husband owes me money...

[Els]

The burning questions I have are (1) why would you loan 8 years of your savings to a boyfriend (who presumably wasn't even living with you), (2) why would he even ask for something like that, and (3) why wasn't this discussed before you got married???? Did he just assume that marriage would negate his contract, and did you just assume that he would keep his end of the bargain, and neither of you even spoke about it?

 

IMO there are way bigger issues with this marriage than just separate vs joint finances.

[browzer]

I Completely disagree. I love her and trust her and I am going to marry her. But her money is her money.

 

Then why bother getting married. Marriage is a financial commitment, until it's not, at which point it's nothing.

 

 

If you value your money more than you value him then why did you get married?

 

Exactly.

 

I always find it rather interesting and amusing when people say "I love this person and I'm going to marry them (which is supposed to be a LIFELONG commitment) and then all of a sudden the list of "strings attached" comes out which makes the marriage completely meaningless.

 

I keep my finances separate from my committed relationship partner, I live in her house and I give her a couple of grand per month towards household expenses, we split meals and vacations although not along a solid line, and we both accept and acknowledge that we are maintaining that financial separation.

 

We aren't foolish enough to say "We love each other and will be together forever and we are going to get married- BUT we will keep our finances separate "just in case".

[Cullenbohannon]

Well, we will take our "foolishness" and do it anyway, thank you very much.

 

But since the negativity demands clarification, we are middle age and she has wayyy more money than me, however I own land. My childs college is paid for, as are her 2 children. We are both debt free.

 

I simply dont need any of her money, nor does she need what I have (financially speaking only).

 

When we review some of your past post, we understand why you feel this way. We are happy with life. We are good with our decision.

 

Blessings to you anyway.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Cullenbohannon

[Els]

Then why bother getting married. Marriage is a financial commitment, until it's not, at which point it's nothing.

 

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

I always find it rather interesting and amusing when people say "I love this person and I'm going to marry them (which is supposed to be a LIFELONG commitment) and then all of a sudden the list of "strings attached" comes out which makes the marriage completely meaningless.

 

I keep my finances separate from my committed relationship partner, I live in her house and I give her a couple of grand per month towards household expenses, we split meals and vacations although not along a solid line, and we both accept and acknowledge that we are maintaining that financial separation.

 

We aren't foolish enough to say "We love each other and will be together forever and we are going to get married- BUT we will keep our finances separate "just in case".

 

This is your perspective, which is fine for you. But other married couples (and even cohabitating partners) fall all along that spectrum - some split everything, some have some degree of mingling of finances, some mingle everything. It is really important that you and your partner are BOTH on board with where you will fall on the spectrum, though.

 

Where there is some degree of separation, it isn't necessarily "just in case". Some people just prefer it that way. About half of the couples I know who literally stayed together "til death do them part" had some personal accounts.

[JuneL]

But that's because the "in case" had not happened!

 

This is your perspective, which is fine for you. But other married couples (and even cohabitating partners) fall all along that spectrum - some split everything, some have some degree of mingling of finances, some mingle everything. It is really important that you and your partner are BOTH on board with where you will fall on the spectrum, though.

 

Where there is some degree of separation, it isn't necessarily "just in case". Some people just prefer it that way. About half of the couples I know who literally stayed together "til death do them part" had some personal accounts.

[heartbrokenlady]

There's no point in marrying someone if you're keeping your finances separately, which is in effect saying "I don't trust you and I don't expect to be with you forever" which is no different then saying the marriage certificate isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

 

This isn't about a debt that has not been repaid, it's about a sham of a marriage.

 

 

I couldn’t disagree more. Why would two financially stable individuals need to merge finances? It’s just a social convention.

 

It used to happen when women were financially dependent on men. Now we’re not, there’s no need.

 

A marriage is a sham if 2 people don’t love each other. No other reason.

[BarbedFenceRider]

Well, Broken said it...Women are now right along the lines of men. And more and more of them out earn their partners. Myself included. I used to be the wage earner, then when the financial bomb hit a few years back. I was forced to a lower tier job. But, i continued earning. Just at a lot less payscale. My wife on the other hand has been promoted 5 times in the last 10 years!

In my case, we pool the money together and pay our bills together. We buy food together and we buy senseless crap together. We both have email notifications from the bank concerning our accts. And we both plan together while taking on debt or paying out and ridding of debt.

If I had to have separate accounts from my wife. I would not have much to offer. My provider role would be diminished if not terminated. Very emasculating. My wife even commented when we had problems that with my earnings, it's like having another "mouth to feed." ie. I am a child like burden on the home. Talk about resentment. That took along time to work out people. I almost just got my own apartment and paid for the kids. That way, she wouldn't have to feel so burdened...

My point is, either you are in it to become one marriage. Or you are room mates that like to have sex and complain with time to time. But money and other activities you do with your own selves, and that feeling of completeness, is often mis directed at intimacy and physical bonding superficially.

[browzer]

I couldn’t disagree more. Why would two financially stable individuals need to merge finances? It’s just a social convention.

 

It used to happen when women were financially dependent on men. Now we’re not, there’s no need.

 

Two financially stable individuals are better off not merging their finances, because you never know what can happen, especially with older folks who have been married before- the subsequent marriage failure rate is close to 70%.

 

For the same reason, two financially stable individuals are better off staying unmarried. There's no upside to it. And as I posted earlier, once the money is removed from the equation, it isn't even a marriage anyway. It's two people exchanging vows of commitment while they're reality they're protecting their ASSets from the other person.

[Els]

But that's because the "in case" had not happened!

 

Why is it assumed that that must be the reason, or that their lifelong marriages were inferior to anyone else's just because they choose to maintain a degree of financial separation? I mean, if we are going to be reading between the lines like this, we could also assume any number of negative reasons for people to want to merge finances.

 

I do agree that the OP's marriage doesn't appear to be very healthy, but I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume that there is just one "right" way to handle finances and marriage.

[BarbedFenceRider]

Two financially stable individuals are better off not merging their finances, because you never know what can happen, especially with older folks who have been married before- the subsequent marriage failure rate is close to 70%.

 

For the same reason, two financially stable individuals are better off staying unmarried. There's no upside to it. And as I posted earlier, once the money is removed from the equation, it isn't even a marriage anyway. It's two people exchanging vows of commitment while they're reality they're protecting their ASSets from the other person.

 

Except in most states, regardless where the money lies in which account. Divorce will be a ponying up of funds to squash debt. and pay for attorneys and such. As for commitment...To what? commitment to pick up the paper on Sunday morning? Commitment to making your side of the bed? lol

I just love the downward spiral of western society. It's like we love to be in pain and suffering on purpose." I have a SO, but only to an extent. Cause, I don't trust them. No, I do all that stuff by myself. But I am in love...."

[browzer]

Except in most states, regardless where the money lies in which account. Divorce will be a ponying up of funds to squash debt. and pay for attorneys and such. As for commitment...To what? commitment to pick up the paper on Sunday morning? Commitment to making your side of the bed? lol

I just love the downward spiral of western society. It's like we love to be in pain and suffering on purpose." I have a SO, but only to an extent. Cause, I don't trust them. No, I do all that stuff by myself. But I am in love...."

 

Marriage with separate finances is like a prenup. It's like signing a binding contract, while maintaining an exit strategy.

 

"I hereby vow to cherish you forever through richer or poorer, good times and bad, until of course, I don't".

[OneLov]

Two financially stable individuals are better off not merging their finances, because you never know what can happen, especially with older folks who have been married before- the subsequent marriage failure rate is close to 70%.

 

For the same reason, two financially stable individuals are better off staying unmarried. There's no upside to it. And as I posted earlier, once the money is removed from the equation, it isn't even a marriage anyway. It's two people exchanging vows of commitment while they're reality they're protecting their ASSets from the other person.

 

 

I agree with the first part. This is especially true if there are children of previous marriages. As an attorney, I have personal experience in situations where the step-parent inherits marital property and does not deal fairly with the decedent's biological children. I know we all would like to believe we are superior judges of character and that stuff only happens to "other people," but it unfortunately happens more often than we would like to think.

 

There is also something to say about OP's situation being different than two young people who don't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of. You could make an argument, in equity, that the latter's property is the combination of efforts throughout a lifetime. OP's situation is two people coming together after +30 plus years of different lifestyles. The money earned while together should be joint, but what about all the property before?

 

Take this situation for example: A marries B later in life. A has no children but many nieces and nephews that were close to her all their lives. B has adult children. Spouse A has more money saved than B. Spouse A dies. Should B's adult children receive A's legacy? Spouse B is protected regardless by virtue of marriage (a benefit), but should the rest of the legacy go to B's adult children who have no relationship with A? Or should it go to A's family? Without legal structuring, the default in community property states is it all goes to B.

 

As for there being no upside, death benefits, insurance reasons, and taxes are some things that immediately come to mind. Common law is abolished in almost every state. If you are going to cohabitate with someone, both want to be together indefinitely in a romantic relationship, and do not have any beliefs against marriage--why not get married?

 

I agree with Elyswth and rather not define marriage for other people. There are some who believe marriage is a religious sacrament and believe any marriage not consecrated by a particular religion as being a sham marriage.

 

Most importantly, all prenups requires a degree of separation to be enforceable. Once you commingle, there is a strong presumption of your intent to convert that separate property into marital property. You can--and most have--a joint account that is funded by those separate accounts.

 

But I think the discussions of the legitimacy of their marriage predicated upon how they handle their finances is a red herring. I think you have two people who had an agreement and one is attempting to break the deal unilaterally by virtue of being married. Now, I would personally tear up the note if I was the OP, but she is not me.

 

Most of the time, people take loans from family when they have no one else to turn to or they benefit from lower or no interest. So OP's husband took the loan and agreed to pay her back in 6 months. At least 36 months later, OP has not received her money back. I do not have enough information, so I want to give him the benefit of the doubt and interpret OP's assertion that repayment "has been shoved aside" to be mean he simply can't pay, not that he is not prioritizing repayment.

 

If the foregoing is the case, I hope she can try to not let this ruin her marriage. I would only hope OP's husband would realize and appreciate Wells Fargo would not be so accommodating.

[JuneL]

I don't judge those with a prenup at all; in fact, I repeatedly stated the OP's finance will be protected since she has done one. But practically, the contract matters only to the extent there is a divorce.

 

Why is it assumed that that must be the reason, or that their lifelong marriages were inferior to anyone else's just because they choose to maintain a degree of financial separation? I mean, if we are going to be reading between the lines like this, we could also assume any number of negative reasons for people to want to merge finances.

 

I do agree that the OP's marriage doesn't appear to be very healthy, but I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume that there is just one "right" way to handle finances and marriage.

[Els]

I don't judge those with a prenup at all; in fact, I repeatedly stated the OP's finance will be protected since she has done one. But practically, the contract matters only to the extent there is a divorce.

 

I agree that the OP's situation is quite unhealthy and concerning, in more ways than just finances. However, the post of mine that you quoted was in response to browzer's generalization about ALL marriages who don't completely merge finances. That, I don't agree with.

 

IMO a choice to maintain some degree of personal finances (though probably not to the extent of actually enforcing loans with one's spouse) is not in any way similar to a prenup. A prenup really IS solely about having an "exit strategy" - and while I don't judge anyone who chooses a prenup either, it's just not the same thing.

 

There are any number of reasons why couples might not completely merge finances that AREN'T relevant to an "exit strategy". For one thing, joint accounts do not always have the same options or work the same way as personal accounts. For instance, if I wanted my pay to go into a joint account, I would need to do a lot of paperwork to justify that, whereas if I am the sole owner of the account, it would be a lot easier and much less hassle. IMO there is also something to be said about having a personal account to buy gifts for your spouse from or to treat them from, and it is an easy way to resolve any disagreements over whether or not a particular item is worth the purchase.

 

Personally, I would prefer to have a certain degree of commingling (a joint account and joint assets, certainly no such thing as "loaning" money to the other), while also maintaining personal accounts. Most people where we live have at least SOME personal accounts - it is extremely rare for anyone to use a joint account for everything. I wouldn't presume to judge anyone else just because their preference differs from mine.

 

Again, that is probably not relevant to the OP's situation, but this discussion seems to have devolved into a generalized bashing of anyone who doesn't handle their finances in a certain way, which I find completely baffling.

Edited January 20, 2018 by Elswyth

[unit1]

I feel Mino made the loan to the man at that time, she truly did it for LOVE.....

so she would gave the 8 years savings to him,

it is a big risk.

 

Then now after marriage, there is no sign the husband willing to pay back even if he promised, she is actually mad at his attitude.

if he is now very poor and unable to pay, that is another story.

but he is now okay and refuse to pay. so it disappoints her heart.

[browzer]

As for there being no upside, death benefits, insurance reasons, and taxes are some things that immediately come to mind. Common law is abolished in almost every state. If you are going to cohabitate with someone, both want to be together indefinitely in a romantic relationship, and do not have any beliefs against marriage--why not get married?

 

All of those benefits can be obtained with a legal domestic partnership in many or most states, including my state, and I am in fact in a domestic partnership with my girlfriend and am on her health insurance plan. We have protected each other with wills.

 

Again, no additional advantage of marriage and if things go south, it's much easier to dissolve the domestic partnership than a marriage.

[Maraud3r]

Did someone say divorce? Divorce it is! No but to be absolutely honest he should pay her back asap. Him being willing to take this money from someone he loves but unwilling to pay it back says a lot about him and none of it good.

[OneLov]

All of those benefits can be obtained with a legal domestic partnership in many or most states, including my state, and I am in fact in a domestic partnership with my girlfriend and am on her health insurance plan. We have protected each other with wills.

 

Again, no additional advantage of marriage and if things go south, it's much easier to dissolve the domestic partnership than a marriage.

 

I can assure you any entity at the federal level, including the IRS, do not recognize domestic partnerships as they’re creations of the state you are domiciled.

 

You are correct many, but not all, insurance companies recognize domestic partnership upon proof of cohabitation for a specific period of time. However, domestic partners are not considered “next of kin” for important medical decisions and emergent situations.

 

A will protects a domestic partner to the extent the person does not change it. She can write you out of a new will tomorrow. Anyone but a spouse can be written out of a will at anytime as wills can be rewritten without limitation. Moreover, states with inheritance tax do not tax transfers to spouses. On my state, domestic partners have to pay 15% tax like my anyone who is not immediately relayed to me.

 

It is much easier to dissolve a domestic partnership. However, it is simply not true that marriage provides no advantages over domestic partnerships .

[browzer]

However, domestic partners are not considered “next of kin” for important medical decisions and emergent situations.

 

The work around for that is to assign your domestic partner as your primary healthcare decision maker using a medical/healthcare directive and durable power of attorney for financial matters.

 

• A medical/healthcare directive (which consists of a health care declaration and a durable power of attorney), and
  
• A durable power of attorney for finances.
  

A will protects a domestic partner to the extent the person does not change it. She can write you out of a new will tomorrow.

 

And your spouse can file for divorce tomorrow. Same difference.

 

Moreover, states with inheritance tax do not tax transfers to spouses. On my state, domestic partners have to pay 15% tax like my anyone who is not immediately relayed to me.

 

Ok, I guess that's something.

[Mino]

I took a break... so i will fill in the gap... I am 10 years from retiring, never been married before... I was a single mom, who fugally paid off all debts, I owe no one, and my net worth is 6 figures... I have a grown child who i would like to leave an inheritance one day... I loaned my then divorce bf 5 figures... (almost6) it took me years to save this amount.. He needed it because he was then unemployed, and selling his home with his ex... I had a promissory note and plus had the loan in the prenup... Now why a prenup... welll , I see how people get put through the wringer ...if they divorce... plus I want my assets to go to my child when i die..( obviously there are protections for him , since we live in my house, which has no mortgage ) if i die first... But I am not going to be a foolish women to lose everything, in case i where to ever divorce... I know many are against prenups, but I felt i had to and wanted to protect what i worked for all my life... Many people who marry after age 50 do this... A loan... is a loan... I helped out... do i have regrets.. absolutely, ...In the past, if anyone ever asked me for a loan, I always said no... and gave them what I could as a gift... but the amount he wanted , I could never gift...He has NOT many any payments, hence why I am upset and asked for suggestions... he does work, He helps with our bills, he likes to spend... and yes.. he has not mentioned this loan in a few years... hence why I brought it up.And no I dont want a divorce...

[d0nnivain]

... he does work, He helps with our bills, he likes to spend... and yes.. he has not mentioned this loan in a few years... hence why I brought it up.And no I dont want a divorce...

 

That is probably what is really upsetting you. I'd be pissed too. Pay me back before you spend on luxuries. I'm sure you have tried talking to him about the contrast. You seem like a sensible woman -- hence the note & the prenup. I think you do need to keep some pressure on him but be delicate so he doesn't start crying divorce. If you have a financial advisor perhaps you can get that person to speak to DH about budgeting, retirement & inheritances.

[Just a Guy]

Hi Mino, after having read your last post I have to say that you come across as a very level headed woman except, insofar as your choice of a husband is concerned. With all the leisure on your hands to pick and choose a man to be your companion during the latter part of your life, you went and chose someone who was carrying a world of baggage on his shoulders like an Atlas. Here was a guy who was getting divorced(Red flag) and who had to sell his house to share the equity with his stbx wife and who for some reason, at his age, did not have enough money to bail himself out of a tight situation and had no compunction in asking his GF who he knew had money, to bail him out and you walked into his trap? Reminds me of the nursery rhyme where the spider invites the fly into his home(web) to party!

 

I know the saying 'Love is blind' but that is true for young star crossed lovers and not 50 + year olds who have lived life and have the benefit of experience with them when making life changing decisions. Lady, you had every reason to carry out due diligence on your future husband. His financial position should have been a major concern for you, considering that you were so careful with how you spent your money. Instead of committing your own money you could have stood guarantor for him to take a loan from the bank which he would have been compelled to repay. By giving him a loan from your hard earned savings you put yourself in an unenviable position. For all practical purposes that money is lost to you. This guy has no intention to repay you unless you take him to court. You might as well divorce him and start afresh or just think that you sunk your money in a junk stock which has vanished without a trace. Sorry if this sounds harsh but from the outside looking in, that is exactly how it appears. Best wishes.

 

As a postscript, I wanted to ask you what your husband did with his share of the equity on his house? That should have been a substantial sum and he should have been able to repay at least a major part of your loan from that? If he could have repaid why did you not insist that he do so? Thanks.

Edited January 22, 2018 by Just a Guy

[PegNosePete]

This goes to show why you should NEVER EVER EVER loan money to friends or family or potential future spouse. Nor should you co-sign loans, be a guarantor, buy a car on finance, etc etc. NEVER EVER! After all if they were financially responsible and had good credit then they could get a loan in their own name, right? Why would you extend them credit after a bank has hold them "no way"!

 

I'm not saying you should be mean. If you want to help out a friend or family member then you should give them money as a gift. If they pay you back then great but you should have no expectation of repayment. If you don't want to give them the money then don't, but whatever you do, don't loan it. It's a recipe for disaster, and a relationship killer.

 

Now you are married. If he doesn't want to repay the loan then there's absolutely nothing you can do to force him. The only way to trigger the clause in the pre-nup would be to divorce. I'm afraid there is no other option. You can either stay married and hope he repays you out of the goodness of his heart, or you can divorce.

[RecentChange]

All of those benefits can be obtained with a legal domestic partnership in many or most states, including my state, and I am in fact in a domestic partnership with my girlfriend and am on her health insurance plan. We have protected each other with wills.

 

Again, no additional advantage of marriage and if things go south, it's much easier to dissolve the domestic partnership than a marriage.

 

Domestic Partnerships are recognized in only 7 states - not most. Domestic partnerships are not recognized by the states in which they are not legally binding.

 

Domestic partnerships do not have the same asset protections with automatic inheritance that marriage does. Yes, you can set it out in a will, but the assets will be subject to taxes which they wouldn't have been in a marriage.

 

Domestic partnerships aren't considered "family" under the law.

 

They are not recognized federally - which has a host of tax and legal implications.

 

My company does not extend health, or other benefits to Domestic Partners ever since same sex marriage became legal nation wide.

[browzer]

Domestic Partnerships are recognized in only 7 states - not most.

 

This link says otherwise, and if you count the states that are listed to show benefits to domestic partners, you get about 28.

 

That certainly qualifies as many if not most.

 

Including my home state of NY which is all that matters to me.

 

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/domestic-partnership-rights-by-state.html

 

In the picture linked below the light green shows states which recognize Domestic Partnerships and extend benefits.

 

Edited January 22, 2018 by browzer