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.

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.

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:

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.