WhatNext
Platinum
Reged: 10/11/06
Posts: 222
|
|
I'll try to make this as short as possible.
My wife left me June 06. We were together 13 years and married 5 when she left. We got married in may 2001 and live in New York. We are still married so I guess in the courts eyes married 6 years. I wanted to work things out she did not. She moved out and got her own apartment.
In March 2000 (before I got married) with gift money from my elderly father I purchased a house from my sister and my father gave gift money to my sister to purchase a house for her family and him to move into because he could not longer live alone.
I never put my wife on the deed and the house is in my name only. All the utilities are in my name and there were no improvements made to the house to increase it's value. The only thing my wife ever had to pay for was the groceries and the cable bill(in my name also) I paid for everything else.
My wife did nothing to move our divorce forward so a month ago with advice from a lawyer I had here served with divorce papers citing constructive abandonment. Her lawyer has now sent my lawyer papers saying that she is charging ME with constructive abandonment and that I kicked her out of the house when she knows damn well that is not how it went down. I begged her to try and work things out and she refused and left.
She is asking for equal distribution of all marital property but did not list what that is. The ONLY thing she ever contributed to the house is she purchased a new oven, refrigerator and a BBQ. The total for all these items is around $1300.00 but she got around 4 years use out of each.
I have all the documentation on how and when the house was obtained with gift money before I got married. Also she makes more money than I do and is asking for spousal support and that I pay her lawyer fees.
From what I have read and what my lawyer has said is a judge will say my house is pre-marital property and she can not touch it. My fear is that somehow a judge will sympathize
with her for some reason and not call my house pre-marital property. Can a judge change the law as he or she sees fit? I have no problem paying her for the appliances but I have a major fear about the house. With her now saying I kicked her out and her refusing to speak to me now I do not know what to think. Is my house safe? Can a judge still give her half of it with all the proof I have about how and when it was purchased? Or would the judge have to follow the law on what is considered pre-marital property?
Thank you for opinion and help.
|
theanswerguy
Platinum
Reged: 04/12/07
Posts: 2181
|
|
[quote]I'll try to make this as short as possible.
My wife left me June 06. We were together 13 years and married 5 when she left. We got married in may 2001 and live in New York. We are still married so I guess in the courts eyes married 6 years. I wanted to work things out she did not. She moved out and got her own apartment.
In March 2000 (before I got married) with gift money from my elderly father I purchased a house from my sister and my father gave gift money to my sister to purchase a house for her family and him to move into because he could not longer live alone.
I never put my wife on the deed and the house is in my name only. All the utilities are in my name and there were no improvements made to the house to increase it's value. The only thing my wife ever had to pay for was the groceries and the cable bill(in my name also) I paid for everything else.
>>>>>>>Property acquired by inheritance, gifts from third persons, compensation for personal injuries and property acquired after the start of a divorce action are considered separate property and is not subject to equitable distribution . Her only claim may be to any increase in equity DURING the marriage .
My wife did nothing to move our divorce forward so a month ago with advice from a lawyer I had here served with divorce papers citing constructive abandonment. Her lawyer has now sent my lawyer papers saying that she is charging ME with constructive abandonment and that I kicked her out of the house when she knows damn well that is not how it went down. I begged her to try and work things out and she refused and left.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a common tactic , she had to file a countercomplaint to your complaint .
She is asking for equal distribution of all marital property but did not list what that is. The ONLY thing she ever contributed to the house is she purchased a new oven, refrigerator and a BBQ. The total for all these items is around $1300.00 but she got around 4 years use out of each.
>>>>>>>>>>>Each party will be required to fill out financial disclosure forms .
I have all the documentation on how and when the house was obtained with gift money before I got married.
>>>>>>>>>>> Then it's your separate property .
Also she makes more money than I do and is asking for spousal support and that I pay her lawyer fees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> She can ask for whatever she likes . Why aren't you asking for the same ? Spousal support is EXTREMELY unlikely if she already makes more than you . Either party can be assigned legal fees but it's usually the one with more money or the one who delays the divorce proceedings that pays .
From what I have read and what my lawyer has said is a judge will say my house is pre-marital property and she can not touch it. My fear is that somehow a judge will sympathize with her for some reason and not call my house pre-marital property. Can a judge change the law as he or she sees fit?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No .
I have no problem paying her for the appliances but I have a major fear about the house. With her now saying I kicked her out and her refusing to speak to me now I do not know what to think. Is my house safe? Can a judge still give her half of it with all the proof I have about how and when it was purchased? Or would the judge have to follow the law on what is considered pre-marital property?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop worrying .
--------------------
Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right. Isaac Asimov
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5052
|
|
No one can ever make any absolute promises with the law (heck, OJ was acquitted, remember?)... but from what you've told us, it appears you have no cause for worry. Her filing a response & asking for stuff is just the form for getting it started, not necessarily anything that's going to happen. If she really makes more than you, then why aren't YOU asking for alimony? That kind of worries me, like that maybe you have an income source that means you don't "make" as much as she does but you may GET much more... like some people have businesses where they keep their earned income really tiny and keep the assets in the business, but that doesn't mean you're safe, if that's the way it's gone. But otherwise, if you are TRULY not earning much of a living, got your house from money given to you by your dad (and the marriage never had to pay a mortgage payment), then it's probably yours (most likely, but no one can ever make an absolute promise in the law)... and alimony is not something you need to worry about.
By the way, the length of marriage isn't what most states would call long term anyways... and if she's been doing fine on her own for the past year of separation without alimony then it's highly unlikely that the judge will order any EVEN IF you'd been married for years & years. If you've not been helping her out with money from time to time, she's not had to open a line of credit just to get living expenses, etc., and she's been doing OK for a year, then she doesn't need alimony, so they probably won't give it to her.
|
WhatNext
Platinum
Reged: 10/11/06
Posts: 222
|
|
[quote]
>>>>>>>Property acquired by inheritance, gifts from third persons, compensation for personal injuries and property acquired after the start of a divorce action are considered separate property and is not subject to equitable distribution . Her only claim may be to any increase in equity DURING the marriage .
[/quote]
Thank you very much for your reply.
I'm sorry but what exactly does "equity" mean? What I think it mean is the value increase since I have owned this house?
I got the house VERY cheap because I got it from my sister and my father was giving me all the money for it. I got the house for $70,000.00 in 2000 and now it's worth around $250,000.00. Does this mean she can possibly get half of $180,000.00? And if yes why would this only maybe happen?
Thank you.
|
WhatNext
Platinum
Reged: 10/11/06
Posts: 222
|
|
[quote} If she really makes more than you, then why aren't YOU asking for alimony?
My lawyer asked me the same thing and I told him because that would just prolong things and I want to put this all behind me ASAP. It's really in my brain just way too much. I just to move on with my life. I don't want ANYTHING from her except to be out of my life completely.
That kind of worries me, like that maybe you have an income source that means you don't "make" as much as she does but you may GET much more.
No nothing like that. She makes around $17.00 per hour and I m make $12.00 an hour at a job I started last week. Before that I was unemployed for 7 months because the previous company I worked for 10 years closed down when sold. Everyone was let go.
If you've not been helping her out with money from time to time, she's not had to open a line of credit just to get living expenses, etc., and she's been doing OK for a year, then she doesn't need alimony, so they probably won't give it to her. [/quote]
I think what is happening is that at first she was all excited about getting her own place that she didn't realize just how hard it is out there on your own. Now that 15 months have passed she is starting to really struggle with her bills. Her job really owns he ass now.
Thank you for your reply.
|
theanswerguy
Platinum
Reged: 04/12/07
Posts: 2181
|
|
Thank you very much for your reply.
I'm sorry but what exactly does "equity" mean? What I think it mean is the value increase since I have owned this house?
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
I got the house VERY cheap because I got it from my sister and my father was giving me all the money for it. I got the house for $70,000.00 in 2000 and now it's worth around $250,000.00. Does this mean she can possibly get half of $180,000.00? And if yes why would this only maybe happen?
>>>>>>>>>>>If she can prove any of the increase in value was due to her active participation , she would be entitled to an equitable share which can be anywhere from 0-100% . It's possible a judge could order her a nominal amount .
--------------------
Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right. Isaac Asimov
|
theanswerguy
Platinum
Reged: 04/12/07
Posts: 2181
|
|
[quote][quote} If she really makes more than you, then why aren't YOU asking for alimony?
My lawyer asked me the same thing and I told him because that would just prolong things and I want to put this all behind me ASAP. It's really in my brain just way too much. I just to move on with my life. I don't want ANYTHING from her except to be out of my life completely.
>>>>>>>>>>>She's much more likely to settle quickly if there's a chance she'll have to pay maintenance or legal fees . You have separate property ( the house ) and that CAN be a factor in the distribution of other marital property and the risk of spousal support .
--------------------
Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right. Isaac Asimov
|
Jada
Platinum
Reged: 06/02/07
Posts: 3339
|
|
[quote][quote]
>>>>>>>Property acquired by inheritance, gifts from third persons, compensation for personal injuries and property acquired after the start of a divorce action are considered separate property and is not subject to equitable distribution . Her only claim may be to any increase in equity DURING the marriage .
[/quote]
Thank you very much for your reply.
I'm sorry but what exactly does "equity" mean? What I think it mean is the value increase since I have owned this house?
I got the house VERY cheap because I got it from my sister and my father was giving me all the money for it. I got the house for $70,000.00 in 2000 and now it's worth around $250,000.00. Does this mean she can possibly get half of $180,000.00? And if yes why would this only maybe happen?
Thank you. [/quote]
Did you pay outright for the house or did you put a down payment and get a mortgage?
If it is the latter, she has a very good argument for getting half of the increase in equity that occured during the marriage.
If it is the former, you may be able to make an argument that she shouldn't get half of the increase equity.
|
WhatNext
Platinum
Reged: 10/11/06
Posts: 222
|
|
[quote]
>>>>>>>>>>>If she can prove any of the increase in value was due to her active participation , she would be entitled to an equitable share which can be anywhere from 0-100% . It's possible a judge could order her a nominal amount . [/quote]
As far as I can tell she has done nothing to increase the value of the house. Nothing has been done to it at all. Like I said the ONLY thing she ever did was buy an oven, refrigerator and BBQ that's it. I am willing to give her the money for these so she will leave me alone.
|
WhatNext
Platinum
Reged: 10/11/06
Posts: 222
|
|
[quote]
>>>>>>>>>>>She's much more likely to settle quickly if there's a chance she'll have to pay maintenance or legal fees . You have separate property ( the house ) and that CAN be a factor in the distribution of other marital property and the risk of spousal support . [/quote]
I am not really sure what you mean here. The only marital property is the appliances I listed. Because I own the house outright this could mean I may have to give her other items that she would call marital property? Even all the furniture was purchased by me or gifts from my family. When she moved in with me all she had was a duffel bag of her clothes that's it. And are you also saying because I own the house this may mean I may have to pay her support? Even though she makes more money than I do? Thanks for your help.
|
WhatNext
Platinum
Reged: 10/11/06
Posts: 222
|
|
[quote]
Did you pay outright for the house or did you put a down payment and get a mortgage?
[/quote]
I payed for the house outright 100% with gift money from my father over a year before we got married. There has never been any mortgage.
Thanks for your reply.
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5052
|
|
OK, "equity" means how much of the house's value do you own, which is a different than the total value of the house if you bought it with a mortgage... it usually means something like this: I put 20% down on a $100,000 house so I had $20,000 equity in it. Then after a year I had paid down the $80,000 mortgage by $1,000 worth, so the mortgage was only a $79,000 debt at that time. If the house was still worth $100,000, then I had $21,000 worth of equity, but if the house was worth $150,000, then I have a $79,000 loan on it, 29 years left to pay on the loan, and $71,000 worth of equity. And THEN you've got an argument to make... let's say you bought the house with your Dad's 20K and then paid the mortgage with joint earnings, there is a REAL question of whether or not the JOINT portion of the house is equal to $1,000 (the amount paid by the marriage), or whether it's equal to $51,000 (the amount of the increase in the value of the equity over the past year), or whether it's equal to something closer to $3,500 (you put in 20K, the marriage put in $1K so the marriage's portion of the property could be called one in 21... use that proportion to figure out how much of the CURRENT equity, or $71,000, is the marriage's proportion...)
You see, it can become a very complicated calculation if people think they're buying a house with thier inheritance & what thery're REALLY doing is buying a down payment and then paying it off with marital property... BUT you don't have that situation. Youv'e got a MUCH simpler situation...
Because you put 100% down on the house, it's 100% sole & separate equity, so there's really nothing she desrves. Have her take the barbecue or whatever back. Or pay her for it, if she insists, but she does not get to get part of the house your Dad bought for you just because she managed to stay married to you for a few years after you got the house!
The fact that you have a house and therefore are able to make ends meet in your current job means you probably won't get alimony even if you asked for it, and she certainly doesn't deserve any. The fact that you lost your job due to something not any fault of your own means that she can't complain that there's less money coming in.
After hearing what you just said, I'm feeling even more secure about telling you that what she's asking for, she won't get...
But like I said, there are never any promises.
Still, it sounds like her demands, IF she dares to push tehm, are being made in bad faith... short term marriage, she makes more than you, and she wants spousal support? BAD FAITH... and she somehow wants you to give her part of the house that your Dad gave you in it's entirety and she had the benefit of living in SCOTT FREE for the past several years? BAAAAAAD faith!
Ask your attorney to put this stuff in a motion for summary judgment on the issues of the home equity and alimony and consider asking for attorney's fees for having had to even answer her demands for this stuff. If she realizes that her claims are so off base that she might have to pay for your lawyer to defend your property against those stupid claims, she might smarten up & stop the battle on these points.
Divorce doesn't have to be like this, so nasty. I don't know why people make it like that. It's not like you two have so much money or assets that either of you could expect to live high on hte hog, and her belief that she deserves something from your Dad's estate is just greedy. Greed is what causes most of the animosity and in situatinos where there's just not that much to get greedy about, it's just nasty for the sake of being nasty.
|
MommaMia
Platinum
Reged: 02/17/07
Posts: 376
|
|
I will give you my experience. It is a little different, but there are many similarities.
My ex and I had a house built before we were married. The home was bought with an inheritance from ex's father, 100%. There was no mortgage. By the time we closed, we were married and my name was put on the deed (although my attorney said that didn't matter). The inheritance was from before our marriage, but the house was purchased after for 157k. The utilities were all in m ex's name.
When we divorced 4 years later, the house was worth $265k. According to his lawyer I was entitled to only half of the equity, which using their formula would have been half of the increase in value minus the purchase price. So, the house was worth $265k, minus the $155 purchase price, so I was entitled to half of the 110k difference, which is $55k.
To make a long story short, my attorney argued I was entitled to half of the house outright. We ended up settling out of court. He gave me $83k to buy me out. We both didn't want to take our chances in court.
Now, your ex has a decent claim on the formula used above.
Finally, paying for the cable, he appliances, painting a room, gardening, cooking, cleaning give her some right to the home. I agree not 100%.
Also, I am guessing she used her money for other things in the marriage such as vacations, cars, etc.
Just throwing in my 2 cents.
Good luck.
|
WhatNext
Platinum
Reged: 10/11/06
Posts: 222
|
|
[quote]OK, "equity" means how much of the house's value do you own, which is a different than the total value of the house if you bought it with a mortgage... it usually means something like this: I put 20% down on a $100,000 house so I had $20,000 equity in it. Then after a year I had paid down the $80,000 mortgage by $1,000 worth, so the mortgage was only a $79,000 debt at that time. If the house was still worth $100,000, then I had $21,000 worth of equity, but if the house was worth $150,000, then I have a $79,000 loan on it, 29 years left to pay on the loan, and $71,000 worth of equity. And THEN you've got an argument to make... let's say you bought the house with your Dad's 20K and then paid the mortgage with joint earnings, there is a REAL question of whether or not the JOINT portion of the house is equal to $1,000 (the amount paid by the marriage), or whether it's equal to $51,000 (the amount of the increase in the value of the equity over the past year), or whether it's equal to something closer to $3,500 (you put in 20K, the marriage put in $1K so the marriage's portion of the property could be called one in 21... use that proportion to figure out how much of the CURRENT equity, or $71,000, is the marriage's proportion...)
You see, it can become a very complicated calculation if people think they're buying a house with thier inheritance & what thery're REALLY doing is buying a down payment and then paying it off with marital property... BUT you don't have that situation. Youv'e got a MUCH simpler situation...
Because you put 100% down on the house, it's 100% sole & separate equity, so there's really nothing she desrves. Have her take the barbecue or whatever back. Or pay her for it, if she insists, but she does not get to get part of the house your Dad bought for you just because she managed to stay married to you for a few years after you got the house!
The fact that you have a house and therefore are able to make ends meet in your current job means you probably won't get alimony even if you asked for it, and she certainly doesn't deserve any. The fact that you lost your job due to something not any fault of your own means that she can't complain that there's less money coming in.
After hearing what you just said, I'm feeling even more secure about telling you that what she's asking for, she won't get...
But like I said, there are never any promises.
Still, it sounds like her demands, IF she dares to push tehm, are being made in bad faith... short term marriage, she makes more than you, and she wants spousal support? BAD FAITH... and she somehow wants you to give her part of the house that your Dad gave you in it's entirety and she had the benefit of living in SCOTT FREE for the past several years? BAAAAAAD faith!
Ask your attorney to put this stuff in a motion for summary judgment on the issues of the home equity and alimony and consider asking for attorney's fees for having had to even answer her demands for this stuff. If she realizes that her claims are so off base that she might have to pay for your lawyer to defend your property against those stupid claims, she might smarten up & stop the battle on these points.
Divorce doesn't have to be like this, so nasty. I don't know why people make it like that. It's not like you two have so much money or assets that either of you could expect to live high on hte hog, and her belief that she deserves something from your Dad's estate is just greedy. Greed is what causes most of the animosity and in situatinos where there's just not that much to get greedy about, it's just nasty for the sake of being nasty. [/quote]
Thank you so much for your advice it really means a lot to me going through this CRAP. I'll let you know how things turn out. I'm going to see my lawyer later this week to fill out some forms about my net worth and show them what my bills are every month.
One of the reasons she is so bitter is a few months after she left me I started dating someone new and it pissed her off. I guess she wanted me to sit around and be miserable but I went on with my life. She had a few bitter divorced friends that did not know the situation and told her to take me for all I am worth when they didn't know how I acquired the house. They figured we had a mortgage and she was on the deed. She bought into what they were telling her and she decided not to try and work things out with me.
I told her while we were still together that these "friends" would give 2 sh!ts about your marriage if things were going great. I told her if you said your marriage was going great the conversation would have lasted about 2min but say things are sh!tty then they are all ears and even calling you back the next day to see if things still suck. They would never be calling her back the next day to see if things were still going great. Of course from what I have heard these 2 or 3 friends don't even talk much to her now. The story is old now and they don't care.
Again thanks for your reply.
|
WhatNext
Platinum
Reged: 10/11/06
Posts: 222
|
|
[quote]I will give you my experience. It is a little different, but there are many similarities.
My ex and I had a house built before we were married. The home was bought with an inheritance from ex's father, 100%. There was no mortgage. By the time we closed, we were married and my name was put on the deed (although my attorney said that didn't matter). The inheritance was from before our marriage, but the house was purchased after for 157k. The utilities were all in m ex's name.
When we divorced 4 years later, the house was worth $265k. According to his lawyer I was entitled to only half of the equity, which using their formula would have been half of the increase in value minus the purchase price. So, the house was worth $265k, minus the $155 purchase price, so I was entitled to half of the 110k difference, which is $55k.
To make a long story short, my attorney argued I was entitled to half of the house outright. We ended up settling out of court. He gave me $83k to buy me out. We both didn't want to take our chances in court.
Now, your ex has a decent claim on the formula used above.
Finally, paying for the cable, he appliances, painting a room, gardening, cooking, cleaning give her some right to the home. I agree not 100%.
Also, I am guessing she used her money for other things in the marriage such as vacations, cars, etc.
Just throwing in my 2 cents.
Good luck. [/quote]
Thanks for your reply.
What state do you live in?
I think your husband would have won in court if he tried.
No she never paid for any vacations and I paid for my car !00%.
We never had any joint credit cards or bank accounts.
|
Samsung
Platinum
Reged: 06/14/07
Posts: 2127
|
|
Wow. I see that as so wrong. My ex and I inherited tens of thousand of dollars in antique furniture and other stuff from her side of the family. When we divorced, even though I was legally entitled to 1/2, I had the attorney take that stuff off the table. It's wasn't mine to be split, regardless of what the law says. I didn't buy it, and contibuted 0 to it.
|
WhatNext
Platinum
Reged: 10/11/06
Posts: 222
|
|
It's nice to see some people have integrity. But are you sure you would have really be entitled to half of the furniture even though it was something that she inherited? Or was it left to both of you?
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5052
|
|
I can only figure there may be a state or two which for some bizarre reasons will strip a person of half of the investment value of thier inheritance if they have the audacity to use the inheritance to purchase a home to live in and then allow a spouse to live there... rather than keeping the inheritance in a separate account and allowing interest & investment income to accrue within the account.
NASTY, but I guess there are some states that might do that. None that I know of, though. Most states protect inheritances.
|
jbar
Platinum
Reged: 12/16/06
Posts: 1013
|
|
===========================================================
From what I have read and what my lawyer has said is a judge will say my house is pre-marital property and she can not touch it. My fear is that somehow a judge will sympathize
with her for some reason and not call my house pre-marital property. Can a judge change the law as he or she sees fit?
===========================================================
A judge most certainly CAN change the law, as he sees fit, provided that he is an Appeals Court Judge and is upholding the opinion (or "overturning" it) of a lower court. One need look no farther than many well-known Supreme Court cases to see this, if the law is deemed inconsistent with "higher" or "superior" law.
Alternatively, the Appeals Court may "interpret" a lower court's decision in a new manner, theretofore unthought of in the given circumstances and inconsistent with what, to all honest observers, has been the way the law has been interpreted in the past. One has to look no farther than "Murff vs. Murff" in Texas, and compare it to the Texas Family Code, Sec. 2.003., to see what I am talking about. The Family Code calls for a mandated 50/50 division of marital property, yet Murff v. Murff declares that "any number of considerations" may determine the division of such assets, including "the needs of the parties"! As far as I can determine, both of these laws are now, simultaneously, being applied in Texas Family Courts, and the outcome of a given case is determined by which particular version of law the judge likes!
Indeed, there are even states where everything a married person has is considered to belong one-half to his spouse (LOL), whether acquired by inheritance or work prior to marriage, etc., upon operation of the theory that "When you get married, you stop being two people and become one. Therefore, you acquire one-half of everything your spouse has and ever will have". I would just like to know one thing: Is there something about law and politics (with apologies to J.W. Bush) which attracts nincompoops?
All the above is not the real outrage, but rather the fact that who "wins" the divorce apparently depends not on law or even reason, but rather upon which party can pay for the best attorney and the most appeals! You could face a decision clearly in violation of law, but which it could cost you a fortune to reverse, IF YOU CAN. For various political reasons Courts Of Appeals are loath to reverse decisons of lower courts, but lawyers are nonetheless happy to take the money for the appeal.
I think it may have been Lincoln who said, "If a court says that two and two are five, then two and two ARE five, until a higher court reverses the ruling"!
Edited by jbar (09/24/07 07:17 AM)
|
Samsung
Platinum
Reged: 06/14/07
Posts: 2127
|
|
My attorney told me I was entitled to 1/2. Whether I was or not I guess is mute. I never took it that far; I couldn't take it. A friend of mine, whose home was completely paid for, remarried a few years ago. She divorced this 2nd, cheating husband about 5 years later, and had to pay 1/2 the increase in value that accrued during that time...and houses increased by the double digits here every year for that time frame. Her house has gone from $135K to $248K, and she had pay him about $56,000. Of course, she was bewildered about it...and she should be. How many people are even aware of such laws? It is all so wrong.
Edited by Samsung (09/24/07 06:58 AM)
|
jbar
Platinum
Reged: 12/16/06
Posts: 1013
|
|
===========================================================
A friend of mine, whose home was completely paid for, remarried a few years ago. She divorced this 2nd, cheating husband about 5 years later, and had to pay 1/2 the increase in value that accrued during that time...and houses increased by the double digits here every year for that time frame. Her house has gone from $135K to $248K, and she had pay him about $56,000.
===========================================================
If it's any comfort, those were inflated dollars, and IMHO the price increases of about everything else were going up nearly as fast as homes. That "Core inflation rate" you hear about is a scam whereby they calculate inflation based on a "basket" of the most minimally inflating commodities they can find, and they change the "basket" contents all the time for this purpose! ATT I estimate the true inflation to be 20-40% per annum! Did I previously say something about George W.?
|
Samsung
Platinum
Reged: 06/14/07
Posts: 2127
|
|
I have another friend that built his house in 1990 for $110,000, and paid for it in cash, that he had saved for about 10 years (it was his first house). He married in 1991, and she cheated and divorced him in 2003. His house was worth $250,000 at that time, and he had to take out a mortgage for $125,000 to pay her off. In his case, even what he paid before marriage had to be split. He just recently put the house on the market....it take a 2 income family to support it...and living check to check for the last few years has him stressed.
|
MommaMia
Platinum
Reged: 02/17/07
Posts: 376
|
|
When you get an inheritance, that inheritance is yours alone. However, if you use that inheritance to purchase something during the marriage, say a house, that becomes marital property. I realize the purchase was made before the marriage, but now the equity is in question. I don't think she can touch the original 70k.
I live in Florida.
I also have a child, my name was on the deed and the house was purchased after we married. I don't believe I would have lost in court at all. When he put my name on the house, that was a "gift" to me.
Your wife may get a portion of the equity. Think of it this way. Say you had a 401k worth 70k when you married. That's yours. While you were together, that 401k increased in value to 270k on the day you file for divorce. Your ex wife would be entitled to half of that increase, or 100k. That's just the way it is. When you were together, both working and contributing to the marriage, property that you owned (and she owned too if you are in a community property state) increased in value. She is entitled to half of that increase, or so her attorney will claim.
When a gift or an inheritance is used to purchase a marital home is where this can get tricky, and the outcome will be up to the judge. She could claim that she paid more per month and contributed to the upkeep of the home. Can you prove that she didn't?
Also, dating someone after 2 months doesn't sound like you were trying to work it out for too long.
|
golightly
Gold
Reged: 04/10/07
Posts: 141
|
|
I'll tell you the story of my house. My husband bought it with his first wife. (Sort of - she didn't work). His grandfather loaned him the down payment. He had the loan recorded, and a formal lien placed against the home. When they got divorced, the ex wanted the house. Although the house had appreciated, they had refinanced, and there was no equity. And Grampa told her he would call his portion of the loan if she got the house - he didn't want to be her creditor. My husband offered her $20,000 if she would wait 12 months until he was in a position to refinance (due to rising real estate values. She took it, and still complains he "stole" the house from her.
Fast forward. I moved in 7 years ago. We've been married for 5. He owned the house maybe 12 years before our marriage. That said, since moving in, I pay the mortgage each month. I pay probably half the utilities and taxes. And probably about a third of any maintenance or improvements on the house.I've also done a lot of work - tiling, painting, landscaping etc... So, if we got divorced, should I not be entitled to half the equity in our home? (I believe that's how the law looks at it).
Anyway, if you had left your inheritance/ gift money in a fund collecting interest, it's not the same as having a house. The fund doesn't have heating bills that need paying, or flowers that need watering.
|
WhatNext
Platinum
Reged: 10/11/06
Posts: 222
|
|
[quote]I'll tell you the story of my house. My husband bought it with his first wife. (Sort of - she didn't work). His grandfather loaned him the down payment. He had the loan recorded, and a formal lien placed against the home. When they got divorced, the ex wanted the house. Although the house had appreciated, they had refinanced, and there was no equity. And Grampa told her he would call his portion of the loan if she got the house - he didn't want to be her creditor. My husband offered her $20,000 if she would wait 12 months until he was in a position to refinance (due to rising real estate values. She took it, and still complains he "stole" the house from her.
Fast forward. I moved in 7 years ago. We've been married for 5. He owned the house maybe 12 years before our marriage. That said, since moving in, I pay the mortgage each month. I pay probably half the utilities and taxes. And probably about a third of any maintenance or improvements on the house.I've also done a lot of work - tiling, painting, landscaping etc... So, if we got divorced, should I not be entitled to half the equity in our home? (I believe that's how the law looks at it).
Anyway, if you had left your inheritance/ gift money in a fund collecting interest, it's not the same as having a house. The fund doesn't have heating bills that need paying, or flowers that need watering. [/quote]
Do you have a record of the mortgage and taxes you paid for the house? My STBX has never paid a dime for taxes and there was never a mortgage.
She has zero proof that she EVER paid anything towards the house EVER. She never even had a checking account (her choice not mine) until after she left me.
The ONLY thing she EVER paid for were the groceries and the cable bill and that was in my name also. She gave me the money and I wrote the check. There was nothing to do with this house ever in her name.
|
WhatNext
Platinum
Reged: 10/11/06
Posts: 222
|
|
[quote]
When a gift or an inheritance is used to purchase a marital home is where this can get tricky, and the outcome will be up to the judge. She could claim that she paid more per month and contributed to the upkeep of the home. Can you prove that she didn't?
Also, dating someone after 2 months doesn't sound like you were trying to work it out for too long. [/quote]
I can prove that I paid for ALL the upkeep of the home. EVERYTHING that was paid for was paid for in my name ONLY. Also she can not prove at all that she helped with any upkeep for the house EVER. She didn't even have a bank account(her choice) of any kind until a month before she left me. As far as trying to work things out and dating someone a few months after she left, we had zero sex for months before we broke up and before that she had little or no interest in sex at all EVER. The problems we had were brewing for years. The last 3 or 4 months together I told her many times that everyday is another chance for us to to make things different and all she would say is "I don't love you anymore" and "we're not worth saving" being told that over and over made it easier for me to start dating.
|
WhatNext
Platinum
Reged: 10/11/06
Posts: 222
|
| |
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
