| aadigu |
| (newbie) |
| 03/07/08 03:37 PM |
Martial home
|
I live in Pennsylvania which is an equitable distribution state. Before my wife and I were married I purchased a home with only my money and there is no moorage. The deed is in my name. We were engaged at the time and the house was for us to live in, and we did live in it before we were married. I spoke with an attorney recently and she said that my wife may be able to make a claim for a portion of the home because it was going to be our martial home. Does anyone know if that is true?
| Relayer |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 03/07/08 03:47 PM |
|
Re: Martial home
|
Quote:
I live in Pennsylvania which is an equitable distribution state. Before my wife and I were married I purchased a home with only my money and there is no moorage. The deed is in my name. We were engaged at the time and the house was for us to live in, and we did live in it before we were married. I spoke with an attorney recently and she said that my wife may be able to make a claim for a portion of the home because it was going to be our martial home. Does anyone know if that is true?
Typically yes, on the increase in equity since you two were married. However, in this market, that would be difficult. You would leave with what you came in with plus an equitable portion of the gain (or loss) on the property.
| aadigu |
| (newbie) |
| 03/07/08 03:52 PM |
|
Re: Martial home
|
I knew she could make the claim on the increase in equity. So if I understand you correctly, she could not make a claim on the money I put into the home before we were married. Even though it was going to be the home we were going to live in after we were married. Why would this lawyer tell me such a thing?
| Relayer |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 03/07/08 04:31 PM |
|
Re: Martial home
|
Quote:
I knew she could make the claim on the increase in equity. So if I understand you correctly, she could not make a claim on the money I put into the home before we were married. Even though it was going to be the home we were going to live in after we were married. Why would this lawyer tell me such a thing?
Usually not. Although some women will tell you otherwise.
Only the increase in equity is a marital asset.
| DeeCee |
| (addict) |
| 03/07/08 10:15 PM |
|
Re: Martial home
|
Never assume that you will walk away with what you want..keep in mind...did she help any repairs or remodelling or pay property taxes. in otherwords, her living with you and her input is considered co-mingling.
| Relayer |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 03/08/08 07:13 AM |
|
Re: Martial home
|
Quote:
Never assume that you will walk away with what you want..keep in mind...did she help any repairs or remodelling or pay property taxes. in otherwords, her living with you and her input is considered co-mingling.
That is how she owned her share of the equity since the marriage.
| DeeCee |
| (addict) |
| 03/08/08 08:25 AM |
|
Re: Martial home
|
To the OP I am serious curious..what exactly do you think she should be entitled to now that you are divorcing. If you married her and it was all good and you were living under the same roof did you say this is my home or our home. And now that you are divorcing it's back to it being your home..When did the shift from our home go to your home. Also while you lived under the same roof the marital home did you divide the food and share the same electricity and heat and bed..but now that you are divorcing are you still not sharing the same utilities...
Also if she leaves "your" home and only gets what you think she is entitled to
a lesser value...does that mean she has to live in a place that is not as nice or smaller....that seems fair that her quality of life goes down because you are no longer equal partners..because in marriage there you did see your wife as equal no or did you see her as less than you?
This is not meant to be accusing or anything because I am facing the same similiar situation..and my husband feels the condo is all his...Only ours was purchased after we married with money we received as a wedding gift. The amount was low when we bought it and it went up at least four times in value...My stbx feels its all his and I am trying to figure out how so if it was a wedding gift.
| Relayer |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 03/08/08 08:58 AM |
|
Re: Martial home
|
Quote:
To the OP I am serious curious..what exactly do you think she should be entitled to now that you are divorcing. If you married her and it was all good and you were living under the same roof did you say this is my home or our home. And now that you are divorcing it's back to it being your home..When did the shift from our home go to your home. Also while you lived under the same roof the marital home did you divide the food and share the same electricity and heat and bed..but now that you are divorcing are you still not sharing the same utilities...
Also if she leaves "your" home and only gets what you think she is entitled to
a lesser value...does that mean she has to live in a place that is not as nice or smaller....that seems fair that her quality of life goes down because you are no longer equal partners..because in marriage there you did see your wife as equal no or did you see her as less than you?
This is not meant to be accusing or anything because I am facing the same similiar situation..and my husband feels the condo is all his...Only ours was purchased after we married with money we received as a wedding gift. The amount was low when we bought it and it went up at least four times in value...My stbx feels its all his and I am trying to figure out how so if it was a wedding gift.
Again, he came into the marrage with the asset (house) and he leaves with it, less a portion of the increase in equity. Thatis exactly what is fair. He didn't give her the house as a wedding present. It is (and always has been) in his name. Should he lose his asset because he married her? No.
| Debi |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 03/08/08 07:00 PM |
|
Re: Martial home
|
Usually not. Although some women will tell you otherwise.
Really? I'd have been awarded half of the home my x bought before we married if I had not signed a quit claim deed on it at the time of divorce. We lived in the home together for 2 years before moving back to our home state and used it as a rental property until whenever he sold it, which he did some time post divorce. I had no desire to take half the value or force him into selling it.
| DeeCee |
| (addict) |
| 03/09/08 12:41 AM |
|
Re: Martial home
|
That is why the whole business of thinking just because he came into the marriage (the asset) he should leave with it. Doesn't always work out that way.
When you marry you made a legal decision to combine living under the same roof. Also let's take a hypotheical...let's say this couple had been married for 30 years. Or they are both in their 60's and they get divorce . Still the same situation she moved into his house..so now she should move out with a lesser portion. That's nuts. Her age, her income factor into these equitable distribution. Why did he marry her? What reason do you marry someone if not with the intention of building your life together. So let's say she didn't know he wants out, her livelihood after 30 years plummets because the husband wants out?
| spinnerdegrassi |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 03/09/08 10:36 AM |
|
Re: Martial home
|
So now people should have to hand over portions of premarital assets in divorces also? Should people also have to give inherited property too?
Even if someone contributed to the upkeep of the household, they only did so after a date in time. If say the original value of the house was 200k, paid in full, and years down the road it's now 400k, what was the person doing to have contributed to the original value? Why should they get a share of assets that were put down long before they appeared on the scene?
We'll take my father as an example. He owned a condo up in toronto, worth @ 700k when he bought it. He then put in another 200k worth of upgrades. When he married wife #2, it was valued at @ 1.1 million at a high of a peak market. They were married 11 yrs, and when they split it was worth 1.3 million. (on the low end of a down market similar to what's happening now). So somehow she was entitled to 650k of equity? Hell no.
| DeeCee |
| (addict) |
| 03/09/08 04:05 PM |
|
Re: Martial home
|
What did your father's wife receive after they spit, spinnerdegrassi. As I said before it is not cut and dry. If your father owned a condo and wife # 2 moved into the property after he purchased it..the time the court will look at is the length of the marriage..and what her contribution were to the marriage. Every circumstance is different. But I highly doubt after 11 years she just left with the clothes on her back..tell the truth did she? Inherited property is not the same thing..and if something was inherited we all know that is off the tables..inheritance is something one can prove.
Your reaction of his wife shouldn't receive equitable distribution is one reason laws were put into place to protect married parties going through divorce. Because the course recognize the irresistable urge for parties toi become vulgarly greedy. Why shouldn't the spouse who married and is now being divorced not receive 650K of the equity? Why didn't your pops make her sign a prenup? What exactly is marriage to some people. When you agree to marriage you have agreed to merge your livelihood together.
| Relayer |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 03/09/08 05:29 PM |
|
Re: Martial home
|
What is all this [censored] about contribution to the marrige? What is MEANT by that because the only one that counts (and should) is financial.
| spinnerdegrassi |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 03/09/08 06:10 PM |
|
Re: Martial home
|
When they splits she received @120k in equity from the condo. She received @ 600k in total assets between the condo and other assets. Most of my father's assets were smartly protected in his company, of which myself and my sisters were the owners in name. My father ran a medical clinic, and we installed him as president. We paid him a nominal salary, and then at the end of every fiscal year, we would distribute the profits to him as we saw fit. This was done precisely to protect him in the ocurence of a marital failure, since the company itself was the bulk of his assets, and technically, we were the majority owners. Now we were always going to give him the profits, but we were not going to allow someone to come and take the business he built up from under him.
Again why should she have received half of the value? She didn't contribute to the majority of the value, and the judge gave her a bit over 50% of the appreciated value from the time they married to the time they split. It's not like she contributed to it's value. She didn't pay the maintenance on it, and with it being a condo, it's not like she was painting the exterior, landscaping it or physically renovating it to jack up its value. Funny thing is that when they got married, she owned a house, that she sold prior to moving into my father's condo. So should he have gotten half of that money and it's increased value also? Seems that would have been fair right? Of course she didn't want any part of that.
| DeeCee |
| (addict) |
| 03/09/08 09:53 PM |
|
Re: Martial home
|
You see the attitude and disposition that you displayed is clearly why there are laws..to protect against any spouse (m/f) from the bitter angry spouse in a divorce who feels ok..I want out now let me leave him or her impoverished. Nevermind I chose to marry and we made a commitment which was not just pysical Because if if was only a sexual commitment I didn't have to marry.
You see there a mental chip you men seem to forget...marriage is a commitment under the eyes of the LAW. The fine print in marriage is assets are combined. And solid prenups are not even full proof. The alternative DON'T GET MARRIED. So once the spouse makes the commitment, the rules apply. Spinnerdegrassi..you mentioned a family business and you made certain that certain steps were taken to protect an ALREADY established company. But when it comes to where your former step mother considered her home as long as she was married to your dad, regardless of your sentiment she was entitled to a portion. How long were they married? She sold her condo..well that already is indictation she had planned on building a life with your Dad, why didn't he say "No don't sell your home because we are going to divorce in the future and at least you have that to fall back on"...her future was invested with him. So because they divorced she should go down in her standard of living...who decided to call it quits? Him or her?
| spinnerdegrassi |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 03/09/08 10:13 PM |
|
Re: Martial home
|
The law was clear. She got a % of the appreciated value of the home, or a % of the 200k it appreciated. She did not contribute to the intial 1.1 million, he did. It was his work that bought the property prior to the marriage. So exactly why is he supposed to give up what he worked hard for prior to marriage?
In the end he left, mostly because he was tired of raising her 3 children by her ex husband who did not pay CS. The last straw was when she expected him to pay for their college education. That was her responsibility (and her ex's) not his, but she was under this archaic notion that the man was to carry the financial load (and this is also after he financed her to become a dental hygenist) Funny how maybe it was she who should have paid him alimony, since he was the one who covered her education. He got tired of her having a free ride, and contributing little to the cost of living (especially regarding her children)
| DeeCee |
| (addict) |
| 03/10/08 12:41 AM |
|
Re: Martial home
|
OK..let me ask you something. Sincerely. Is your father suffering financially now since the settlement. Is he hurt over the amount of money he paid out to her or because the demise of the marriage.
He got tired of her free riding as you said..but what made him go into the marriage from the get go. Are you suffering from her receiving the settlement that she was awarded. I mean, be honest..did the settlement she receive put a dent in your livelihood. Because I can't imagine that the courts would award money to one spouse if it meant the other would go down in theri standard of living. Yes he worked for what he had, but again your father didn't prepare a pre-nup?
I'm sensing you are bitter for your father, because you rightfully should defend him..but the courts are not emotionally involved...to the court your father married this woman. AGAIN a marriage is a business contract..that implies the union of these two people becomes one. During the period of their marriage. When the business dissolves REGARDLESS of the buyer's regret an emotional part..how do the courts divide the assets. Why didn't your father and his ex-wife sit down and amiably come up with a Separation Agreement?? Because most likely they did not see eye to eye once emotions got in the way.
| spinnerdegrassi |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 03/10/08 04:38 AM |
|
Re: Martial home
|
Yes a marriage is a contract, but that contract doesn't mean extracting funds that belonged to one party prior to the marriage.
The courts can only award what existed as marital assets. The bulk of his assets were related to his business, which she could not touch per the manner our family had structured it. We paid him a salary of 50k a year. His ex earned 70-80k a year as a Hygenist. The fact that we could opt to pay him another few hundred thousand a year in profit payout was not relevant to the courts, because that was not guaranteed income, nor was it income that she was entitled to a portion of. This is all fairly standard in any family business, and just because for a timeframe we (as in myself and my siblings) agreed to pay out profits from the business to him annually, did not mean, we had to buy law. In effect, we could have paid out the money to ourselves (since we were 75% owners) or reinvested it within the company. So how exactly is a divorce court going to come in and tell us that we should continue to pay him the profits, to keep his ex wife living at a standard she enjoyed through the marriage because we allowed for it to happen. Once she was no longer a part of the family, there was no reason for her to benefit from our decision making. The court can't award money that is only available if we decide for it to be available.
Thus they went on what did exist, what assets remained from the payouts we gave him during that timeframe.
Look at it this way. As 75% owners of the business, technically aside from his 50k salary, 75% of the money we gave him was "our" money. We could do whatever we wanted with that money. If we opted to give it to him, that was fine with us. But if we wanted to give him 0%, that was well within legal boundaries. So techincally, maybe she should have paid him alimony, as her annual salary from an official standpoint was larger than his.
Many of those things people would see as "marital" assets typcially, in his case were business owned. His vehicles were company owned. His rental properties were purchased through the business. The bulk of the assets were protected from a divorce setting. All that was really open for division was his self directed RRSP (canadian version of a 401k), and reinvested funds from prior payouts, along with the appreciation of the marital home. While this was still a decent amount of money (in comparison to most) it represented @ 1/10 of the true value of all assets (with us protecting the majority)
Even though the initial intent of the payout structure was from a tax liability perspective before he even met his wife, in the end it protected the majority of those assets from being distributed and was much better than any prenup could have been.
| DeeCee |
| (addict) |
| 03/10/08 09:43 AM |
|
Re: Martial home
|
Because the courts and judges don't like to make those decisions. The courts would actually prefer to have spouses reach their own Separation Agreement through their lawyers and negotiations. The courts will be like King Solomon and just make a decision that is most likely going to lean in the favor of her.
Regardless of you well why should we feelings or opinion. What about your dad's lawyer doing??
But I asked you a specific question...why didn't they go this route. Hash things out amiably? WHY didn't your father get an iron clad pre-nup that stipulated clearly what you all wanted just in case the marriage didn't work out and prevent all this confused entanglement. Why did your father encourage her to sell her house..that was an asset. If he had told her..'Hey baby You better keep your home..rent it out..Just in case we don't make it..' BUT he mislead her into thinking he was going to build a life with her..
Hey the court is not "feeling" that it is your money..you are not divorcing her.
you see by the end of your post I am unclear over whether you are just pissed that she received any money at all because you say "it was much better than any pre-nup could have been" (?..huh?)
Really I'm not trying to be cryptic or sarcastic here because what is done is done in the case with your father but I'm getting what I sensed from the beginning that the money is more personal to you because you say "our" money. By the courts decision did you suffer and your business suffer...or your father suffer...
| spinnerdegrassi |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 03/10/08 10:14 AM |
|
Re: Martial home
|
If she got what she wanted, she would have walked away with close to 4 million dollars. Going to court was much more prudent since her notions of what she felt entitled to were ludicrous.
When i mention "our" money, the fact is that the money in the business was ours..mine and my sisters. We made the decisions to allow access to those funds to our father. She perceived that she was entitled to a portion of the business, thus a % of those funds. She wasn't. So when the divorce occurred, she was going after money that wasn't even pertinent to her case. In court, that part was cut and dry, and was made quite clear to her by the judge. She was entitled only to a % of the increase value of the home, and a % of the retirement assets and investment assets accumulated during their time married. Even as they were divorcing she still wanted it stipulated in the agreement that my father was liable for her 3 children's college educations. Thus she proved she was incapable of negotiating in good faith, as a stepparent has no financial obligation to those children's educations.
In the end he benefitted. He let loose dead weight and moved on to a younger and nicer wife. The finances didn't affect him since the majority of his assets resided within the company, which she couldn't touch. That's why I say this was better than a prenup. A prenup can be challenged. Ownership of assets by individuals outside the marriage cannnot. He couldn't lose. If the marriage had remained intact, she would have benefitted from those assets over the long haul. But since it didn't, he was able to retain what was rightfully his.
| DeeCee |
| (addict) |
| 03/10/08 02:07 PM |
|
Re: Martial home
|
I'm unclear by what you would have ideally would have hoped to happen.
According to your earlier post "she received @ 600k in total assets between the condo and other assets." and now you concede that in the end he benefitted and in the long run your father was able to retain what was rightfully his..
So in a divorce you didn't expect that the courts were going to send her off with not a dime..And yeah she may have overreached and went after what was not pertinent but she was going after what she thought she could get...
And it didn't work..ergo why are you annoyed about the fact that she didn't get what she wanted...
You conclude that he moved onto a much younger and nicer wife..Why are you still focusing on the past... No one is hurting at the end of the day?
You are letting his divorce mull over in your head and the conclusion is no one is suffering. I think that the divorce has disturbed you more than him. That is really the core of what I'm getting from your posts.