Fiancé won’t put me on the title of our new house

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You say he is likely to leave the house to his kids – means all of his children - his kids before you AND the kid you have together. I think this is how it should be, since you are not currently his wife.

For example, if he had 2 kids from a previous relationship and you and he have 1 kid together, then his estate should be divided into thirds, which is fair. Any other kids you have that are not his are not entitled to his inheritance.

Depends on the state. He has one minor child that he is obligated to support even after death. If he were to kick the bucket tomorrow, with no wil, the minor child inherits the house. Even with a will the minor child can’t be disinherited. How’s his health. You and kid might be in a better poetic he croaks. I’d still get a job though.

Nope. The estate would pay child support but the child would receive an equal share along with their half siblings. The minor alone does not inherit the house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, Get certified as a CNA or start studying to be an xray tech.

I'm currently starting CNA's at $25 per hour and have some making $31 per hour.

You do know that OP is dealing with multiple kids she's staying home to raise, right? It's amazing how people on these threads seem to think it''s not real work to be a SAHM because it doesn't come with a paycheck.

The question many pages ago was about her getting put on the title of the house, not about whether she should get a job outside the home at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, Get certified as a CNA or start studying to be an xray tech.

I'm currently starting CNA's at $25 per hour and have some making $31 per hour.

You do know that OP is dealing with multiple kids she's staying home to raise, right? It's amazing how people on these threads seem to think it''s not real work to be a SAHM because it doesn't come with a paycheck.

The question many pages ago was about her getting put on the title of the house, not about whether she should get a job outside the home at this point.

Multiple kids from previous marriage so why does the fiancé needs to transfer or share title on a property that was bought before she came in his life. Op needs to take care of it on her own and don't expect to take over the wealth that belongs to fiances' kids. Horrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd put my foot down personally. Does not bode well for optimism about the marriage. I wouldn't marry someone who wanted to do this. But maybe I have different ideas about what marriage is than others.

+1

All the red flags not the least of which he doesn’t seem to give AF about your financial security, OP. Run.

Why he needs to do that when Op doesn't bring anything to the table. Op, doesn't have a job, probably don't contribute in the family expenses and retirement and now want her share in his house. Looks like she could completely screw his kids over.

She’s a homemaker caring for his home and his child. That is what she brings to the table. That is a contribution - a big one.

His kids are adults and he had a home before she came in his life so looks to me that she is getting to stay for free, and let him support her kids financially and now want more without contributing financially. That's not bringing enough to the table, sorry.

Then he can reimburse her for 7 years of FT childcare, housekeeping, and other errands at the market rate, as well as what a surrogate would have cost. Don’t forget her forgone social security contributions. My guess is that all adds up to about half the home equity.

Sure, and the she can pay him back for the rent, utilities, child expenses, food, car, gas, etc. Overall, it's a wash and he don't owe her the house title.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, Get certified as a CNA or start studying to be an xray tech.

I'm currently starting CNA's at $25 per hour and have some making $31 per hour.

You do know that OP is dealing with multiple kids she's staying home to raise, right? It's amazing how people on these threads seem to think it''s not real work to be a SAHM because it doesn't come with a paycheck.

The question many pages ago was about her getting put on the title of the house, not about whether she should get a job outside the home at this point.

GTFO. Her kids are 12 and 15.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd put my foot down personally. Does not bode well for optimism about the marriage. I wouldn't marry someone who wanted to do this. But maybe I have different ideas about what marriage is than others.

+1

All the red flags not the least of which he doesn’t seem to give AF about your financial security, OP. Run.

Why he needs to do that when Op doesn't bring anything to the table. Op, doesn't have a job, probably don't contribute in the family expenses and retirement and now want her share in his house. Looks like she could completely screw his kids over.

She’s a homemaker caring for his home and his child. That is what she brings to the table. That is a contribution - a big one.

His kids are adults and he had a home before she came in his life so looks to me that she is getting to stay for free, and let him support her kids financially and now want more without contributing financially. That's not bringing enough to the table, sorry.

Then he can reimburse her for 7 years of FT childcare, housekeeping, and other errands at the market rate, as well as what a surrogate would have cost. Don’t forget her forgone social security contributions. My guess is that all adds up to about half the home equity.

Sure, and the she can pay him back for the rent, utilities, child expenses, food, car, gas, etc. Overall, it's a wash and he don't owe her the house title.

It’s definitely not going to be a wash. And also throw in the lost earning potential of the type of job OP could have had - it’s probably in the high 6 figures.

Again there is a reason common law marriage, alimony, and property distribution exists. It’s because of this exact scenario where the woman contributes to the partnership with unpaid labor. The problem is that her “fiance” decided to exploit her by refusing to get married while OP was pregnant. Leaving her with few choices. A good man would not do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, Get certified as a CNA or start studying to be an xray tech.

I'm currently starting CNA's at $25 per hour and have some making $31 per hour.

You do know that OP is dealing with multiple kids she's staying home to raise, right? It's amazing how people on these threads seem to think it''s not real work to be a SAHM because it doesn't come with a paycheck.

The question many pages ago was about her getting put on the title of the house, not about whether she should get a job outside the home at this point.

GTFO. Her kids are 12 and 15.

she has a 7 year old

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, Get certified as a CNA or start studying to be an xray tech.

I'm currently starting CNA's at $25 per hour and have some making $31 per hour.

You do know that OP is dealing with multiple kids she's staying home to raise, right? It's amazing how people on these threads seem to think it''s not real work to be a SAHM because it doesn't come with a paycheck.

The question many pages ago was about her getting put on the title of the house, not about whether she should get a job outside the home at this point.

GTFO. Her kids are 12 and 15.

she has a 7 year old

Who is in school FT. Plenty of time to work on those certs mentioned above.

OP will be back in 2 years crying poverty after this man kicks her to the curb. She’s not wife material.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd put my foot down personally. Does not bode well for optimism about the marriage. I wouldn't marry someone who wanted to do this. But maybe I have different ideas about what marriage is than others.

+1

All the red flags not the least of which he doesn’t seem to give AF about your financial security, OP. Run.

Why he needs to do that when Op doesn't bring anything to the table. Op, doesn't have a job, probably don't contribute in the family expenses and retirement and now want her share in his house. Looks like she could completely screw his kids over.

She’s a homemaker caring for his home and his child. That is what she brings to the table. That is a contribution - a big one.

His kids are adults and he had a home before she came in his life so looks to me that she is getting to stay for free, and let him support her kids financially and now want more without contributing financially. That's not bringing enough to the table, sorry.

Then he can reimburse her for 7 years of FT childcare, housekeeping, and other errands at the market rate, as well as what a surrogate would have cost. Don’t forget her forgone social security contributions. My guess is that all adds up to about half the home equity.

Sure, and the she can pay him back for the rent, utilities, child expenses, food, car, gas, etc. Overall, it's a wash and he don't owe her the house title.

It’s definitely not going to be a wash. And also throw in the lost earning potential of the type of job OP could have had - it’s probably in the high 6 figures.

Again there is a reason common law marriage, alimony, and property distribution exists. It’s because of this exact scenario where the woman contributes to the partnership with unpaid labor. The problem is that her “fiance” decided to exploit her by refusing to get married while OP was pregnant. Leaving her with few choices. A good man would not do this.

Op could have got the job if she wanted but she chose not to. You have to be ambitious to go out and do the job along with handling the household. You earn respect and not by demanding that he just put you on the title. If OP don't want to work then he has done plenty to take care of her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd put my foot down personally. Does not bode well for optimism about the marriage. I wouldn't marry someone who wanted to do this. But maybe I have different ideas about what marriage is than others.

+1

All the red flags not the least of which he doesn’t seem to give AF about your financial security, OP. Run.

Why he needs to do that when Op doesn't bring anything to the table. Op, doesn't have a job, probably don't contribute in the family expenses and retirement and now want her share in his house. Looks like she could completely screw his kids over.

She’s a homemaker caring for his home and his child. That is what she brings to the table. That is a contribution - a big one.

His kids are adults and he had a home before she came in his life so looks to me that she is getting to stay for free, and let him support her kids financially and now want more without contributing financially. That's not bringing enough to the table, sorry.

Then he can reimburse her for 7 years of FT childcare, housekeeping, and other errands at the market rate, as well as what a surrogate would have cost. Don’t forget her forgone social security contributions. My guess is that all adds up to about half the home equity.

Sure, and the she can pay him back for the rent, utilities, child expenses, food, car, gas, etc. Overall, it's a wash and he don't owe her the house title.

It’s definitely not going to be a wash. And also throw in the lost earning potential of the type of job OP could have had - it’s probably in the high 6 figures.

Again there is a reason common law marriage, alimony, and property distribution exists. It’s because of this exact scenario where the woman contributes to the partnership with unpaid labor. The problem is that her “fiance” decided to exploit her by refusing to get married while OP was pregnant. Leaving her with few choices. A good man would not do this.

Op could have got the job if she wanted but she chose not to. You have to be ambitious to go out and do the job along with handling the household. You earn respect and not by demanding that he just put you on the title. If OP don't want to work then he has done plenty to take care of her.

Earn respect, or you don’t deserve your freedom!

I am SO SICK of the sexist d-bags on here.

Clearly OP made a financial mistake. But it is her “fiance” who is the bad, selfish person. Who leaves the mother of their child in financial precarity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd put my foot down personally. Does not bode well for optimism about the marriage. I wouldn't marry someone who wanted to do this. But maybe I have different ideas about what marriage is than others.

+1

All the red flags not the least of which he doesn’t seem to give AF about your financial security, OP. Run.

Why he needs to do that when Op doesn't bring anything to the table. Op, doesn't have a job, probably don't contribute in the family expenses and retirement and now want her share in his house. Looks like she could completely screw his kids over.

She’s a homemaker caring for his home and his child. That is what she brings to the table. That is a contribution - a big one.

His kids are adults and he had a home before she came in his life so looks to me that she is getting to stay for free, and let him support her kids financially and now want more without contributing financially. That's not bringing enough to the table, sorry.

Then he can reimburse her for 7 years of FT childcare, housekeeping, and other errands at the market rate, as well as what a surrogate would have cost. Don’t forget her forgone social security contributions. My guess is that all adds up to about half the home equity.

Sure, and the she can pay him back for the rent, utilities, child expenses, food, car, gas, etc. Overall, it's a wash and he don't owe her the house title.

It’s definitely not going to be a wash. And also throw in the lost earning potential of the type of job OP could have had - it’s probably in the high 6 figures.

Again there is a reason common law marriage, alimony, and property distribution exists. It’s because of this exact scenario where the woman contributes to the partnership with unpaid labor. The problem is that her “fiance” decided to exploit her by refusing to get married while OP was pregnant. Leaving her with few choices. A good man would not do this.

Op could have got the job if she wanted but she chose not to. You have to be ambitious to go out and do the job along with handling the household. You earn respect and not by demanding that he just put you on the title. If OP don't want to work then he has done plenty to take care of her.

Earn respect, or you don’t deserve your freedom!

I am SO SICK of the sexist d-bags on here.

Clearly OP made a financial mistake. But it is her “fiance” who is the bad, selfish person. Who leaves the mother of their child in financial precarity?

also I don’t know where you’re from with your bad grammar but in the US the legal system protects married women in OP’s situation. Her “fiance” avoided that by refusing to marry her (I am guessing). This guy is an exploiter and a user.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd put my foot down personally. Does not bode well for optimism about the marriage. I wouldn't marry someone who wanted to do this. But maybe I have different ideas about what marriage is than others.

+1

All the red flags not the least of which he doesn’t seem to give AF about your financial security, OP. Run.

Why he needs to do that when Op doesn't bring anything to the table. Op, doesn't have a job, probably don't contribute in the family expenses and retirement and now want her share in his house. Looks like she could completely screw his kids over.

She’s a homemaker caring for his home and his child. That is what she brings to the table. That is a contribution - a big one.

His kids are adults and he had a home before she came in his life so looks to me that she is getting to stay for free, and let him support her kids financially and now want more without contributing financially. That's not bringing enough to the table, sorry.

Then he can reimburse her for 7 years of FT childcare, housekeeping, and other errands at the market rate, as well as what a surrogate would have cost. Don’t forget her forgone social security contributions. My guess is that all adds up to about half the home equity.

Sure, and the she can pay him back for the rent, utilities, child expenses, food, car, gas, etc. Overall, it's a wash and he don't owe her the house title.

It’s definitely not going to be a wash. And also throw in the lost earning potential of the type of job OP could have had - it’s probably in the high 6 figures.

Again there is a reason common law marriage, alimony, and property distribution exists. It’s because of this exact scenario where the woman contributes to the partnership with unpaid labor. The problem is that her “fiance” decided to exploit her by refusing to get married while OP was pregnant. Leaving her with few choices. A good man would not do this.

Op could have got the job if she wanted but she chose not to. You have to be ambitious to go out and do the job along with handling the household. You earn respect and not by demanding that he just put you on the title. If OP don't want to work then he has done plenty to take care of her.

Earn respect, or you don’t deserve your freedom!

I am SO SICK of the sexist d-bags on here.

Clearly OP made a financial mistake. But it is her “fiance” who is the bad, selfish person. Who leaves the mother of their child in financial precarity?

She left herself in financial precarity. There is nothing stopping her from getting a job. She chose to have a child outside of marriage. She is responsible for her own financial needs and half of her child’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is everybody thinking the guy is a jerk? He seems sane… sounds like OP wants to sit on her butt, barely work, have this man take care of her, their kid, her kids, and be put on the house? Looks like OP has nothing in her name, no retirement and refused to work at the age of 50! Sounds like he put a ring on it and then realized her true colors…

Oh dear God, you really think that caring for their kid, her kids AND HIS KIDS is "barely work"?

You people are clueless.

They would have shelled out a fortune, maybe more than her salary if she were working anything other than a big deal job, if they'd had to pay for all the child care, a sitter to tote kids to activities, etc. etc. for these past seven years. Of course it made sense for her to stay home. JFC.

Op here. Thanks for this. Was expecting that I would get bashed as a primarily stay at home mom but not this bad! Wow, if I worked, most of the money would have gone to child care. I appreciate the people who gave helpful advice! Thank you!

But then you wouldn’t be here posting about getting left with nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd put my foot down personally. Does not bode well for optimism about the marriage. I wouldn't marry someone who wanted to do this. But maybe I have different ideas about what marriage is than others.

+1

All the red flags not the least of which he doesn’t seem to give AF about your financial security, OP. Run.

Why he needs to do that when Op doesn't bring anything to the table. Op, doesn't have a job, probably don't contribute in the family expenses and retirement and now want her share in his house. Looks like she could completely screw his kids over.

She’s a homemaker caring for his home and his child. That is what she brings to the table. That is a contribution - a big one.

His kids are adults and he had a home before she came in his life so looks to me that she is getting to stay for free, and let him support her kids financially and now want more without contributing financially. That's not bringing enough to the table, sorry.

Then he can reimburse her for 7 years of FT childcare, housekeeping, and other errands at the market rate, as well as what a surrogate would have cost. Don’t forget her forgone social security contributions. My guess is that all adds up to about half the home equity.

Sure, and the she can pay him back for the rent, utilities, child expenses, food, car, gas, etc. Overall, it's a wash and he don't owe her the house title.

It’s definitely not going to be a wash. And also throw in the lost earning potential of the type of job OP could have had - it’s probably in the high 6 figures.

Again there is a reason common law marriage, alimony, and property distribution exists. It’s because of this exact scenario where the woman contributes to the partnership with unpaid labor. The problem is that her “fiance” decided to exploit her by refusing to get married while OP was pregnant. Leaving her with few choices. A good man would not do this.

Op could have got the job if she wanted but she chose not to. You have to be ambitious to go out and do the job along with handling the household. You earn respect and not by demanding that he just put you on the title. If OP don't want to work then he has done plenty to take care of her.

Earn respect, or you don’t deserve your freedom!

I am SO SICK of the sexist d-bags on here.

Clearly OP made a financial mistake. But it is her “fiance” who is the bad, selfish person. Who leaves the mother of their child in financial precarity?

She left herself in financial precarity. There is nothing stopping her from getting a job. She chose to have a child outside of marriage. She is responsible for her own financial needs and half of her child’s.

Well yes she is responsible. But “fiance” is still scummy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd put my foot down personally. Does not bode well for optimism about the marriage. I wouldn't marry someone who wanted to do this. But maybe I have different ideas about what marriage is than others.

+1

All the red flags not the least of which he doesn’t seem to give AF about your financial security, OP. Run.

Why he needs to do that when Op doesn't bring anything to the table. Op, doesn't have a job, probably don't contribute in the family expenses and retirement and now want her share in his house. Looks like she could completely screw his kids over.

She’s a homemaker caring for his home and his child. That is what she brings to the table. That is a contribution - a big one.

And he pays for her food and shelter plus the same for her children.