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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe -- even in a community property state separate property is separate. If OP sold the house prior to marriage and bout rental property and kept separate spouse not entitled to the income or the gains. Same concept with the house.

OP what is the age of spouse. That matters. I was assuming a similar age to you. If younger like 22 then you are crazy not to have a prenup.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn’t have signed a prenup if I was much younger spouse without assets or high earning potential. My contribution into family would have exceeded the value of these assets, plus taking care of an aging spouse… it’s all relative you have to consider everything each spouse contributes like salaries, staying with kids etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t have signed a prenup if I was much younger spouse without assets or high earning potential. My contribution into family would have exceeded the value of these assets, plus taking care of an aging spouse… it’s all relative you have to consider everything each spouse contributes like salaries, staying with kids etc

Pardon meant to say without assets but high earning potential. A younger spouse often continues working when an older one retires. I know cases when 30 years younger wife became an executive after 20 years marriage making way more than her originally wealthier husband. When you marry someone it’s plain stupid to marry only “equals” because things can change ! Of course, unless a spouse owns a business empire with dozens of employees and we talk about huge wealth that needs protection. Again, these huge businesses are usually well protected by off-shore structures anyways

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe -- even in a community property state separate property is separate. If OP sold the house prior to marriage and bout rental property and kept separate spouse not entitled to the income or the gains. Same concept with the house.

OP what is the age of spouse. That matters. I was assuming a similar age to you. If younger like 22 then you are crazy not to have a prenup.

But the wife had no such opportunity to protect assets and instead added to the value of her husband’s, that was foolish on her part and exploitative on his part. A rental property is not the family home and, again, if they divorce the lack of the rental property doesn’t mean the OPs wife is homeless. If she had gotten advice before her marriage this is what she would have been told. She probably realized that after three years her husband still valued his “80%” over her financial safety and cut her losses.

[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.

You’re an idiot. If she buys a rental property while married, half of that property belongs to OP in a divorce. He effectively closed off the primary avenue of building wealth to his wife — someone he supposedly loved.

Of COURSE she divorced him.

[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.

Exactly. A number of my divorced friends got married, moved into their new wife's home, and paid her rent.

[Anonymous]

OP you handled it correctly. I wouldn’t put a spouse on my mortgage at this point either, even though my ex and I did everything jointly. Now that it’s over, no reason to ever remarry, or give up assets.

Rebuild your confidence and move forward. Divorce in general is a confidence destroyer. You dodged a big bullet at only having a three year marriage and no kids! You are free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP you handled it correctly. I wouldn’t put a spouse on my mortgage at this point either, even though my ex and I did everything jointly. Now that it’s over, no reason to ever remarry, or give up assets.

Rebuild your confidence and move forward. Divorce in general is a confidence destroyer. You dodged a big bullet at only having a three year marriage and no kids! You are free.

No he didn’t.

He should have bought a new house in both their names when they got married.

He didn’t want to do that for whatever reason. Maybe he didn’t want to devote his salary to pay for a new house. Maybe he understood that the new house would be a joint asset and he only wanted to in things that were 100% his. Plus he probably understood that his wife was subsidizing his lifestyle in a small way and helping him build wealth by contributing to his house. He was so obsessed with protecting his house, he forgot to protect his marriage. Nobody wants a partner who is constantly trying to screw them over.

Don’t get married again OP until you work out your issues. Any woman you date is not going to be okay with this.

[Anonymous]

OP - I get it that you bough the house before marriage, but the way you are score keeping and not investing in a joint future says a lot about why your marriage failed. It was not just about the house - it is about your whole attitude regarding money, ownership, protecting your assets, etc.

I married my husband in my late 30s with considerable assets. I paid the 20% DP on our first house, plus our wedding and 1/2 of my engagement ring. He came into marriage debt free but with little assets. His family is very generous with us though and he’ll get a sizable inheritance- hopefully not until we’re in our 60s. We don’t have a pre-nup, but we did talk about finances before we got married. I cannot imagine living in a house that was not mine, with a partner who made sure I understood it was not mine. It’s almost as if you went into marriage expecting it to fail. You didn’t even try to find a compromise that would make your wife feel like a valued, equal partner in the union. Frankly you sound like a jerk who cares more about money and winning than you care about your new ex-wife. I hope she meets a kind and wealthy husband who makes her feel welcome, safe, and valued in her own marriage. I hope you go to therapy to work out your issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. A number of my divorced friends got married, moved into their new wife's home, and paid her rent.

It could be true later in life when no plans to build a family or kids from prior marriages involved. I wouldn’t pay rent anyone - why would I, if I have my own home?

[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.

Hi op.

[Anonymous]

If you marry again, marry someone else hi is your Economic equal. Seems important to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you marry again, marry someone else hi is your Economic equal. Seems important to you.

He will screw his equal even more. The more money involved - the more options are available to this type of person. IMHO he should be marrying at all

[Anonymous]

Can’t believe nobody commented on this yet. OP specifically said that his wife wasn’t that good. So he didn’t think she was great and he didn’t want her to have any financial security and he didn’t want to commit to her. I can see why she left.

[jsteele]

Hey OP, there are a few discrepancies between this thread and your earlier one:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1015220.page

What about the baby?