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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

OP is paying one half. Her boyfriend the other half.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

She has no job so it doesn't matter who he "leaves the other house to". If there's a mortgage on it, he's leaving it to the bank since OP has no income with which to pay the mortgage.

[Anonymous]

She has no job so it doesn't matter who he "leaves the other house to". If there's a mortgage on it, he's leaving it to the bank since OP has no income with which to pay the mortgage.

She does work part time and he is wealthy enough to own two homes. Perhaps there will be a mortgage on it if he kicks the buckets but I was it’s underwater she can sell and at least regain equity/down payment.

She has not filed for child support from and I suggest she looks into it . He is responsible for that at least I’d they split or he leaves her.

The bigger issue is living with someone for years, having a child with them, and keeping her from pursuing other
Other options without putting into place any plans for her well being or the child they share. Legally she doesn’t have much of a right; morally he should provide something for her and their child in case of his death. We do not know if she is the default parent; chose to go part time etc, or what arrangements if any they discussed ahead of time. This is why marriage, as outdated as it may seem to some, is an important protection.

Op how much does he make vs you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

She has no job so it doesn't matter who he "leaves the other house to". If there's a mortgage on it, he's leaving it to the bank since OP has no income with which to pay the mortgage.

She does work part time and he is wealthy enough to own two homes. Perhaps there will be a mortgage on it if he kicks the buckets but I was it’s underwater she can sell and at least regain equity/down payment.

She has not filed for child support from and I suggest she looks into it . He is responsible for that at least I’d they split or he leaves her.

The bigger issue is living with someone for years, having a child with them, and keeping her from pursuing other
Other options without putting into place any plans for her well being or the child they share. Legally she doesn’t have much of a right; morally he should provide something for her and their child in case of his death. We do not know if she is the default parent; chose to go part time etc, or what arrangements if any they discussed ahead of time. This is why marriage, as outdated as it may seem to some, is an important protection.

Op how much does he make vs you?

This is where you and I differ. Unless he is keeping her chained to the radiator, she is doing it willingly. Nobody is keeping her from anything. This is a choice she made. Yes it was a foolish choice but a choice she made nevertheless with full understanding of pros and cons that by all accounts she should have been aware of by the ripe age of 43. She's hardly a doe-eyed 19-year old who doesn't understand how life works.

Her legal rights are child support and the freedom to leave tomorrow if she wishes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I doubt that adds up to what she contributed. and it’s a super sh*tty way to treat the mother of your child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

OP is paying one half. Her boyfriend the other half.

No, OP is doing all of the childcare. I pay $25 hr plus taxes, so that’s around $30/hr X 24 hr x 7 yrs. Don’t forget the overtime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

She has no job so it doesn't matter who he "leaves the other house to". If there's a mortgage on it, he's leaving it to the bank since OP has no income with which to pay the mortgage.

Typically a non-scummy man will arrange it so the mother of his minor child inherits the house and will maintain life insurance to cover the mortgage if something happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

She has no job so it doesn't matter who he "leaves the other house to". If there's a mortgage on it, he's leaving it to the bank since OP has no income with which to pay the mortgage.

She does work part time and he is wealthy enough to own two homes. Perhaps there will be a mortgage on it if he kicks the buckets but I was it’s underwater she can sell and at least regain equity/down payment.

She has not filed for child support from and I suggest she looks into it . He is responsible for that at least I’d they split or he leaves her.

The bigger issue is living with someone for years, having a child with them, and keeping her from pursuing other
Other options without putting into place any plans for her well being or the child they share. Legally she doesn’t have much of a right; morally he should provide something for her and their child in case of his death. We do not know if she is the default parent; chose to go part time etc, or what arrangements if any they discussed ahead of time. This is why marriage, as outdated as it may seem to some, is an important protection.

Op how much does he make vs you?

This is where you and I differ. Unless he is keeping her chained to the radiator, she is doing it willingly. Nobody is keeping her from anything. This is a choice she made. Yes it was a foolish choice but a choice she made nevertheless with full understanding of pros and cons that by all accounts she should have been aware of by the ripe age of 43. She's hardly a doe-eyed 19-year old who doesn't understand how life works.

Her legal rights are child support and the freedom to leave tomorrow if she wishes.

Well then, she can leave and he can pay a large child support bill.

[Anonymous]

Lots of posts here that miss the mark and/or are just mean. Without being married, you have very few options. Why are you two not married?

What does his will say? This is more important than name on title.

If it were me, I would have set up a trust that pays income to OP and kids but leaves all to kids. Nothing to OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

OP is paying one half. Her boyfriend the other half.

No, OP is doing all of the childcare. I pay $25 hr plus taxes, so that’s around $30/hr X 24 hr x 7 yrs. Don’t forget the overtime.

She's caring for her own child. Parents split childcare. Half childcare is on her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

She has no job so it doesn't matter who he "leaves the other house to". If there's a mortgage on it, he's leaving it to the bank since OP has no income with which to pay the mortgage.

She does work part time and he is wealthy enough to own two homes. Perhaps there will be a mortgage on it if he kicks the buckets but I was it’s underwater she can sell and at least regain equity/down payment.

She has not filed for child support from and I suggest she looks into it . He is responsible for that at least I’d they split or he leaves her.

The bigger issue is living with someone for years, having a child with them, and keeping her from pursuing other
Other options without putting into place any plans for her well being or the child they share. Legally she doesn’t have much of a right; morally he should provide something for her and their child in case of his death. We do not know if she is the default parent; chose to go part time etc, or what arrangements if any they discussed ahead of time. This is why marriage, as outdated as it may seem to some, is an important protection.

Op how much does he make vs you?

This is where you and I differ. Unless he is keeping her chained to the radiator, she is doing it willingly. Nobody is keeping her from anything. This is a choice she made. Yes it was a foolish choice but a choice she made nevertheless with full understanding of pros and cons that by all accounts she should have been aware of by the ripe age of 43. She's hardly a doe-eyed 19-year old who doesn't understand how life works.

Her legal rights are child support and the freedom to leave tomorrow if she wishes.

Well then, she can leave and he can pay a large child support bill.

Ask other women what they get in child support for a child who's out of daycare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

She has no job so it doesn't matter who he "leaves the other house to". If there's a mortgage on it, he's leaving it to the bank since OP has no income with which to pay the mortgage.

Typically a non-scummy man will arrange it so the mother of his minor child inherits the house and will maintain life insurance to cover the mortgage if something happens.

Did someone force her to procreate with him?

Did someone force her to stay with a non-marrying man for 7 years?

Did someone force her to not work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

She has no job so it doesn't matter who he "leaves the other house to". If there's a mortgage on it, he's leaving it to the bank since OP has no income with which to pay the mortgage.

She does work part time and he is wealthy enough to own two homes. Perhaps there will be a mortgage on it if he kicks the buckets but I was it’s underwater she can sell and at least regain equity/down payment.

She has not filed for child support from and I suggest she looks into it . He is responsible for that at least I’d they split or he leaves her.

The bigger issue is living with someone for years, having a child with them, and keeping her from pursuing other
Other options without putting into place any plans for her well being or the child they share. Legally she doesn’t have much of a right; morally he should provide something for her and their child in case of his death. We do not know if she is the default parent; chose to go part time etc, or what arrangements if any they discussed ahead of time. This is why marriage, as outdated as it may seem to some, is an important protection.

Op how much does he make vs you?

This is where you and I differ. Unless he is keeping her chained to the radiator, she is doing it willingly. Nobody is keeping her from anything. This is a choice she made. Yes it was a foolish choice but a choice she made nevertheless with full understanding of pros and cons that by all accounts she should have been aware of by the ripe age of 43. She's hardly a doe-eyed 19-year old who doesn't understand how life works.

Her legal rights are child support and the freedom to leave tomorrow if she wishes.

Well then, she can leave and he can pay a large child support bill.

And he can sell both houses, take the proceeds and the rest of his assets to Vietnam, and live on the beach for the rest of his life while OP gets nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

OP is paying one half. Her boyfriend the other half.

No, OP is doing all of the childcare. I pay $25 hr plus taxes, so that’s around $30/hr X 24 hr x 7 yrs. Don’t forget the overtime.

LOL does your nanny bring two teenagers with her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

She has no job so it doesn't matter who he "leaves the other house to". If there's a mortgage on it, he's leaving it to the bank since OP has no income with which to pay the mortgage.

Typically a non-scummy man will arrange it so the mother of his minor child inherits the house and will maintain life insurance to cover the mortgage if something happens.

Did someone force her to procreate with him?

Did someone force her to stay with a non-marrying man for 7 years?

Did someone force her to not work?

Right sounds like some real non-scummy reasoning there! “Ok lady you’re having my baby, you can stay in my house and take care of if for room and board, but don’t expect anything else because my older kids are my priority.”