Ah, what I missed was that I assumed the house was his, not a joint asset, and that Foxy was glad of that as she no longer had to contribute any money towards a house she didn’t want and was costing her money. So I wrote my hypo on that basis.
That’s the thing though. Even if you had been diligent in making your house payments for 10 years, it wouldn’t have mattered, would it? If the house was in his name, and the payments were being made from his personal account, then it wouldn’t make a difference if you had contributed 50 or 80 or even 90% of the total house payments. According to your pre-nup terms, the house is his.
Ender, that’s just plain silly. No one in their right mind would make a pre-nup to protect assets, then make an absolute gift of those assets to the other party, and at the end of the day complain about not being able to get those assets back.
What’s funny is that in Foxy40’s thread from years ago when she first announced to the dope she was getting a divorce, this is almost exactly what she had (thought she had) done. She had a prenup, got married, bought a house thinking that the house would not be covered by the prenup, then complained because she thought she had to give her husband half of the house and wanted to figure out a way to keep from having to pay it (with the help of her attorney who was also representing him). She spent the whole thread arguing that while he may have been legally due half of the house, she shouldn’t have to pay it.
I don’t know if her understanding of her own prenup has improved or worsened since then, but it does show that even people with prenups make decisions they think will be a boon to the other side, then bitch when the time comes to pay up.
Not really. So you’ve got this prenup that your lawyer convinces you is a good idea that says “even after you’re married, if property is only in one person’s name and isn’t being paid through a joint account, it’s not joint property” (which is what Foxy40 did) and then Foxy40 promptly forgets about that clause for the rest of the marriage (which Foxy40 admitted she did), it could have just as likely worked out that Foxy’s husband put the house in his name and paid for it set up through his account, rather than the reverse.
So what was written as a way to protect Foxy’s interest in her own property would be the thing that ended up denying her the very property she’d invested so heavily in because it wasn’t in her name.
Hey, pal. Step into my office.
I have to admit I was trying to figure out why you’d been married–and for so long–in the first place. This solves the puzzle.
Not too naive to avoid getting married in the first place however.
Your ex sounds like he’s the one that made out here.
The law does not permit a person to transfer title of a house out of a person’s name without that person signing the transfer.
Foxy, during your marriage, did you ever get the urge to transfer your house to your husband? Somehow I doubt it. 
He means that instead of Foxy buying a house blah blah blah, it could have been her husband who bought the house.
The problem with that is it is contrary to the facts. Bought the house with what? Paid for it how?
Well, we’ve come to expect it from bigamist libertarian fanfic writers, such as yourself.
You’re making this extremely complicated. All he was saying was that the OP didn’t know it was going to end up the way it did, given that they both started with little in the way of assets. You’re looking at it in hindsight, how it DID end up. The person you are responding to is saying she didn’t know it was going to end up that way.
Not knowing the future, they had the choice of using the government’s default terms (the body of family law), or their own terms, so they made a reasoned decision. Not deciding to make a prenup is in fact a decision to accept a certain set of terms. It is meaningless to say that it could have turned out differently, for regardless of what they did or did not do, there would be rights and responsibilities to be met upon separation. Stating that had it turned out differently then Foxy might be reporting her lawyer to the bar association is off the wall, for there is nothing unreasonable about both parties not wanting to merge finances and not wanting to take from the other.
Given that the OP didn’t know what was in it, and that previous threads have detailed the ignorance of the husband, I’d say “reasoned decisions” weren’t really part of the equation.
That’s quite a leap.
I don’t know shit about this or any other marriage, but fuck this guy. He didn’t have that much to do and what little he did have TO do, he seems to have fucked up royally.
He still has ownership in another home and needs to get off his duff to check it out because he’ll need that other home soon. He could have gotten HIS OWN lawyer to review the prenup with him if he did not understand it. And this man does not deserve his daughter, if he will be abusive to her while SHE’S out earning a living.
I’m very late to this thread, but I just wanted to say well done to you Foxy40, for protecting your daughter, and turning your son’s life around.
(muttermumblewishI’ddoneaprenupmutter)
Understand that I’m not saying the attorney did any illegal, immoral, unethical. I’m also glad it all worked out in Foxy’s favor. The odds were on her side of that outcome occuring, so I can understand her lawyer’s suggestion to include that clause into the contract.
All I’m saying is that it wasn’t a slam dunk. You know what was a good clause?
When David Morrell’s attorney said “we’re adding in that you get a percentage of the profits from any Rambo sequel.” Even though everyone dies by the end of the first book.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1988-11-13/features/8802160194_1_rambo-sequels-first-blood
This clause had the potential to be good (and it was). It also had the potential for an entirely different OP by Foxy where she bitterly complains about a house she’s faithfully paid into for 10 years that goes entirely to her husband, all because they made the choice to put the house in his name. And why the fuck was that clause in the prenup? That stupid ass, goddamned attorney I hired insisted we include it and I didn’t know any better. What the hell was he thinking? That’s $100,000 down the drain for me!
And half the thread would be saying “Yeah. That’s ridiculous that you wouldn’t own part of a house you bought when you were married. Why the fuck was that clause in there? You should really look into reporting him to the Bar association for that.”
So again, glad it all worked out. Enjoy the house. But it was part luck that it did and you should be thankful this didn’t come back to bite you.
You’re way off track on how domestic contracts are negotiated and drafted.