transfer the house title to me or I'm leaving you

[Anonymous]

Op: your intrinsic value is the value of the house that you own. That's as simple as that.

Why couldn't you just rent out your own house, and sign a prenup that that house is yours and will be exclusively maintained by you on your time and from its' rental income?

Why you could not buy a new, maybe smaller, but a JOINT house for both of you together?

There was NO need to commingle your pre-marital property. There are multiple ways how you can build new assets without mixing in the personal property.

[Anonymous]

DW here - if I bought a house and had equity in it, I’d want to protect that in case of divorce. My husband could buy-in the house if he wanted to contribute financially. In fact, I’ve known several people who married and had clauses in their prenup that kept the majority of house equity separate until they were married for a certain time period and then they would add them to the title. With divorce rates so high, why take the risk of signing over your house?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here,

Everyone one here appears to be missing the point and simply focusing on why a wife should be on the deed, in part because its humiliating not to.

I didn't meet her until I was in my 40s and everything I had I earned on my own.
Had I met her when I was young and broke and we built everything together then she would have been on every title and deed.
Unfortunately; I understand divorce law and was/am rightfully concerned about losing everything in a no-fault divorce proceeding at an age where I simply can't rebuild.
If a woman doesn't comingle her assets its simply considered wise for her to protect herself. Apparently if a man protects himself he is unsuitable for marriage.

I didn't ask her to comingle any of her assets because I wasn't with her for her money.
She was the beneficiary of everything.

Here is the point:

If its humiliating for a woman not to be on the deed of a house that was purchased prior to marriage, isn't it just as humiliating (even more) for his wife to say I won't be your wife unless you give me hundreds of thousands of dollars?

In effect this means the woman isn't with the man for love. To her, his value isn't in his character, his ethic, its simply his ability to transfer assets to her and unless he can afford to risk large losses he isn't worth staying with.

You didn’t ask her to commingle her assets but did you offer to live in a house you didn’t own, and had no claim to? Did you offer to clean and repair and pay bills for that house knowing you were giving up the chance to build any equity of your own? Did you offer to buy a new home together that could have been both of yours? Or did you just expect your wife to give time and energy in service to enriching you? Because that is what the last three years were for her— she made you wealthier and got nothing (hopefully her lawyer will find a way to remedy that).

[Anonymous]

OP, the hole in your story is that you couldn’t just sign over the deed to her while you still had a mortgage on the house. She would need to get her own mortgage in her name in the process. This is just one reason why we people don’t believe your story.

[Anonymous]

This is my take. She was already planning on leaving you, she just thought she had you tied around her little pinky so tightly she was going to get the house from the OP first. It is a discussion to get on the title, not at ultimatum. Strongly suggest you get into counseling. You can move forward or backwards because you missed ALL the red flags along the way before this ultimatum. Once you get into counseling you will figure out what these were and figure out how to read people better, then you will learn to apply these new skills and figure out who is trust worthy and who is not. (ie your ex wife)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DW here - if I bought a house and had equity in it, I’d want to protect that in case of divorce. My husband could buy-in the house if he wanted to contribute financially. In fact, I’ve known several people who married and had clauses in their prenup that kept the majority of house equity separate until they were married for a certain time period and then they would add them to the title. With divorce rates so high, why take the risk of signing over your house?

Yeah this is a pretty basic prenup clause but it usually protects the equity not the title— so the house is appraised before marriage, and that figure is cordoned off. A friend of mine lives in a home that is owned by her husbands family trust and there is a provision for her that basically adds the equivalent of a mortgage payment every month to her settlement that makes up for the fact that she has no equity or ownership in the home she lives in and would be homeless the day a divorce was final. What OP describes is his wife having literally no stake in a marital home and *that* is highly unusual and a lawyer would have told her to run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here,

Everyone one here appears to be missing the point and simply focusing on why a wife should be on the deed, in part because its humiliating not to.

I didn't meet her until I was in my 40s and everything I had I earned on my own.
Had I met her when I was young and broke and we built everything together then she would have been on every title and deed.
Unfortunately; I understand divorce law and was/am rightfully concerned about losing everything in a no-fault divorce proceeding at an age where I simply can't rebuild.
If a woman doesn't comingle her assets its simply considered wise for her to protect herself. Apparently if a man protects himself he is unsuitable for marriage.

I didn't ask her to comingle any of her assets because I wasn't with her for her money.
She was the beneficiary of everything.

Here is the point:

If its humiliating for a woman not to be on the deed of a house that was purchased prior to marriage, isn't it just as humiliating (even more) for his wife to say I won't be your wife unless you give me hundreds of thousands of dollars?

In effect this means the woman isn't with the man for love. To her, his value isn't in his character, his ethic, its simply his ability to transfer assets to her and unless he can afford to risk large losses he isn't worth staying with.

OP you keep digging in your heels. I get that you’re older and the idea of marriage is scary and feels risky. Guess what? It’s risky for EVERYONE. There has to be a minimum level of trust otherwise the relationship breaks down (as you’ve experienced.) If you’re not willing to share a house with the woman you’re going to marry, you shouldn’t get married. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here,

Everyone one here appears to be missing the point and simply focusing on why a wife should be on the deed, in part because its humiliating not to.

I didn't meet her until I was in my 40s and everything I had I earned on my own.
Had I met her when I was young and broke and we built everything together then she would have been on every title and deed.
Unfortunately; I understand divorce law and was/am rightfully concerned about losing everything in a no-fault divorce proceeding at an age where I simply can't rebuild.
If a woman doesn't comingle her assets its simply considered wise for her to protect herself. Apparently if a man protects himself he is unsuitable for marriage.

I didn't ask her to comingle any of her assets because I wasn't with her for her money.
She was the beneficiary of everything.

Here is the point:

If its humiliating for a woman not to be on the deed of a house that was purchased prior to marriage, isn't it just as humiliating (even more) for his wife to say I won't be your wife unless you give me hundreds of thousands of dollars?

In effect this means the woman isn't with the man for love. To her, his value isn't in his character, his ethic, its simply his ability to transfer assets to her and unless he can afford to risk large losses he isn't worth staying with.

You sound awfully confident in the righteousness of your position for someone who supposedly is so mired in self-doubt that they’re questioning whether they have any intrinsic value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, the hole in your story is that you couldn’t just sign over the deed to her while you still had a mortgage on the house. She would need to get her own mortgage in her name in the process. This is just one reason why we people don’t believe your story.

It’s really obnoxious how he keeps contradicting himself. He says that she wants to own the house and take him off the deed which sounds batshit crazy. Then in his longer update it turns out the wife just wanted to be on the deed of the house she’s living in. He is literally getting divorced so he doesn’t have share his house.

I hope he gets therapy and can have better luck in the future. Hopefully there are no kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suspect the wife was a manipulator/borderline-type due to the wreckage she has left in her wake. He's questioning his entire worth and she played victim, hard.

Well, we only have his perspective.

If it’s any consolation, I doubt she’s feeling great right now. I would be feeling worthless if the man I’d married didn’t think I was worth sharing a house with. I’d be embarrassed to tell my friends because it shows how little he thought of me. This isn’t like divorcing because you disagree about where to retire or having different interests. This is humiliating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect the wife was a manipulator/borderline-type due to the wreckage she has left in her wake. He's questioning his entire worth and she played victim, hard.

Well, we only have his perspective.

If it’s any consolation, I doubt she’s feeling great right now. I would be feeling worthless if the man I’d married didn’t think I was worth sharing a house with. I’d be embarrassed to tell my friends because it shows how little he thought of me. This isn’t like divorcing because you disagree about where to retire or having different interests. This is humiliating.

On the other hand, she may feel relieved to be out from under OP’s thumb and proud of herself for knowing she deserves better than being married to OP, even if the alternative is no marriage at all.

[Anonymous]

NP. I've seldom seen so much fabrication about events, intentional misreading of an OP's posts, and finger-wagging lecturing in any DCUM thread -- and that's saying something.

OP, I'd get off this site entirely and go find a therapist to work on the issues you, OP, have NOW and not come back here to hash over what your former DW said about the house months ago. As you can see, people here live to pick apart posts and focus only on the house and not on the bigger picture. Those looking at the bigger picture are assuming only you could be the problem, not DW. This is not a supportive place for you and the same people are coming back repeatedly to bash you. They want to you to give details, respond, answer them. You owe them nothing, so don't explain here; expend that energy on finding a therapist so you can move forward.

[Anonymous]

People I think are being hard on OP for no reason. They were in their 40s. They come with separate property. His is the house. Sounds like she made no payment and no improvements. No cutting the grass and splitting the electric bill do not count. They have no kids. Given age no likelihood. Not sure why anyone thinks a marriage like this would be commingled. Who would do that?

OP -- how much if anything did she get in the divorce on the house. Under the facts you set forth I would think little to zero. Is that right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People I think are being hard on OP for no reason. They were in their 40s. They come with separate property. His is the house. Sounds like she made no payment and no improvements. No cutting the grass and splitting the electric bill do not count. They have no kids. Given age no likelihood. Not sure why anyone thinks a marriage like this would be commingled. Who would do that?

OP -- how much if anything did she get in the divorce on the house. Under the facts you set forth I would think little to zero. Is that right?

Thats totally fine not to commingle if the family is not living in the house

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People I think are being hard on OP for no reason. They were in their 40s. They come with separate property. His is the house. Sounds like she made no payment and no improvements. No cutting the grass and splitting the electric bill do not count. They have no kids. Given age no likelihood. Not sure why anyone thinks a marriage like this would be commingled. Who would do that?

OP -- how much if anything did she get in the divorce on the house. Under the facts you set forth I would think little to zero. Is that right?

What’s the point in even getting married if you’re determind not to actually commit to the relationship for the long term?