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

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:

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 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.

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:

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 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

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.