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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dude. You need to just go out and get some strange.

A little bit of fresh stank on the hang-low can do more to improve one's outlook than 100 therapy sessions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

There is no family other than OP and spouse. If husband owned a $2 million house and got married at age 45 with separate finances ---- why would the spouse get any of it? Frankly she should pay rent.

[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?

It sounds they both got zero out of the relationship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

He's in his 40s. This isn't two 24 year olds building a life. Do you not plan for a marriage to break up? Isn't the advice to the wife don't give up separate property?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It sounds they both got zero out of the relationship.

lol -- best post on this thread!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

+1. Reading comprehension on this site is bad on a good day, but the number of posters twisting the OP's words is ridiculous. The OP has not contradicted himself. Some posters have decided to add facts to make points and respond to questions that were not asked in the OP's post.

OP, the best advice is to seek therapy. You have to learn to trust and like yourself. Her ultimatum was probably not about the house. She just wanted to leave. It is done. Time to learn from this experience and heal. I hope you will keep your heart and mind open to therapy.

[Anonymous]

Sounds like either she was insecure/immature, or was looking for sugar dadda, or you were kind of weird/cheap. I'm not sure which one it was, but I'm sure one or the other. If she was actually financially self sufficient, independent, secure, and you weren't weird about keeping all your finances separate, title to the home wouldn't have been a big deal. But something was awry.

Reflect on that. If you had joint finances, you weren't nit picky about splitting bills, probably she had issues and you're better off alone. Be glad you didn't have kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

He's in his 40s. This isn't two 24 year olds building a life. Do you not plan for a marriage to break up? Isn't the advice to the wife don't give up separate property?

People who are 40 and own $2mm either don’t marry or they find a way not to offend their spouse. Prenups are there for a reason .

[Anonymous]

OP should only date / marry women with a net worth equal to or greater than his own. That might alleviate any feeling of "being robbed."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP should only date / marry women with a net worth equal to or greater than his own. That might alleviate any feeling of "being robbed."

Yep ! If he can find such a woman . Or he can split delegations 1. Get a donor baby and grow up as single dad 2. Find a live-in “nanny”/“cook”/“hooker” and pay her a salary

[Anonymous]

The gold diggers have found your thread, OP.

Get off this site and go date! Don’t get married. You were right to protect your assets. That much is clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
OP, I’m a SAHM. I didn’t contribute any money towards my house. My husband paid for everything—and will continue to pay for everything. Both our names are on the deed of our house.

Your views are generally incompatible with marriage.

You must have bought that house together after marriage? OP owned his house before getting married. There is a difference. [/qu ote]

NP here.

Nope. My husband paid off the house before we met. And he agreed that it belonged to both of us. We spent marital assets on finishing the basement, renovating the kitchen and all 4 bathrooms, paying taxes on it etc. And i was the one who found the contractors and supervised the work. If the house were his only, I wouldn't be comfortable with all of that.

OP needs to rent the house out and create a business account for maintenance and repairs of the house. He cannot expect his wife to be a part of maintenence, renovation, repairs, or even paying taxes for a house that will never be hers.

However I think there are bigger problems here. I am not leaving my husband for stuff like that. I would have found a place to rent, moved out and asked him to follow me to our new place and put his house on the market for rent or sale. And my husband would have done so if he did not intend to add me to the title.

There will always be disagreements in a marriage. If you like each other, you find compromises. To leave because you would not be added on a house that has almost been paid off shows that you were either not into the marriage from the start or you lack problem solving skills. Either way, good riddance! OP get yourself together, seek therapy to know your worth and pick a better spouse next time.

[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.

I’m a woman who agrees with you OP. There was nothing stopping her from taking her own salary and simply investing in a rental property of her own to build her own wealth. She could have easily drawn the line and said ‘your home, your responsibility, I just live here with you and will help keep it clean because that benefits me as well’. I have a male friend who got screwed during a divorce. His wife refuses to work to this day (60 years old now) despite having an Ivy League education. She’s lived off his money after the divorce because the state they live in said he had to pay her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m a woman who agrees with you OP. There was nothing stopping her from taking her own salary and simply investing in a rental property of her own to build her own wealth. She could have easily drawn the line and said ‘your home, your responsibility, I just live here with you and will help keep it clean because that benefits me as well’. I have a male friend who got screwed during a divorce. His wife refuses to work to this day (60 years old now) despite having an Ivy League education. She’s lived off his money after the divorce because the state they live in said he had to pay her.

Not in a community property state she couldn’t— acquired during the marriage means OP gets half no matter whose salary is spent on it. If they had spent the $500 to get a basic prenup she could have done something like this. OP clearly did not want his wife to have legal advice going into this arrangement, because a lawyer who worked for his wife would not have said “yes you should agree to be homeless at your husbands whim”.

Also, we only know OP is in his 40s we have no indication of the age of his wife. Seems like agreeing to this kind of financial exploitation at the outset is the act of a young (someone stupid or naive) person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

There is no family other than OP and spouse. If husband owned a $2 million house and got married at age 45 with separate finances ---- why would the spouse get any of it? Frankly she should pay rent.

And then should she charge his for every bit of housework she does? Require him to reimburse her for anything she buys for the house?