I am trying to follow this. If he had bought the house, I wouldn’t have paid anything towards it. That is how we set up our finances from the beginning. So it wouldn’t have been an issue when we split. It would be his house that I was living in rent free.
There is no way I would contribute to a mortgage on a house not in my name. Even my husband wasn’t stupid enough to do that when he was working.
Why would I (or ANYBODY) pay for a house not in my name? I am sorry but this keeps coming up. Why would anyone be that foolish? I can’t even imagine a scenario where this would make sense.
BINGO! Thank you. He is the one that made out. He was almost completely taken care of financially for many years.
My old fashion views thought it was right to marry the father of my child. I’ve paid my dues over and over again.
I can’t see a reasonable rational person thinking he got the short end of the stick in the situation.
So I’m confused then. You guys got married. Then bought this house. You signed the loan in your name only. Then you turned to your husband and said “since I’m putting it in my name, I’ll make all the payments.”
And your husband said “Yeah, that’s cool. I wasn’t planning on paying for it anyway.”
I mean, I’m being snarky, but is that the extent of it? I’m really trying to figure out how this went down.
Sometimes it is done for creditor protection, but then there would almost always be a domestic contract setting out how to deal with it upon separation.
Also, sometimes parents will give a house as a wedding gift or co-sign a mortgage as a wedding gift, which can get really messy when their precious snowflake separates without a prenup that deals with it.
There really wasn’t a conversation. After the baby was born, I wanted a bigger house so I bought it. The loan and title were in my name because I was the one buying it. We did not share money when dating and nothing changed when we married. I simply made all the payments.
Muffin wrote of the possibility of credit issues where one would be alone on the mortgage but why wouldn’t they put their spouse on the title if they both planned on making the payments and sharing the ownership of the property? Even if it is quit claimed after they move in? My point being, why would someone agree to pay for a house that wasn’t in their name?
And if he didn’t, the existing one is less likely to stand.
I’m in favor of premarital agreements. I think it’s foolish, however, to think any prenuptial is as airtight as the OP thinks.
Foxy40, I’m not addressing this comment to you because you’ve already addressed it. Just had to borrow your quote there.
I keep seeing this phrase, house “in my name” from various posts. There is the mortgage and then there is the title and never the two shall meet. It is perfectly legal for Jane to be the signer on a mortgage and responsible for all payments while John (let’s say an unrelated party, certainly not domestically involved) is the one on the title. A mortgage is a promise to pay, that’s all. So “house is in my name” rarely means what the folks think it means.
Now this one is addressed to your quote, Foxy40:
I have a friend who is in fact paying on “his wife’s mortage”. The issue was he was unemployed at the time of closing so he could not be included without adversely affecting the interest rate. When he told me this I raised an eyebrow. he says he doesn’t worry about it because “he’s protected by the marriage”. I mentally screamed but in his case he may be right since he’s making and paying money towards it.
Correct. I had to pay for the lawyer of his choice at the time. That was a very important part of the agreement.
That is what I was saying about a quit claim. If a person is paying on a house where the mortgage was not in their name, the title should be quit claimed so they have interest in it.
However, neither the mortgage nor the title is in my husband’s name. However, say for instance he wanted to take out a mortgage on the house his father left him. I wouldn’t pay a dime until he quit claimed half of it to me. That is just common sense.
I do realize my financial relationship during the marriage isn’t typical so for other people these issues would certainly come up. We do not have a joint account or any shared bills, including auto insurance and cell phone. (Even though it would be less expensive, the reality is he would end up not paying any of it and I wasn’t going there). It is difficult for married people to understand this unless they do the same. Most married people combine finances and pay the bills with a joint account.
Although marrying again isn’t likely, I would not do anything different in a future relationship.
Let’s say that Fred is the only breadwinner in the family, but he wants to start up his own quarry, while Wilma wants to stay home and raise Pebbles.
Fred and Wilma own their home free and clear of any mortgage, which had been paid off by Fred over the years, and Fred continues to be the only person paying property taxes, utilities, maintenance and renovations.
Fred and Wilma make a domestic contract through their separate lawyers, with one of the terms being that should the parties separate, whatever the equalization payment would be, Wilma would additionally pay half of the value of the house to Fred. (Let’s assume that during negotiations, Fred wanted the entire value of the house paid to him pon separation, but Wilma said “No”, and they compromised on 50/50.)
Once this is done, Fred transfers his interest in the house to Wilma, such that she becomes the sole owner.
Once the transfer is completed, Fred then borrows to get his business going (even if it is a limitied liability corporation, the creditors have him sign personal guarantees). His business fails. The creditors execute against him and he goes bankrupt, but the creditors can not touch the house because it is not his.
Fred and Wilma continue to live in the house, or they separate and split the house now that the creditors are no longer on the scene.
My husband is not on the deed to our house nor does he pay the mortgage. Why? Because his credit is bad and our interest rate would have been astronomical. Since I could afford the payments with my salary alone, I signed the paperwork and the deed and he has nothing.
Of course, the laws in this province (and our lack of a pre-nup) say that he owns half of the marital home anyway should we divorce.
So, we are saving a ton of money while technically he gives me money towards the house. (Actually, he signs over his entire paycheck but that’s another story.)
DD
In both cases, the relevant law - either the law of the jurisdiction, or the terms of the agreement - sets out the terms.
In the case of the law of the jurisdiction, those terms are (presumably!) carefully crafted to be reasonably equal. In the case of a pre-nup, there are three major possible concerns:
Unequal bargaining power. Family law matters are notorious for this. Sure, it hardly seems an issue in the case of the OP, but what about where one of the partners was for some reason very dominant over the other? This can be the case for people raised in many traditional societies - which works, generally, to the detriment of women.
Needless to say, things change and people tend to forget to update their contracts to account for change. Who the parties were when they were married may not be who the parties are when they divorce. Unless they are blessed with precognition (or more realistically, take the time to periodically update their contract - which most people do not!), the terms that were very reasonable and fair when signed may no longer be reasonable and fair after many years of marriage.
Courts in many jurisdictions interfere in prenups routinely if they think the terms are unfair. The prenup may not, in point of fact, provide certainty of terms.
Few folks make a domestic contract when they are young and have not gone through a separation.
Many (perhaps most, but I don’t have any stats one way or the other) folks who are older or who have gone through a separation chose to make a domestic contract, and almost always these contracts run somewhat along the lines of “what’s yours is yours, what’s mine is mine.” When they purchase joint assets (e.g. a house), they share both title and costs, but they do not blend their finances any more than necessary (e.g. joint operating account, but no joint savings). Usually these contracts have a spousal support release, but such releases are not as solid as the property terms.
For shits and giggles, let’s encourage Freemen-on-the-Land types to argue that substantive family law is contractual, such that they should not have to pay spousal support because “I didn’t know what I was getting into when I married her.”
I’m kind of wondering about that, too - here in Alberta, the marital status of people buying houses is seriously taken into account - my husband and I both have to sign all the paperwork for buying and selling a house, and way back when as a single person, I had to sign an affidavit stating that I had no husband when I bought a house. I can easily believe that the laws are different where Foxy40 is, but I wonder if her husband had to sign something to allow her to buy a house without his name being brought into the transaction at all.
Like we need more Freeman-related laughs. 
I remember that yes, he did have to sign that he was aware that I was buying a house. I can’t remember the particulars but it didn’t give him any interest, it might have been a waiver. It was one piece of paper. He didn’t have to sign any of the other hundred papers involved in the closing process.
I am reasonable sure that is required in Florida but I am not sure about other states.
However, when I took a second out several years ago, he didn’t have to sign anything. Not even that he was aware since it was titled in my name.
I think a lot of that has to do with protecting children from those previous relationships. While I was pregnant during the prenuptial agreement process, my ten year old son was utmost on my mind. I needed to make sure he got the house and any small savings I had at the time should I kick the bucket.
I feel dirty after reading this thread.