Getting a divorce just found out our property is owned by my husband's mother

Starrystarrynight1

I'm shocked at people who are saying the husband has had a lucky escape. He deceived the OP and she has every right to feel aggrieved and upset. I'd think the same if the sexes were reversed, too. To me, though it might not seem that way, it's the OP who is better off away from this relationship. I hope she comes out of this in the best financial position possible, then finds someone who won't treat her so badly.

Spendless

peachyprice wrote: »

From pretty early on in the thread:

Thanks peachyprice. I've been dipping in and out of this thread for a few days, but I'm still calling cow's droppings because

fairy_woman wrote: »

My husband told me he owned the house before we got married but I just found out he put it on his mother's name before we got married I thought all along he owned the house this has come as a shock to me.

fairy_woman wrote: »

no mortgage

I understand now its not his but from the start I thought it was his I even paid for many of the bills and new furniture and works needed in the house thinking it was his.

I would never of gone through the marriage itself if I knew his mother owned the property I have also proof of him saying he owned the property.

So first we go from husband owned it outright with no mortgage and just gave it to Mum shortly before marriage. To it was his Mum's all along. OP hasn't been back and explained any points. It's similar to the type of threads we get in school hols. Are they out on study leave yet? :think:

unholyangel

Ronaldo_Mconaldo wrote: »

It's all fictional, the owners of this site pay a company to make up stories that are so onbviously untrue just to keep traffic going on here.

I thought it was their jaw dropping "news" headlines of "potholes cause misery for drivers" that kept people on the edge of their seats.

Spendless wrote: »

Thanks peachyprice. I've been dipping in and out of this thread for a few days, but I'm still calling cow's droppings because



So first we go from husband owned it outright with no mortgage and just gave it to Mum shortly before marriage. To it was his Mum's all along. OP hasn't been back and explained any points. It's similar to the type of threads we get in school hols. Are they out on study leave yet? :think:

I don't see where she says the mother owned it all along, the only place I see something like that said is where she says she thought her husband owned it all along.

Although it certainly looks a bit convenient the husband would risk some/all of its value (unless the mother is significantly wealthy in her own right) and that the marriage has lasted 5 years (which I believe is the legal turning point).

However if it is real, perhaps the mother bought it for him in the first place and was the one who insisted he sign it back over before marrying. Or perhaps (given OP doesn't mention him hiding any other assets) he didn't want to risk losing the house in the event of the marriage failing as he has some particular attachment to it. We'll likely never know. Not like it impacts any of us anyway

Spendless

fairy_woman wrote: »

no mortgage

I understand now its not his but from the start I thought it was his I even paid for many of the bills and new furniture and works needed in the house thinking it was his.

I would never of gone through the marriage itself if I knew his mother owned the property I have also proof of him saying he owned the property.

I took this bit to be it's his mother's house not he gave it to mother.


I don't see where she says the mother owned it all along, the only place I see something like that said is where she says she thought her husband owned it all along.

Although it certainly looks a bit convenient the husband would risk some/all of its value (unless the mother is significantly wealthy in her own right) and that the marriage has lasted 5 years (which I believe is the legal turning point).

However if it is real, perhaps the mother bought it for him in the first place and was the one who insisted he sign it back over before marrying. Or perhaps (given OP doesn't mention him hiding any other assets) he didn't want to risk losing the house in the event of the marriage failing as he has some particular attachment to it. We'll likely never know. Not like it impacts any of us anyway [/QUOTE]No only does he risk Mum won't sell it and he end up without a house, if she needed to go in a home it might have to be sold for care. Or she dies and his left it in a will to someone else

The bit about a short marriage is different once there are children from that marriage. For example we had a child within a year of our marriage, but my husband couldn't just leave me without in the event of a split. A judge would start at 50/50 and then work from that figure taking various things into consideration. A childless short marriage would be different.

If the OP's husband has really owned a house outright, then transferred the ownership to his Mum shortly before their marriage. I'd be consulting a solicitor not a forum.

And you're right, we'll never know because I don't believe the OP will be back.

justme111

borkid wrote: »

Possibly quite a lot. It depends on what she based her decisions on.

Before I married we agreed to have a family and because of how we agreed to bring up the children I didn't persue my career as actively as I would have done had the prospect of children not been there. For example I turned down the opportunity of doing a PhD because I was planning to give up work in about 5 years and OH was studying. I also turned down the offer of a lecture tour of the states after my first was born. There were many other instances as well, those are the two main ones.

I don't regret any of the decisions made but we're still together 43 years later but I wasn't lied to about money.

You don't know what opportunities the OP has given up to contribute to the family. and how that might affect her future.

You are arguing the case of her missing other opportunities due to marrying him. That's ok , I do not think anybody would disagree. But how do those missed opportunities relate to the house not being in his name?

borkid

justme111 wrote: »

You are arguing the case of her missing other opportunities due to marrying him. That's ok , I do not think anybody would disagree. But how do those missed opportunities relate to the house not being in his name?

I was specifically referring to the section of the post I quoted which said "what have you missed out on". Then I went on to say it's what she based her decisions on. Decisions about careers made when you are in your 20s or even 30s will have a large impact on the rest of one's life.

If the OP knew that the house wasn't theirs ( sorry to upset some on here but marriage to me means equal shares) she may have waited to have a family and decided to progress career wise so that they could afford a house together.

The thing is we don't know but too many people assume she was 'on to a good thing' and didn't miss out at all.

DarkShadow

5 years of rent free stay!!!

justme111

Well if she waited to buy a house and spent time of her career or stashing money to buy a house (possible but far fetched) than she would not have had children and missed on that.

Gigervamp

Everybody seems to have missed (or ignored) the bit where OP says she paid for works on the house.

She shouldn't have paid that, as it's the responsibility of the owner.

mattpaint

Gigervamp wrote: »

Everybody seems to have missed (or ignored) the bit where OP says she paid for works on the house.

She shouldn't have paid that, as it's the responsibility of the owner.

But she did pay it. And she would have a hard and expensive job trying to get any of that money back.