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

[Anonymous]

Until you are married, you don’t have legal rights.

Before you get married, Get a prenup to assure yourself that you and your child will not be homeless should he die or the marriage fall apart. Right now, you are vulnerable…but that is not his fault. You are the adult, responsible for your own child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My friend is on the other side of this. Her mom died when my friend was in college. Her dad ended up remarrying after my friend was married. Her new stepmother had one daughter. The dad died and the new wife got everything. When she passes, her assets will go to her daughter and not my friend or her siblings.

The dad had no will. He died suddenly. I think everyone is kind of like why did this 50 something year old just take the dad’s assets? My friend has kids. Her siblings have kids.

Aside from the OP’s intent on marrying OP or not, I think it is smart that he is not putting her on the house. They are not married and she does not contribute financially, why would she be put on the deed?

She contributes financially! She bore the child, cared for the child, cared for the house, for seven years. Again, why do you think we have laws that protect spouses in marriages? It's because we are in a culture/economy where women often do the domestic labor that enables the man to do paid labor. That makes the woman vulnerable if the man dies/leaves her. So the law says, you get 50% of the assets, you get an automatic distribution from the estate.

Your scenario of the stepmother inheriting is unfortunate, but totally different. Unless you're leaving something out, your friend was not financially dependent on her dad - she was married and had a family of her own. But sure, it may have been fair for her dad to leave some assets to her; or maybe she did have special financial needs he should have seen to. But he did not. And that's the overarching point here - people who don't handle their financial lives in a fair and proactive way.

The overarching point here is that we are a culture that prioritizes written commitments over unwritten ones. They are not married. She is not entitled to the protections of a wife.

The poster you're responding too got shunted on account of no will. Her father could have left her the money but he didn't. It was his free choice. Just like it is OP's boyfriend choice not to marry her.

Well some free choices make you a scumbag, like this dude. That's the entire point. So that OP realizes he is a scumbag and she needs to protect herself from him ASAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prenup and marriage or dump him and hire a lawyer to for child support. Either way get daycare started and a job.

Daycare for a 7-year old?

Yes. A seven year old is very much a child still. My kid went to aftercare until middle school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My friend is on the other side of this. Her mom died when my friend was in college. Her dad ended up remarrying after my friend was married. Her new stepmother had one daughter. The dad died and the new wife got everything. When she passes, her assets will go to her daughter and not my friend or her siblings.

The dad had no will. He died suddenly. I think everyone is kind of like why did this 50 something year old just take the dad’s assets? My friend has kids. Her siblings have kids.

Aside from the OP’s intent on marrying OP or not, I think it is smart that he is not putting her on the house. They are not married and she does not contribute financially, why would she be put on the deed?

She contributes financially! She bore the child, cared for the child, cared for the house, for seven years. Again, why do you think we have laws that protect spouses in marriages? It's because we are in a culture/economy where women often do the domestic labor that enables the man to do paid labor. That makes the woman vulnerable if the man dies/leaves her. So the law says, you get 50% of the assets, you get an automatic distribution from the estate.

Your scenario of the stepmother inheriting is unfortunate, but totally different. Unless you're leaving something out, your friend was not financially dependent on her dad - she was married and had a family of her own. But sure, it may have been fair for her dad to leave some assets to her; or maybe she did have special financial needs he should have seen to. But he did not. And that's the overarching point here - people who don't handle their financial lives in a fair and proactive way.

The overarching point here is that we are a culture that prioritizes written commitments over unwritten ones. They are not married. She is not entitled to the protections of a wife.

The poster you're responding too got shunted on account of no will. Her father could have left her the money but he didn't. It was his free choice. Just like it is OP's boyfriend choice not to marry her.

Well some free choices make you a scumbag, like this dude. That's the entire point. So that OP realizes he is a scumbag and she needs to protect herself from him ASAP.

And what does OP's free choice to have a child outside of marriage, to stay with a guy who doesn't marry her, and not to work make her?

A guy supporting another man's children is hardly a scumbag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My friend is on the other side of this. Her mom died when my friend was in college. Her dad ended up remarrying after my friend was married. Her new stepmother had one daughter. The dad died and the new wife got everything. When she passes, her assets will go to her daughter and not my friend or her siblings.

The dad had no will. He died suddenly. I think everyone is kind of like why did this 50 something year old just take the dad’s assets? My friend has kids. Her siblings have kids.

Aside from the OP’s intent on marrying OP or not, I think it is smart that he is not putting her on the house. They are not married and she does not contribute financially, why would she be put on the deed?

She contributes financially! She bore the child, cared for the child, cared for the house, for seven years. Again, why do you think we have laws that protect spouses in marriages? It's because we are in a culture/economy where women often do the domestic labor that enables the man to do paid labor. That makes the woman vulnerable if the man dies/leaves her. So the law says, you get 50% of the assets, you get an automatic distribution from the estate.

Your scenario of the stepmother inheriting is unfortunate, but totally different. Unless you're leaving something out, your friend was not financially dependent on her dad - she was married and had a family of her own. But sure, it may have been fair for her dad to leave some assets to her; or maybe she did have special financial needs he should have seen to. But he did not. And that's the overarching point here - people who don't handle their financial lives in a fair and proactive way.

The overarching point here is that we are a culture that prioritizes written commitments over unwritten ones. They are not married. She is not entitled to the protections of a wife.

The poster you're responding too got shunted on account of no will. Her father could have left her the money but he didn't. It was his free choice. Just like it is OP's boyfriend choice not to marry her.

Well some free choices make you a scumbag, like this dude. That's the entire point. So that OP realizes he is a scumbag and she needs to protect herself from him ASAP.

And what does OP's free choice to have a child outside of marriage, to stay with a guy who doesn't marry her, and not to work make her?

A guy supporting another man's children is hardly a scumbag.

Well we don’t know that he’s supporting those kids, do we?

OP bore the child and is providing chilcare & services to her “fiance” for free and getting little in return. And we don’t known what his representations have been about marrying her. Abandoning the mother of your child financially is a loser move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My friend is on the other side of this. Her mom died when my friend was in college. Her dad ended up remarrying after my friend was married. Her new stepmother had one daughter. The dad died and the new wife got everything. When she passes, her assets will go to her daughter and not my friend or her siblings.

The dad had no will. He died suddenly. I think everyone is kind of like why did this 50 something year old just take the dad’s assets? My friend has kids. Her siblings have kids.

Aside from the OP’s intent on marrying OP or not, I think it is smart that he is not putting her on the house. They are not married and she does not contribute financially, why would she be put on the deed?

She contributes financially! She bore the child, cared for the child, cared for the house, for seven years. Again, why do you think we have laws that protect spouses in marriages? It's because we are in a culture/economy where women often do the domestic labor that enables the man to do paid labor. That makes the woman vulnerable if the man dies/leaves her. So the law says, you get 50% of the assets, you get an automatic distribution from the estate.

Your scenario of the stepmother inheriting is unfortunate, but totally different. Unless you're leaving something out, your friend was not financially dependent on her dad - she was married and had a family of her own. But sure, it may have been fair for her dad to leave some assets to her; or maybe she did have special financial needs he should have seen to. But he did not. And that's the overarching point here - people who don't handle their financial lives in a fair and proactive way.

The overarching point here is that we are a culture that prioritizes written commitments over unwritten ones. They are not married. She is not entitled to the protections of a wife.

The poster you're responding too got shunted on account of no will. Her father could have left her the money but he didn't. It was his free choice. Just like it is OP's boyfriend choice not to marry her.

Well some free choices make you a scumbag, like this dude. That's the entire point. So that OP realizes he is a scumbag and she needs to protect herself from him ASAP.

And what does OP's free choice to have a child outside of marriage, to stay with a guy who doesn't marry her, and not to work make her?

A guy supporting another man's children is hardly a scumbag.

Well we don’t know that he’s supporting those kids, do we?

OP bore the child and is providing chilcare & services to her “fiance” for free and getting little in return. And we don’t known what his representations have been about marrying her. Abandoning the mother of your child financially is a loser move.

She is not a surrogate. That child is hers. Half of childcare and "services" she provides are on her. And it isn't for free - unless you count freedom from worry. Someone's paying all these bills and it's not OP.

If the kids live with them and the mother doesn't make an income, someone else is paying their bills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My friend is on the other side of this. Her mom died when my friend was in college. Her dad ended up remarrying after my friend was married. Her new stepmother had one daughter. The dad died and the new wife got everything. When she passes, her assets will go to her daughter and not my friend or her siblings.

The dad had no will. He died suddenly. I think everyone is kind of like why did this 50 something year old just take the dad’s assets? My friend has kids. Her siblings have kids.

Aside from the OP’s intent on marrying OP or not, I think it is smart that he is not putting her on the house. They are not married and she does not contribute financially, why would she be put on the deed?

She contributes financially! She bore the child, cared for the child, cared for the house, for seven years. Again, why do you think we have laws that protect spouses in marriages? It's because we are in a culture/economy where women often do the domestic labor that enables the man to do paid labor. That makes the woman vulnerable if the man dies/leaves her. So the law says, you get 50% of the assets, you get an automatic distribution from the estate.

Your scenario of the stepmother inheriting is unfortunate, but totally different. Unless you're leaving something out, your friend was not financially dependent on her dad - she was married and had a family of her own. But sure, it may have been fair for her dad to leave some assets to her; or maybe she did have special financial needs he should have seen to. But he did not. And that's the overarching point here - people who don't handle their financial lives in a fair and proactive way.

The overarching point here is that we are a culture that prioritizes written commitments over unwritten ones. They are not married. She is not entitled to the protections of a wife.

The poster you're responding too got shunted on account of no will. Her father could have left her the money but he didn't. It was his free choice. Just like it is OP's boyfriend choice not to marry her.

That doesn't even matter, though, because there's no unwritten committment here either. Not everyone who has a kid without being married is in an "unwritten marriage". Some people really intend to NOT make certain commitments, and that's why they refuse to do things like marry and add each other to titles of property. Like OP's "fiance" is doing. If he's willing to let her call him "fiance" for seven years, it's because she's not calling him "husband".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My friend is on the other side of this. Her mom died when my friend was in college. Her dad ended up remarrying after my friend was married. Her new stepmother had one daughter. The dad died and the new wife got everything. When she passes, her assets will go to her daughter and not my friend or her siblings.

The dad had no will. He died suddenly. I think everyone is kind of like why did this 50 something year old just take the dad’s assets? My friend has kids. Her siblings have kids.

Aside from the OP’s intent on marrying OP or not, I think it is smart that he is not putting her on the house. They are not married and she does not contribute financially, why would she be put on the deed?

She contributes financially! She bore the child, cared for the child, cared for the house, for seven years. Again, why do you think we have laws that protect spouses in marriages? It's because we are in a culture/economy where women often do the domestic labor that enables the man to do paid labor. That makes the woman vulnerable if the man dies/leaves her. So the law says, you get 50% of the assets, you get an automatic distribution from the estate.

Your scenario of the stepmother inheriting is unfortunate, but totally different. Unless you're leaving something out, your friend was not financially dependent on her dad - she was married and had a family of her own. But sure, it may have been fair for her dad to leave some assets to her; or maybe she did have special financial needs he should have seen to. But he did not. And that's the overarching point here - people who don't handle their financial lives in a fair and proactive way.

Yes, there are laws that support spouses. OP is not a spouse. She is the mother of fiancé’s child. We have no details of what she did before she had this child 7 years ago. If she is not working, I’m assuming the fiancé is providing shelter and food for her other children.

I could see why the fiancé would not want to get married. He probably wants to protect his assets from going to OP’s other children.

What was OP doing before she became a sahm 7 years ago? She must have full or joint custody of her other kids. She had to support the other kids.

The fiancé already has 2 adult children. Teens can be a pain in the ass with their attitudes. I love my kids and can’t stand their teen/tween attitudes. The fiancé already lives and has a kid with OP. He gains nothing by marrying her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are not married. He is right. If he is fully paying for the house, it makes sense. Stop having kid until you are married with him as you have no protection. Get a full time job and save.

BS if you have children together, get on the title.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are not married. He is right. If he is fully paying for the house, it makes sense. Stop having kid until you are married with him as you have no protection. Get a full time job and save.

BS if you have children together, get on the title.

Absolutely not. If she wants to be on the title, she can contribute 50% of the down payment and 50% of the mortgage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My friend is on the other side of this. Her mom died when my friend was in college. Her dad ended up remarrying after my friend was married. Her new stepmother had one daughter. The dad died and the new wife got everything. When she passes, her assets will go to her daughter and not my friend or her siblings.

The dad had no will. He died suddenly. I think everyone is kind of like why did this 50 something year old just take the dad’s assets? My friend has kids. Her siblings have kids.

Aside from the OP’s intent on marrying OP or not, I think it is smart that he is not putting her on the house. They are not married and she does not contribute financially, why would she be put on the deed?

She contributes financially! She bore the child, cared for the child, cared for the house, for seven years. Again, why do you think we have laws that protect spouses in marriages? It's because we are in a culture/economy where women often do the domestic labor that enables the man to do paid labor. That makes the woman vulnerable if the man dies/leaves her. So the law says, you get 50% of the assets, you get an automatic distribution from the estate.

Your scenario of the stepmother inheriting is unfortunate, but totally different. Unless you're leaving something out, your friend was not financially dependent on her dad - she was married and had a family of her own. But sure, it may have been fair for her dad to leave some assets to her; or maybe she did have special financial needs he should have seen to. But he did not. And that's the overarching point here - people who don't handle their financial lives in a fair and proactive way.

The overarching point here is that we are a culture that prioritizes written commitments over unwritten ones. They are not married. She is not entitled to the protections of a wife.

The poster you're responding too got shunted on account of no will. Her father could have left her the money but he didn't. It was his free choice. Just like it is OP's boyfriend choice not to marry her.

Well some free choices make you a scumbag, like this dude. That's the entire point. So that OP realizes he is a scumbag and she needs to protect herself from him ASAP.

And what does OP's free choice to have a child outside of marriage, to stay with a guy who doesn't marry her, and not to work make her?

A guy supporting another man's children is hardly a scumbag.

Well we don’t know that he’s supporting those kids, do we?

OP bore the child and is providing chilcare & services to her “fiance” for free and getting little in return. And we don’t known what his representations have been about marrying her. Abandoning the mother of your child financially is a loser move.

She is not a surrogate. That child is hers. Half of childcare and "services" she provides are on her. And it isn't for free - unless you count freedom from worry. Someone's paying all these bills and it's not OP.

If the kids live with them and the mother doesn't make an income, someone else is paying their bills.

who is paying the childcare bills?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My friend is on the other side of this. Her mom died when my friend was in college. Her dad ended up remarrying after my friend was married. Her new stepmother had one daughter. The dad died and the new wife got everything. When she passes, her assets will go to her daughter and not my friend or her siblings.

The dad had no will. He died suddenly. I think everyone is kind of like why did this 50 something year old just take the dad’s assets? My friend has kids. Her siblings have kids.

Aside from the OP’s intent on marrying OP or not, I think it is smart that he is not putting her on the house. They are not married and she does not contribute financially, why would she be put on the deed?

She contributes financially! She bore the child, cared for the child, cared for the house, for seven years. Again, why do you think we have laws that protect spouses in marriages? It's because we are in a culture/economy where women often do the domestic labor that enables the man to do paid labor. That makes the woman vulnerable if the man dies/leaves her. So the law says, you get 50% of the assets, you get an automatic distribution from the estate.

Your scenario of the stepmother inheriting is unfortunate, but totally different. Unless you're leaving something out, your friend was not financially dependent on her dad - she was married and had a family of her own. But sure, it may have been fair for her dad to leave some assets to her; or maybe she did have special financial needs he should have seen to. But he did not. And that's the overarching point here - people who don't handle their financial lives in a fair and proactive way.

Yes, there are laws that support spouses. OP is not a spouse. She is the mother of fiancé’s child. We have no details of what she did before she had this child 7 years ago. If she is not working, I’m assuming the fiancé is providing shelter and food for her other children.

I could see why the fiancé would not want to get married. He probably wants to protect his assets from going to OP’s other children.

What was OP doing before she became a sahm 7 years ago? She must have full or joint custody of her other kids. She had to support the other kids.

The fiancé already has 2 adult children. Teens can be a pain in the ass with their attitudes. I love my kids and can’t stand their teen/tween attitudes. The fiancé already lives and has a kid with OP. He gains nothing by marrying her.

yah we know he “gains nothing” by marrying her or providing for her future security. that kind of reasoning is what makes him a selfish jerk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are not married. He is right. If he is fully paying for the house, it makes sense. Stop having kid until you are married with him as you have no protection. Get a full time job and save.

BS if you have children together, get on the title.

Absolutely not. If she wants to be on the title, she can contribute 50% of the down payment and 50% of the mortgage.

then he can compensate her for 7 years of childcare and housework.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are not married. He is right. If he is fully paying for the house, it makes sense. Stop having kid until you are married with him as you have no protection. Get a full time job and save.

BS if you have children together, get on the title.

Absolutely not. If she wants to be on the title, she can contribute 50% of the down payment and 50% of the mortgage.

then he can compensate her for 7 years of childcare and housework.

He did - with room and board for her and her other children. And it's half of 7 years.

[Anonymous]

Op , it only seems fair that your “fiancé” should leave one house to his older (adult) kids and one to you and the younger child you share (or to younger child with your right to live in it). But given that he’s not married you and hasn’t put you in either house this may not be easy.

Get thee to a lawyer and figure out your options.

Does he have a will? Do you get support for your older kids?