Well, Foxy, you continued to post until I’ve completely changed my mind. You originally asked for opinions on the moral correctness of your position. The majority of the posts advise that you should be completely candid w/ your husband, but you continue to try to rationalize your original position. You also imply that you’re going to jump into another marriage, w/ a guy who is currently getting a divorce, as soon as you can shed your current husband. (I won’t even go into what that implies.)
So why did you pose your question in the first place? For validation?
I’ve come to the conclusion, based on your posts, that you appear to be immature, self centered, untrustworthy and very foolish.
I’m also struck by the absence of any mention, by you, of how all these dealings are going to effect your children.
So I’ve gone from having some empathy for you and trying to give you thoughtful answers, to feeling a bit used and deceived. Good luck, I think you’re going to need it.
OK that made no sense… Let me repeat:
They bought it together, and both of their names were on the mortgage. In your case, you bought the house yourself. So I am very confused as to how the house would still be considered half his. That doesn’t make sense and doesn’t seem fair.
And let me reiterate that I agree with you 110% about everything you’ve been saying about lazy spouses, etc. It’s completely unfair and backwards.
Geez people, I don’t get it. This lazy guy was a “kept man” for 8 years and did nothing to contribute to the household, while his wife worked hard to keep the family in a high standard of living… and now he deserves a big payday? For what, exactly? Foxy40 bought the house herself… he would be extremely lucky to get the $20,000 and no obligation to pay child support.
The only foolish thing Foxy did was let this freeloader continue to leech off of her for so long. It’s like letting your unemployed grown child continue to live in your house rent free, or having a roommate who doesn’t pay rent and does nothing all day. These are unacceptable situations, why is it any different just because you are married to the person?
Being married to a large degree involves meshing finances. That is the nature of the beast. Depending on state law, you may be responsible for the debts that the other person accrues while married. In the eyes of the law, marriage is a legal form. If married, your spouse may have rights to your estate that are not easily waivable.
- I am not your lawyer, you are not my client. I don’t know you, you don’t know me. I am not licensed in your state, I may have never been in your state. Don’t take legal advice over the internet. I could be some random moron who sole skill in life is to figure out how to use a computer to connect to the Internet. Consult an attorney in your jurisdiction. YMMV.
Well, because you ARE married to them, essentially. She chose the relationship (unlike the hypothetical child), and she did so knowing when she went into it that he was, in her eyes, a lazy fellow. Was she foolish for this? Well, given her preoccupation with money, absolutely. It doesn’t sound like in the long run, she got her investments worth of stuff back from him that she was looking for.
At this point, I’m not even sure I believe he did nothing at all. We’re getting a very one-sided view, from a person, as A.R. Cane points out, who is very interested in covering her ass and winning fans, and seems more interested in appearing moral than being moral. Ha may very well have done quite a bit around the house, or nothing at all. I don’t know. But I’m also losing faith in the credibility of our only witness.
He at least paid for the utilities, and I don’t see the OP adding those up and dividing by two to find out how much of “her” utilities he paid and paying him back, or subtracting it from her share of the house. If she’s really interested in a complete division of assests and liabilities, she should include those that count against her, as well as him.
I based my opinion on Foxy40’s own words. We don’t have her husband’s side of the story and I’m not going to accept that he’s a scoundrel, based on the word of a woman who’s trying to get rid of him so she can jump into yet another marriage.
There’s obviously a lot that’s not been revealed here and I’m beginning to smell something foul.
I completely agree with you.
I reiterate my comment from earlier in the thread. I really don’t believe you were honestly looking for opinions. You were looking for validations on what you had already decided to do. You’ve made up your mind on what you feel is “right” to do, and I think you’re righteously pissed that this thread wasn’t filled with rah-rah’s for you to go ahead with it. If you want an opinion, I’d ask a moderator to close this trainwreck, because I think it’s going to get ugly.
Not only that, but Foxy40 is somehow in the wrong for his failure to seek separate legal counsel.
*He got a letter from the lawyer being used for the divorce (out of necessity, not in a conscious attempt to screw him) stating the proposed settlement.
*The letter stated what Foxy believed to be a fair settlement.
*The letter recommended that he seek his own counsel.
Later conversations with a different lawyer (I presume it was a lawyer, at least) caused her to question his legal standings. Could he be entitled, based on the situation, to 1/2 the house? Foxy is doing the right thing, questioning her lawyer to determine what her rights to the property are. Still, if he can’t be arsed to do the same, I cannot fathom why it is Foxy’s position to inform him. It’s not like she’s selling him a Pinto. Her initial offer was not out of spite, nor an attempt to screw him - hell, by absolving him of child support obligations, she’s paving his ground with rose petals.
Personally, I’d prepare a calculation to be carried in my back pocket. I would figure his share of the property (let’s call it $85,000, based on numbers earlier in the thread). Then I would calculate 10-14 years of child support based upon state laws and how it handles children in college, his legal obligation to potential college tuition, and discount it to today’s dollars. If he contested the $20,000 payout and forgoing child support, I’d counter with whatever the difference is between his portion of the home equity minus his legal obligations to his daughter. When he picks his jaw up, he’d probably gladly accept the $20,000 .
Lastly, for all you righteous people cackling about how his daughter will now how he was “screwed”, won’t she also know how Foxy might be screwed if he gets a bigger payout and (potentially) fails to pay child support? Or perhaps, both parents may part amicably, understanding the tradeoffs, and no one will feel like they’re getting screwed, and Li’l Foxy will hopefully have two parents who get along but aren’t together anymore? …Ah, to hell with that. The SDMB Moral Majority (not to be confused with the religious group of the same name) wants a hero and a goat, and Foxy has been typecast as the goat.
Do you have a need to commit a lie of omission to him? Again, everything else is a smokescreen. Either you are honest and up-front with him, and thus a moral person; or you hide information from him that you know would be important to his decisionmaking process, which means that you are not a moral person. This isn’t complicated.
I have no opinion on whether he deserves a big payday. I only have an opinion on whether he deserves the truth.
If Foxy tells him the ambiguous legal nature of his claim, and offers to buy out his claim for $20,000, and says that she will vigorously contest any other claim in court, then she is acting ethically, IMO. If she hides information from him, then she is not.
Daniel
Silly person. If I decided what I was going to do before I got here, why would I be here? For validation? From strangers? For entertainment? Because I don’t have enough going on right now?
My only concern for my daughter is that she has a relationship with her father. Neither one of us will EVER say anything bad to the child about each other. I kept ignoring those concerns from posters because they are simply not relevent to the situation.
I am sorry if I have yet to make up my mind. You act as if EVERYONE is of *your * opinion here. Well, they are not. I have been considering all my options.
My attorney has reviewed my prenup per my concern and informed me he is not entitled to the home or any equity in it. The prenup did cover this. My thanks to Rick for having me ask the question instead of assuming.
As for the money? There where a few good points as to why he should still get it so I have yet to make up my mind if 20,000 is enough.
However, I appreciate all the well thought out answers. I shake my head at the odd people who thought I had nothing better to do than make up scenarios to entertain myself. Believe me, if you have time for such nonsense, more power to you. I suspect that people who think in such ways do so because it would occur to them to do such stupid pointless things. Perhaps I am too trusting at people’s honesty in regards to asking for advice. Perhaps I am not used to perfect strangers making an opinion on my character and being so upset by it.
I would still be interested in posts as to why he would be entitled to it. However, if you want to be an analyst. Practice on someone else.
nyctea scandiaca, how does this sound?
“This lazy woman was a ‘kept woman’ for 8 years and did nothing to contribute to the household, while her husband worked hard to keep the family in a high standard of living… and now she deserves a big payday? For what, exactly? … The only foolish thing Foxy did was let this freeloader continue to leech off of him for so long.”
A kept woman is a hard-working and deserving housewife, who would get half of everything even if she didn’t pay any bills or clean the house or do laundry. However, a kept man is a leech and a freeloader and doesn’t deserve a cent.
I know we, as people, make this distinction. Does the law? Not as far as I know.
If we as a society believe that ‘kept men’ should be treated as leeches, we need to change the law, not flaut it.
What’s his obligation to himself? I believe Foxy took care of her obligation when she said, through a lawyer and before she thought he might be entitled to 1/2 the house (if I have the timeline correct),’ here’s my proposed settlement - consult your lawyer and get back to me’.
If the bolded part is the case, then yes. If not, then no. And the kept man/woman under a pre-nup who didn’t contribute in the least to the household would not be entitled to anything legally or morally.
Ah, I missed this. Sorry. That does indeed change things, and no, he’s not entitled to anything more than the law says he is, nor should you have to morally encourage him to try to get more through use of his own lawyer. If you and he are happy with a $20,000 settlement, and the law says that he’s not entitled to more, then that’s that and you should go your separate ways in peace.
Now, about that child support thing…
By my standards, he’s not.
Okay, well how about this. I was thinking of giving him the 20,000 now and having the lawyer draw up a contract stating he can have half the equity that is assigned as of the date of our divorce after I sell the house.
I wish that statement from the lawyer made the difference but it has not. I still feel conflicted because he is my daughter’s father. He was my husband, he did contribute by paying the utilities although he did nothing else.
Then IMHO (or in my mundane, pointless opinion) you have done your part in “doing right” by making sure that you and your husband are operating from the same set of facts.
For now, as far as I’m concerned, any settlement is strictly your and his business, and I hope your divorce is more successful than your marriage.
I disagree, because of his response. His response was basically, “No, I trust you to do right by me.” She might at this point satisfy her obligations by saying, “You shouldn’t, because I’m not telling you everything you need to know.”
Basically, he’s believing that they’re both behaving honestly and honorably with each other; if she hides information from him, she’s behaving adversarially toward him, and hiding the fact that she’s doing so.
Her suggestion that he get a lawyer is not sufficient to indicate her adversarial status, especially not to indicate that she’s hiding information from him.
If it turns out that he is unambiguously not entitled to anything, of course, then she’s not hiding significant information from him, and none of that applies.
Daniel
These are my feeling also – at least so far as the equity in the house goes. Anything else you give him (the $20,000 or whatever) is entirely up to you and would certainly be an act of financial generosity on your part.
And he does still owe your daughter child support as far as I’m concerned – this is both a legal and moral obligation on his part. You never answered when I asked before – was child support addressed in your prenup? Has he said in so many words that he will not pay it?
Finally… well, it still leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. As I said before – the notion that financial contributions are the only ones that ‘count’ in a marriage troubles me. Possibly it’s that I can’t divorce my own circumstances (I’ve been a housewife for 20 years and am sitting here in a beautiful house for which I have not personally paid one penny) from your husband’s. Or maybe it’s my distrust of he-said, she-said type arguments, when only one side has been heard from. I would like to know what your husband feels he has contributed to your family. In a recent thread (the one about au pairs), you mentioned that your husband was your daiughter’s primary care-giver when she was a baby. That is not a negligible contribution, at least in my mind, and does constitute at least one area in which he did more than ‘sit on his ass and strum his guitar.’
Anyway, to drag it back to the question at hand – if your prenup covers the equity in your house, and he signed that prenup freely, then you have no moral obligation to give him any of the equity in your house.