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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.