You are here

divorce.....who keeps the house?

A man and woman get a divorce after 25 years of marriage. They have 2 children both in college and 5 years left till the house is paid off. They both want the house and refuse to sell it. She has been a full time stay at home mom and homemaker their entire married life. She has never had a paying job in her life. They married just 2 months out of high school. The marriage ended due to an affair she was having. The affair ended when the man she was fooling around with found out she was married. The state they live in does not have alimoney or spousal support. He feels he is entitled to the house since he paid for it. Outside of this one thing it is a very friendly divorce with no lawyers. So who should keep the house?

In this case.... she is the one that broke vows that ended in the marriage terminating.  He should get the house.  I don't care who "paid" for it and who didn't.

0 likes

I don't think it's that easy.  A marriage is a combination of emotional, intellectual, and physical intimacy.  If he wasn't providing the combination to the marriage, then he's to blame, also.

He should get the house and she should rent.  The reality is that home ownership costs money, from maintenance to property tax.  If she isn't going to get alimony and the house is the big chunk of her share, then she may not be able to afford the expenses.

0 likes

i think the man should... i could see if the woman was still a stay at home mom it would make sense for her to keep the house but she is not... and if she was the one screwing around on top of it... sucky sitch

0 likes

I'm not entirely sure, but even without alimony/spousal support, I believe that the spouse that keeps the house has to pay the other spouse their share (half) of the estimated value of the house. It doesn't matter how much who earned or the reason for the divorce, I think.

Though that's not saying what should happen, but what does happen.

0 likes

Is this one of those states that you can sue the person she was cheating with?

0 likes

I'm not entirely sure, but even without alimony/spousal support, I believe that the spouse that keeps the house has to pay the other spouse their share (half) of the estimated value of the house. It doesn't matter how much who earned or the reason for the divorce, I think.

Though that's not saying what should happen, but what does happen.

I don't know how the law works there, but unless there was some sort of signed agreement, here everything is held in common and must be divided upon divorce. Either that, or one of the parties has to sign an agreement waiving their right to the money in lieu of something else.

0 likes

I'm not entirely sure, but even without alimony/spousal support, I believe that the spouse that keeps the house has to pay the other spouse their share (half) of the estimated value of the house. It doesn't matter how much who earned or the reason for the divorce, I think.

That was what I was saying.  If you look at the total value of the marriage (house, savings, retirement, income) and she gets the house, it may equal a half or more of their combined value.  I can't see her ending up with any extra money.

0 likes

I think it's very important to point out that the fact he was ABLE to go out and work and make all this money to pay for the house was because SHE was AT HOME, raising the children and keeping the house. That's why there is alimony after divorces--it's not "his" money and "her" money. So, the financial side of it doesn't matter.

And all the crap about cheating and whatnot--doesn't matter either. In my state, the house is sold and the money is split between the 2, or if one party wants to stay in the house, they have to pay the other party half of the house's worth. Cut and dry here.

0 likes

Drown that unfaithful bitch in a river. Keep the house.

0 likes

I think it's very important to point out that the fact he was ABLE to go out and work and make all this money to pay for the house was because SHE was AT HOME, raising the children and keeping the house. That's why there is alimony after divorces--it's not "his" money and "her" money. So, the financial side of it doesn't matter.

And all the crap about cheating and whatnot--doesn't matter either. In my state, the house is sold and the money is split between the 2, or if one party wants to stay in the house, they have to pay the other party half of the house's worth. Cut and dry here.

Agreed!!!!!!!!!!  That is how it is handled here in this state as well unless minor children are involved.  Then it can get complicated. 

0 likes

So, if i read your comment correctly, are you impling that if she had a job that he would not have been able to make any money? And that the vows that were made mean nothing? That she should be rewarded for adultry? Would it make a difference if both kids still lived at home while attending school and they both wanted to live in their home with their father? Or that her parents left her their home in another state upon their death 2 years ago and she doesn't want it?

0 likes

Drown that unfaithful bitch in a river. Keep the house.

This is why I love you SB! 

0 likes

They either have to sell the house and split proceeds, or one partner has to buy the other one out of their half.  Since the wife has no money, it will probably be the husband buying out her half.  He then gets to keep the house and she takes the money and goes elsewhere.  If both names are on the mortgage, a refinance will be required.  

At least that's how it worked in my divorce.

I know another divorced couple who are unable to sell their house.  The ex-husband is living there and the ex-wife moved in with her parents.  She is still paying half the mortgage, and will continue to for the foreseeable future, which means she will probably never get to have a place of her own.

0 likes

honestly, i think it depends on what state you live in... i know in cali it is the "common" law thing like 50/50 deal... it varies state by state... i totally wouldn't mind punching her in the face for you, i hope it all works in your favor!

0 likes

I have no idea, but if this is a personal story I'm very very sorry :(

0 likes

They should go rent War of the Roses right now; they should watch it together. If there is any way to deal with this amicably, they both will be willing to try after seeing movie.

Me? I got the house. WAY too much house for me, so have it on market, but having very hard time selling...but at least we got along through the whole thing - much better than when we were together. I can't imagine these people who fight through the whole thing; was hard enough when amicable.

0 likes

When I got divorced, I left everything (3,000 sq ft house, fully furnished in an upper-middle class neighborhood) and declined alimony in exchange for a lump sum settlement.  It was mutual and amicable - we also didn't use lawyers.  Sometimes, folks, it's not advisable to marry your best friend.  :-\

In the situation that you describe, I don't understand how it can be friendly!?  If there would have been infidelity, I think that would have instantly changed the dynamic to a hostile one, unless, as HH says, there was something else to the story (i.e. - an emotionally/physically/etc distant partner, etc.) 

0 likes

A man and woman get a divorce after 25 years of marriage. They have 2 children both in college and 5 years left till the house is paid off. They both want the house and refuse to sell it. She has been a full time stay at home mom and homemaker their entire married life. She has never had a paying job in her life. They married just 2 months out of high school. The marriage ended due to an affair she was having. The affair ended when the man she was fooling around with found out she was married. The state they live in does not have alimoney or spousal support. He feels he is entitled to the house since he paid for it. Outside of this one thing it is a very friendly divorce with no lawyers. So who should keep the house?

Depends on her ability to live at a reasonable standard after the divorce. There's an unpleasant sense reading this story that money is going to be used as a weapon. If a marriage is a partnership - and a 25 year marriage with two kids has, on balance, been a fairly successful one - then I would imagine that the financial breadwinner and the full-time homemaker and carer have been working as equal halves of the same whole up to this point. If that has generally been true and her ability to earn money has never been in question, I think pulling the rug out from under her at this point on the basis of who paid for the house is cruel and doesn't take into account her non-financial contributions.

If there are five years left on the house then it would seem smart to have one person live there and the other live elsewhere until the house is paid off and can be dealt with as a loose end rather than the principal bargaining chip.

0 likes

I think if the house was bought after they were married it should be sold and each take half.

0 likes

Depends on her ability to live at a reasonable standard after the divorce. There's an unpleasant sense reading this story that money is going to be used as a weapon. If a marriage is a partnership - and a 25 year marriage with two kids has, on balance, been a fairly successful one - then I would imagine that the financial breadwinner and the full-time homemaker and carer have been working as equal halves of the same whole up to this point. If that has generally been true and her ability to earn money has never been in question, I think pulling the rug out from under her at this point on the basis of who paid for the house is cruel and doesn't take into account her non-financial contributions.

THANK YOU. I have a real problem with people thinking that because someone didn't go out and earn a paycheck that they thus didn't contribute to the relationship and the home environment, especially when children are involved. It seems misogynist to me, since women are often the spouse that stays home in those situations. Bullshit.

0 likes

Pages

Log in or register to post comments