they married. He has an income now, she doesn't, but will again after school. But how does he repay her acceptance that he didn't have his own income when they got married? By thinking he can cut her out of what she is entitled?

 

If he wants to play these games, then he shouldn't be married in the first place.

 

He clearly doesn't respect his wife to be trying to keep her name off things, as if he anticipates they will divorce later.

 

And guess what, lets say that it was his money BEFORE they married. Lets just put that out as a scenario knowing it isn't the case. Once he purchases something of value with money he had before marriage, guess what, and I know you don't like it, but it is NOW marital property.

 

Trust me, thats the way it works. My attorney told me that, and a woman I know that went through a divorce this happened to as well. It matters what is accumulated DURING divorce, regardless of source or when the monies for the purchase/acquisition occurred.

 

So lets say he inherited money before they got married. The smart move for him would be to keep it as money, not purchase anything. Then she wouldn't be entitled to any of it. But he acquired it during marriage. Now there may be some gray areas in certain states with this, but if he takes inheritance money and purchase a home, then he just effed up.

Edited March 19, 2012 by nofool4u

[johan]

I personally think the house is an asset people should expect to split in case of divorce. If he didn't want her to get part of the inheritance, he shouldn't have put it into the house.

[Black Jack]

Not if he acquired it WHILE they were married.

 

It's not a marital asset if it's inheritance from his father.

 

Uh, of course. That was the point. The sarcasm eluded you. Point was, he didn't have an income when they married.

 

So what? That's nothing new.

 

He has an income now, she doesn't, but will again after school. But how does he repay her acceptance that he didn't have his own income when they got married? By thinking he can cut her out of what she is entitled?

 

She's not entitled to any of the money that was passed down by his relatives and beside that, he has already "repaid" her by supporting her education so she can get back on her feet, and counting. That's obviously someone who cares enough for her to put her on his back.

 

If he wants to play these games, then he shouldn't be married in the first place.

 

Oh wow, so it's a game because he wishes not to share every little thing with her that falls in his hands.

 

Next it's gonna be he's a selfish bastard because he chose not to share his damn plate of food.

 

He clearly doesn't respect his wife to be trying to keep her name off things, as if he anticipates they will divorce later.

 

You know, if my woman were talking like you, she'd be thrown out immediately. No way will I listen to that type of disrespect when I'm the one putting food on the table and working hard so she can go to school and get her own job. That's crazy. I'd find someone who actually appreciates my efforts and what I do instead of trying to get their hands on my money.

 

And guess what, lets say that it was his money BEFORE they married. Lets just put that out as a scenario knowing it isn't the case. Once he purchases something of value with money he had before marriage, guess what, and I know you don't like it, but it is NOW marital property.

 

Trust me, thats the way it works. My attorney told me that, and a woman I know that went through a divorce this happened to as well. It matters what is accumulated DURING divorce, regardless of source or when the monies for the purchase/acquisition occurred.

 

So lets say he inherited money before they got married. The smart move for him would be to keep it as money, not purchase anything. Then she wouldn't be entitled to any of it. But he acquired it during marriage. Sorry.

 

Doesn't matter. It's his money and he's entitled to spend it as he sees fit.

[Mme. Chaucer]

From the things I read on this site it's pretty clear that most here view the bread winning spouse with utter contempt. Our role appears to be limited to forking over the $, hurrying home to clean, cook & do laundry, all the while apologizing on our hands and knees for daring to earn a living.

 

From where I sit, there is ZERO benefit in being the breadwinner in a marriage, not a single benefit.

 

In my first marriage, I worked like a maniac at my own startup business and my husband could / would / did / not get a job. He was a house - husband and dad for a while. My business ended up growing so successful that he came to work there and actually contributed a lot. It was NOT what I'd wanted or envisioned, but that's the way it played out.

 

I considered myself the "breadwinning spouse."

 

In my current marriage, my husband has a job and works hard at it, but I have a house and assets that far exceed his. I share.

 

I just wanted to let you know where I really am coming from, which is NOT a place of "contempt" for a "breadwinning spouse."

 

I understand what you went through and I have compassion and sympathy for you because of that. I went through a terrible devastation and complete loss of my house and business in my divorce, though I don't have to pay alimony.

 

My sympathy does not make your bitterness and negativity about the possibility of partnership between spouses palatable to me. I think it's sad and offensive.

 

Couples and other family groups are capable of working out ways that each persons' strengths, abilities and preferences can be used to enhance the family unit. If it's always a power struggle with clear cut "winners" and "losers," as relationships appear to be in your world, it's clearly not working. But it CAN work.

[soserious1]

In my first marriage, I worked like a maniac at my own startup business and my husband could / would / did / not get a job. He was a house - husband and dad for a while. My business ended up growing so successful that he came to work there and actually contributed a lot. It was NOT what I'd wanted or envisioned, but that's the way it played out.

 

I considered myself the "breadwinning spouse."

 

In my current marriage, my husband has a job and works hard at it, but I have a house and assets that far exceed his. I share.

 

I just wanted to let you know where I really am coming from, which is NOT a place of "contempt" for a "breadwinning spouse."

 

I understand what you went through and I have compassion and sympathy for you because of that. I went through a terrible devastation and complete loss of my house and business in my divorce, though I don't have to pay alimony.

 

My sympathy does not make your bitterness and negativity about the possibility of partnership between spouses palatable to me. I think it's sad and offensive.

 

Couples and other family groups are capable of working out ways that each persons' strengths, abilities and preferences can be used to enhance the family unit. If it's always a power struggle with clear cut "winners" and "losers," as relationships appear to be in your world, it's clearly not working. But it CAN work.

 

The world is not a nice place, there are most assuredly "winners" and "losers" in relationships & the courts have a not so nice way of enforcing that status on couples who end up divorcing.

 

People learn from their experiences, there is no way in hell that I could be considered anything but "a loser" in the way my marriage played out, I'm kicked in the face with my "loser" status monthly when I write that big, fat alimony check.

 

Why would I decide to open myself to having this happen to me ever again? More importantly, given a 50% divorce rate why would I endorse another person leaving themselves open to huge fiscal losses due to a marriage?

[beenburned]

Nofool4u,

 

You are confusing the 2 terms.

 

Inheritances are considered separate property unless they are deposited into a joint account.(it doesn't matter whether you are married or not)

 

Marital assets are assets acquired/earned during a marriage, which are subject to equal division upon divorce. Inheritances are NOT a marital asset unless the person that gets the money decides to share it with their spouse.

 

If I inherit money while married, I don't have to share it, even if I divorce them.

This is the law in my state. Other states may have different laws governing inheritances.

[Mme. Chaucer]

 

Why would I decide to open myself to having this happen to me ever again? More importantly, given a 50% divorce rate why would I endorse another person leaving themselves open to huge fiscal losses due to a marriage?

 

I'm not suggesting that you should do either of these things. But you seem very miserable. Someone who can be open to receive and to give love without fear and bitterness is probably going to have a more fulfilling life than one who is not.

 

I've never tried to suggest you live your life any differently than you've chosen to, but I think it looks like a sad path for anyone to follow on purpose.

[soserious1]

I'm not suggesting that you should do either of these things. But you seem very miserable. Someone who can be open to receive and to give love without fear and bitterness is probably going to have a more fulfilling life than one who is not.

 

I've never tried to suggest you live your life any differently than you've chosen to, but I think it looks like a sad path for anyone to follow on purpose.

 

 

 

My "path" has been made crystal clear to me by the divorce court judge,get out there & earn the money to continue to meet your marital obligations... or go to jail.

 

There will be no such thing as opening myself "to receive and to give love without fear and bitterness" not while I'm still chained to my marital fiscal obligations. I just cannot afford another mistake, the next husband I have to pay could land me in jail.

 

The one comfort I take from all of this is knowing that if my situation causes even one person to stop and think before blindly getting married without a prenup then some good has come out of all of this.

Edited March 20, 2012 by soserious1

[Black Jack]

I'm not suggesting that you should do either of these things. But you seem very miserable. Someone who can be open to receive and to give love without fear and bitterness is probably going to have a more fulfilling life than one who is not.

 

I've never tried to suggest you live your life any differently than you've chosen to, but I think it looks like a sad path for anyone to follow on purpose.

 

Just because she chooses not to adhere to your point of view doesn't mean she is bitter. That's just being ignorant of someone else's feelings.

[findingnemo]

It has nothing to do with trust.

 

It's called thinking ahead and anticipating the future. Not every couple stays together until they die. Hell just look at the divorce rate today. People can barely make it a year with each other.

 

That's my point. If he is concerned about the divorce rate, why get married at all? Who says people have to get married to be together? If divorce was his concern, then he lied when he took his vows. Thinking ahead my foot.

 

Why stress his wife???

 

How is she in any type of stress? She gets to stay home for FREE with a fixed school schedule, while he's working his butt off.

 

The OP could live at campus or get an apartment and live alone. After all, she needs to concentrate on school. Is she begging for accommodation? Is she homeless? The stress comes from the H creating an unnecessary trust issue. If he doesn't trust her, he has shown it to her. He didn't need to do that and should have found a better way to stash the cash.

 

That's selfishness. Just because millions of married couples before OP and her H shared their assets and liabilities doesn't mean it's wrong for him to use the logical side of his brain and think ahead and protect himself.

 

I have no problem with people who think most Ms end in divorce. I just think if that's one's logic, then take it all the way. Don't get married. You'll have 100% protection. But oh no, the H wants to have his cake and eat it too. Have a traditional M without the traditional ties.

 

Oh so now we're advocating that she use her law training and find some loophole in the system to clean him out of money he rightfully owned, eh?

 

I don't need to advocate for it. It's a given. In a few years, she'll be a lawyer. If as her H thinks divorce is in the cards, buying that house and living in it as a marital home is dumb. She will spend plenty of time ensuring that she can prove some form of contribution be it repairs, furniture, whatever.

 

Not to be rude but this type of feminist thinking, is why many men today are so scared at the idea of getting married or divorcing their long-term wife.

 

He has a good reason: It's HIS MONEY.

 

You're not being rude. You're being honest about what you think about feminists. I personally believe that every human being should fight for their rights - whether man or woman.

 

It is his money...but he's being dumb by not putting it in a trust. Perhaps he plans to will it to her. Who knows?

 

This idea that inheritance isn't part of community property is true. However, it doesn't negate the laws in place regarding the marital home. There are assets and then there are assets. If his inheritance is invested in stocks, then they are protected. She makes zero contribution as a W. When it comes to the house, there's a big problem. Should they not divorce until say 10 years of M, then her lawyer will argue that the W has a reasonable expectation to live in a home of the same calibre.

 

When a single man who owns a house gets married, he doesn't have to put his W's name on the title. Every single time, that home is either given to the W or it is sold and the proceeds shared. Even when a millionaire gets married with a pre-nup, there is no way he can get away without giving his W a home in a divorce settlement.

 

This is not feminist rhetoric, it's the law to which all people who marry legally subject themselves. So again I wonder, if one is so afraid that their assets will be taken by a "gold digger", why get married?

[Mme. Chaucer]

Just because she chooses not to adhere to your point of view doesn't mean she is bitter. That's just being ignorant of someone else's feelings.

 

I am fine with her not "adhering" to my point of view, and as I said, I sympathize with her feelings.

 

My point with soserious1 is that her perspective is not universally applicable to everyone. No ones is, including mine. And I do believe she is bitter.

[Black Jack]

That's my point. If he is concerned about the divorce rate, why get married at all? Who says people have to get married to be together? If divorce was his concern, then he lied when he took his vows. Thinking ahead my foot.

 

I never said HE was concerned about the divorce rate. I was speaking in general terms but I wouldn't be surprised if he felt the same way I do.

 

Him not sharing his inheritance money doesn't mean he somehow lied about his vows. That money was passed down from his father before he died. It's his and his alone.

 

The OP could live at campus or get an apartment and live alone. After all, she needs to concentrate on school. Is she begging for accommodation? Is she homeless? The stress comes from the H creating an unnecessary trust issue. If he doesn't trust her, he has shown it to her. He didn't need to do that and should have found a better way to stash the cash.

 

She has no stress. She's not even working.

 

I have no problem with people who think most Ms end in divorce. I just think if that's one's logic, then take it all the way. Don't get married. You'll have 100% protection. But oh no, the H wants to have his cake and eat it too. Have a traditional M without the traditional ties.

 

Have his cake and eat it too? You make it seem as if he's a cheating husband. Being married does not mean you have to share every darn thing with your partner, as long as it isn't going against the vows you made to that partner.

 

I don't need to advocate for it. It's a given. In a few years, she'll be a lawyer.

 

Okay? Good for her.

If as her H thinks divorce is in the cards, buying that house and living in it as a marital home is dumb. She will spend plenty of time ensuring that she can prove some form of contribution be it repairs, furniture, whatever.

 

Sure she'll get something if a divorce ever comes, but money received from his father she will not touch.

 

But if she does decides to get dirty and find some loophole in the system to take money she didn't deserve, then it just further validates his "paranoia" for trying to protect himself financially.

 

You're not being rude. You're being honest about what you think about feminists. I personally believe that every human being should fight for their rights - whether man or woman.

 

It is his money...but he's being dumb by not putting it in a trust. Perhaps he plans to will it to her. Who knows?

 

True.

 

This idea that inheritance isn't part of community property is true. However, it doesn't negate the laws in place regarding the marital home. There are assets and then there are assets. If his inheritance is invested in stocks, then they are protected. She makes zero contribution as a W. When it comes to the house, there's a big problem. Should they not divorce until say 10 years of M, then her lawyer will argue that the W has a reasonable expectation to live in a home of the same calibre.

 

Nobody is denying that if they divorce she will get some money out of it. That is divorce law. But as far as inheritance is concerned, she can't touch it.

 

When a single man who owns a house gets married, he doesn't have to put his W's name on the title. Every single time, that home is either given to the W or it is sold and the proceeds shared. Even when a millionaire gets married with a pre-nup, there is no way he can get away without giving his W a home in a divorce settlement.

 

Again nobody is denying that she will get something if a divorce happens.

 

This is not feminist rhetoric, it's the law to which all people who marry legally subject themselves.

 

I disagree. The divorce court is rigged in the favor of mostly women. Soserious is unfortunately only one of the rare cases.

 

So again I wonder, if one is so afraid that their assets will be taken by a "gold digger", why get married?

 

How is he afraid if he still ended up marrying her? Nothing wrong with using your head sometimes instead of using your heart.

[Black Jack]

I am fine with her not "adhering" to my point of view, and as I said, I sympathize with her feelings.

 

My point with soserious1 is that her perspective is not universally applicable to everyone. No ones is, including mine. And I do believe she is bitter.

 

Believe what you want, but no need to resort to personal attacks.

[carhill]

When a single man who owns a house gets married, he doesn't have to put his W's name on the title. Every single time, that home is either given to the W or it is sold and the proceeds shared. Even when a millionaire gets married with a pre-nup, there is no way he can get away without giving his W a home in a divorce settlement.

Not if he has a good lawyer. I still live in my historical home and have acquired two more since divorcing. In fact, the mediator was far more interested in negotiating my interest in my exW's home, which was acquired while we were married. Hehe....

 

In Cali, all property acquired during M is considered community property *except* property which is considered separate property. Inheritances and gifts are classified as separate property unless and until they are transmuted or co-mingled. See a lawyer for more information, as of course I did.

[soserious1]

I am fine with her not "adhering" to my point of view, and as I said, I sympathize with her feelings.

 

My point with soserious1 is that her perspective is not universally applicable to everyone. No ones is, including mine. And I do believe she is bitter.

 

Yes I am " bitter" what of it? People throw that word around in an attempt to shame other people.

 

Sorry but I won't be handing over half the title to this house to some man to prove that I'm not "bitter"

Edited March 20, 2012 by soserious1

[soserious1]

Not if he has a good lawyer. I still live in my historical home and have acquired two more since divorcing. In fact, the mediator was far more interested in negotiating my interest in my exW's home, which was acquired while we were married. Hehe....

 

In Cali, all property acquired during M is considered community property *except* property which is considered separate property. Inheritances and gifts are classified as separate property unless and until they are transmuted or co-mingled. See a lawyer for more information, as of course I did.

 

Same here .. but that didn't stop my ex and his lawyer from trying numerous gyrations in an attempt to get the court to order me to sell the place & give him half the proceeds.

 

The one thing in all of this I did correctly was to make sure there was no way he could successfully lay claim to this house.. his tactics were annoying, delayed the final settlement but in the end he didn't get this house.

[Art_Critic]

The taxes, upkeep and insurance will be paid for via marital money.. therefore making a portion thru time of the home a marital asset...

[Art_Critic]

Not if he acquired it WHILE they were married.

 

 

that is true..

 

the house would have to have been his before the marriage, but he is keeping the money clean, at least this way he won't lose it all in a divorce.. only the marital part with the inheritance being used as a lever to move the 50/50 line some.