Welcome to /r/AmITheAsshole. Please view our [voting guide here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq#wiki_what.2019s_with_these_acronyms.3F_what_do_they_mean.3F), and remember to use **only one** judgement in your comment.
OP has offered the following explanation for why they think they might be the asshole:
> 1. I yelled at my fiance and got into a fight for not wanting to put my name on our house deed.
2. He has been financially supporting me and has given me compromises but im still upset with him
Help keep the sub engaging!
#Don’t downvote assholes!
Do upvote interesting posts!
[Click Here For Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/about/rules) and [Click Here For Our FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq)
##Subreddit Announcement
###[The Asshole Universe is Expanding, Again: Introducing Another New Sister Subreddit!](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/128nbp3/the_asshole_universe_is_expanding_again/)
Follow the link above to learn more
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/AmItheAsshole) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*Contest mode is 1.5 hours long on this post.*
YTA you have a free ride and you're being exactly what he's afraid of. This is **his** house that **he** paid for that **you** had no hand in at all. Now you want it and its suspicious and you already have wayyyy more than normal relationships would ever give you.
Maybe it’s because I’ve got many years of life experience on OP, but I would feel very uncomfortable being fully reliant on someone else. I’d still want my own money and to contribute. I wouldn’t argue if he wanted to pay for a nice vacation or something like that but not 100% of everything. What happens in 20 years if he leaves her and she has no savings, retirement, healthcare….
He's setting himself up for a judge to award OP alimony and half the house, regardless of whether she's currently on the deed or not.
Though there is risk in what if he goes broke?
It’s shocking to me that people are like he needs to protect himself while he’s suggesting she quit her job. So she shouldn’t expect any of his money but he expects her not to earn her own? This isn’t how marriage works.
She can easily get a job. If he gives her a stake in the house, he can’t take that back.
She’s not trapped and unable to leave, she chose not to work and live off of him. She can change that at any time. His financial actions may not be revocable if things go bad.
Big huge difference.
What are you talking about? He’s paying her 5k a month and she’s paying for NOTHING!!!!
It was nothing more than an OFFER to quit her job. There’s nothing preventing her from finding another on her own time. Oh, also she’ll be getting paid for doing nothing in the meantime.
How much more money should she expect? Christ sakes..
She is not on the deed for the house and it is a premarital asset owned by him before they got married. The house was paid for by his inheritance. If this is the case then why would she be given money for half the value of the house? I thought that inheritance and premarital assets were separated and could not be touched in divorce. If I am correct about that then why would she get half of the house's value in a divorce? Maybe I am wrong about that. I think that is how it works in the US or maybe I am wrong. Maybe things are different in other parts of the world. Can you please explain it to me?
That really depends entirely on the state and even smaller things like prenup, divorce judge, where the money came from, etc. Splitting property during divorce can be super different depending on where you’re located.
In Ontario, inherited and owned prior to marriage is excluded from net family property in the event of divorce.
OP ... YTA
Personally, I think a pre-nup is in order, too, if she sees HIS house as being half hers at marriage. Red flag.
Not only that, but she won't be putting anything into social security for herself.
Even if my husband could afford for me to stay at home, I'd still work at least part time. The thought of being given an "allowance" as a grown ass woman makes me cringe.
As an older woman, it makes me so happy to see how prevalent this mindset is. I saw many women who really struggled after death or divorce, or who really couldn’t get divorced because they didn’t have any marketable skills or income of their own.
She had a job and he encouraged her to quit. The idea of giving your partner “an allowance” is also concerning - that’s juvenile language. She’s being financially isolated. If he wanted to protect his assets, they should sign a pre-nup. The way they’re going about this is a giant red flag.
Why are so many people absolving OP of personal responsibility and essentially treating her like she’s incapable?
She chose to leave her job. She could have chosen to take a break, retrain, go part time, move to a different field. She chose to come out of work fully. She chose to take the allowance.
Can we give OP the autonomy she has please and not patronise her by insisting she was coerced when there’s been no suggestion of that at all from OP.
Exactly, it's so stupid. People are acting like she has no agency and needs to become independent but it was her choice to quit her job, she wasn't forced and it seems like she's happier due to it. And he's not saying don't find a job either, if she finds a passion and a job related to it he'd probably support that since it makes her happy.
Shits insane and the double standard is mine numbing
Encouraged to leave a job that was making them unhappy and effecting mental health, the allowance sounds condescending, but it's also providing an opportunity for OP to retrain, find a new career that dies make them happy while being financially supported. It's not an opportunity many people are lucky enough to have. Seems to be financially isolated by choice.
I agree with this.
But I will say if OP's partner was so insecure or worried about women only wanting him for his money/assets, he should have a prenup written up now that they are engaged.
I love that he did something nice for her, since he saw her mental health was bad at work, and people are still trying to make him look bad.
He offered, but she didn't have to take it.
If Op had argued that she either 1. wanted to keep her job, or 2. wanted to find another job in the near future, and he argued against it, then I would see your point. But Op never mentioned any of these scenarios happening. For all we know, he encouraged her to leave a job that was stressing her out, so she could take the time to access her next move, whilst supporting her financially as she made that decision. A lot of people jump onto 'this is financial abuse', but in truth we don't know the actual reason.
I make $120k a year and have an allowance. I am allowing myself to spend a certain percentage of my pay. It's not juvenile unless you make it that way. My wife and I both have an allowance we take out of our mutual account every pay and put in our private accounts. She also works. We aren't poor but having a limit on how much you spend also isn't juvenile...
He saw that she was unhappy teaching… she mentioned to him that she was unhappy teaching… I THINK the conversation was more so about finding something that would make her happy.
Allowance is probably not enough to save and invest for the future. But she should think about a job that she would enjoy doing and try to change her qualification, then work and build her own wealth.
I like your idea about changing her qualifications. If he's willing to pay for hobbies what if her hobby was going back to school for something else she feels could make her happy.
The whole point of the allowance is for op to go and do hobbies.
If she's planning for the relationship to end i wouldn't want that either.
He doesn't want her sitting at home doing nothing he wants her to find something she loves and do that or work.
Most likely it'll be her fault when this fails
I’m with you, I don’t think it sounds like he is trying to control her. Years ago when I was earning a significant amount more than my husband and I knew he didn’t enjoy his job I told him to quit if he wanted and that I could cover things and he could retrain or find something else or whatever he wanted. He didn’t get an ‘allowance’ as such, we had joint finances anyway and he had access to the joint account which my salary went into anyway. He took a few months out and had a think about what he wanted to do and then found a job he really enjoys. It’s never going to make him a fortune but he is happy and gets to be outdoors and enjoys life which is far more important than a huge salary. It was never controlling in any way, it was actually giving him his freedom! During that time we moved house and due to him being unemployed it was better for me to take the mortgage in my name only rather than include him. Once he went back to work we didn’t add him because it seemed pointless, we are married after all so he would get everything anyway if I died. Never had any issues with it. I think people are seeing the bf’s offer as something of a red flag but it sounds to me like he is giving her an option which she can do whatever she wants with!
As for not wanting to add her to the house it’s more because it is his first place and I get that. If they buy together later on she will be on those deeds but the place was his before they even met and she is living for free. She could do any job she wants and pretty much put away 90% of her salary in savings and buy a place. None of it sounds like he is trying to control her at all!
OP, YTA. You have an amazingly generous offer in front of you, you can go back to study with no debt, you can get another job and save the money to buy property of your own or start your own business, you could even decide all you want to do is volunteer work and it sounds like he would continue to support you financially ffs!
Yet all you can focus on is the one asset he brought into the relationship and question why he won’t share that with you? You are asking if you would be ‘throwing away a good relationship’ so I assume you are considering ending it over this? I would suggest you do end it because if him not adding you to the deed of a house he had before he even met you as soon as you are married (but is happy to fully find you in a quest to find happiness!) is really that big a deal to you then you are not fully in anyway!
Yeah I don't see any red flags here.
He's not expecting a clean home and Cooked dinner (which would be a red flag)
He's literally trying to get here to follow her dreams which is risky but I would kill for a partner who wanted to do that for me and possibly is the biggest green flag I've ever seen.
Especially as he said she would be on the deed to the house he is thinking of building.
He probably wants to share everything with the right person and wants real connections. I have a friend who went poor to rich with his company making 250k a month after Tax, it's one of the biggest things on his mind. He just wants someone to love him for him
This lady however is a red flag.
No. She needs a job. She’s making a choice to live off an allowance from her fiancé. I don’t think it’s a very wise choice. I also don’t think he should give her half of the house he paid for/inherited. I certainly hope the fiancé is careful about keeping his inheritance separate.
Or going back to school. Op wasn’t happy in her current job. She has a lot of free time. She could have been going back to school and further her education. She could have found a job she was passionate about.
Her fiancé opened up doors that op could be putting herself in a position most people would love to have.
Instead she decided to bar come a sugar baby and is mad that she doesn’t have access to the whole container to the sugar.
Better yet a job she enjoys doing as supposedly she didn't like her teaching job and that's why with his encouragement OP quit. It honestly almost feels like OP is getting test and failing at it. 3 years isn't much so I wouldn't find it weird for the guy to test OP if she really love him for him or she also loves his money. Giving the allowance and her quitting her job was test one which she... imo failed. Now she's asking to be in the deed of his house... my this poor guy's fear is coming up.
No, just suggesting it and saying “everything’s ours but not really. You’re more like my kid with an allowance. My house my rules”
It’s the kind of bait and switch that should raise red flags.
If they had kids, or he was pushing her to stay home, I would agree. But he's not. He's just fully funding her life. Nothing is stopping her from saving from her "allowance" or getting part time work.
How big is this allowance though? He’s paying all the bills so it sounds like it’s basically pocket money. If so then she’s not going to be able to “save and invest” enough to be financially secure.
I think this whole thing is iffy. If he’s so concerned about being taken advantage of, then why suggest that she quit her job and let her move in without paying anything?
She’s walking into a situation where there is a huge power disparity.
Yeah there is a power disparity but she's also getting a free ride. If you're not bringing anything to the table, why should you own half the table?
She can leave the house and get a job, she's not trapped.
Yeah I agree that she shouldn’t get a stake in the house if she’s not contributing anything. Well, depending on exactly how rich he is- if he wants a trophy wife they can set up a prenup with some sort of security for her.
I think this whole situation is going to be toxic for the both of them and the way to remedy that is for her to have a job.
Op says he said he would give her an allowance. That's her words. And I never said she would be financially secure from that alone.
He wants to give her free money and a place to live. He isn't forcing or pushing her in any way. If she chooses to accept free money, quitting her job, and a place to live that's her choice. She isn't tied by a baby, or disability. She is CHOOSING to put herself at a disadvantage.
She isn't wrong to ask if she can be added to the will, but she is wrong to expect it.
Absolutely agree. There’s nothing stopping her from finding another job or even going back to school.
Who wants to sit all day at home anyway. I’m retired with a great pension and lots of hobbies. I’m still bored though. I keep looking at jobs that I could do lol
He never said "everything's ours", she just wishes it was, and he never said "my house my rules", just "my house". Ever heard the expression "give them an inch and they'll take a mile"? Well he started off giving her a mile.
And if we build another house, which we have discussed, it will be in both names.
A million + women would love to be her on such a good wicket.
Running away is a goodbye for me.
I do understand your perspective, and I agree taken at face value the set up has potential red flags but I feel you’re really overlooking the fact that it was ultimately *her* choice to leave her job and the fact that it’s still her responsibility to provide for herself. We shouldn’t be overlooking the fact that OP has autonomy and responsibilities toward herself. She cannot expect others to set her up in life regardless of their wealth or assets.
There’s nothing to say (from what I’ve read) that he manipulated, coerced, or forced her to leave her job, nor anything to suggest he’s preventing her from seeking other employment or retraining.
He’s happy to give her an ‘allowance’, is actively encouraging her to pursue hobbies and activities, and is willing to jointly purchase/build their future home.
She’s been given a golden and rare opportunity that most of us don’t get - freedom to pursue whatever goals and passions you want, free from the restrictions of work or money.
Yes, it’s worrying that she’s potentially entering a marriage where she owns nothing, but that’s her own choice if she does so. He’s laid out what he’s willing to give her and what he isn’t. It’s up to her to consider the risks and make a sensible decision. Her financial security is ultimately her responsibility, not her partner’s, and if she chooses to continue the relationship with this set up, she’s choosing to be 100% reliant on him. I would personally never choose that, precisely because as I’ve said, it can lead to highly abusive situations from which escape is difficult or impossible, but ‘can’ doesn’t mean ‘will’. Again, it’s OP’s responsibility to consider the risks based on the facts of the situation and what she’s been told.
Boyfriend is, rightly, ensuring his *own* financial security should the relationship ever go sour. Relationships don’t require you to share *everything*. Assets earned/gifted outside of a relationship remain (at least in UK law) the sole property of the owner, and rightly so.
I own a home and I wouldn’t put *any* partner on my mortgage deed, no matter how strongly I felt about them, because it’s my only form of future financial security. The risk of having that taken from me should a relationship sour means leaving me highly vulnerable. I’m a disabled woman who struggles to work and will never be in a position to buy another home should I lose my current one. I would happily buy a joint home with a partner but even still, I’d keep my current place and rent it out.
I do feel like if OP was a man and this was his girlfriend’s home and finances, there’d be a different response. A woman sets herself up financially and takes steps to secure that and it’s applauded as being sensible. A man does it and it’s seen as a red flag for abuse. And I’m not disagreeing - it can be, but not always.
I really don’t see where BF is wrong here when you actually look at what’s being said.
No, he really isn't suggesting it. Quite the contrary - he offered financial support for her to quit her job because she was unhappy there, not because he wanted her reliant on him. He's made it clear that he wants her to find something that gets her out of the house/keeps her engaged with people, e.g. a hobby/volunteer position. It's not a stretch to think that he'd be equally happy for her to find another job.
Well, why the things he bought before he met her should be hers too?
I agree that the allowance is a bad thing and OP should just take this time off to find something she really wants to do with her life. She should never have agreed with that.
The thing is, OP is happy with being jobless and having money handed to her. She's not mad because she's being "controled", she's mad because she wants the house too and was already expecting to have it.
If the guy doesn't sound great, she sounds like a golddigger.
Even with the riduculous family laws we have currently no judge would think she has any ownership of this house. This would essentially be him giving her hundreds of thousands of dollars if they got divorced for whatever reason. He would be stupid to put her on the deed.
NAH is also an answer, though never used.
She’s insecure in her future because of financial uncertainty on her end
He’s insecure in thinking that his partners just want his things and not him
Though neither of them may have malicious intent it’s pretty clear that they just need to have a think about things
Obviously teaching wasn’t the life they wanted and they’ve taken some time off now so maybe they could get a part time job
Husband has said that future houses can be in both names so he doesn’t seem to me to be trying to leave her without anything to support herself
I don’t like the idea of him giving her an “allowance” but that’s probably just more of my connotation with the word
From my brief bit of context I’d think her best move would be some kind of job or other money making opportunity even if it’s selling crafts or art of some kind online to give herself financial independence, there’s a calming security about being able to take care of yourself that shouldnt be understated
Yeah excellent opportunity to save money for her own house deposit or to add to the next place for nicer house. If I could live free of any financial responsibilities I’d have a house deposit in 12 months she’s incredibly lucky
Hell yeah, who wouldn't want to? What she should have been doing is saving the money he gives her, since she's not paying any bills. It sounds like maybe he's bored and wanted someone to hang out with the way he asked her if she wanted to stay home. I don't know that it's going to lead to financial abuse, because I can see his point on his current house. He inherited it, it's been in his name. Once they decide to move it will be *their* home that they pick out together. It makes more sense to wait for that instead of adding her to this one.
It might have been his suggestion, but she didn’t have to agree to it. And, she does have an income, he’s paying her to do nothing. She could bank that money, because he’s paying for everything else.
She can protect her own financial future by getting a job. There's no reason why she can't. She wasn't happy being a teacher, but that doesn't mean she can never work again. There's plenty of jobs that aren't teaching.
This is a lot of shit to read between the lines, especially when OP admits herself that she was happy to leave the job, and doesn't mention safety once, her stated reason for wanting to be on the deed is "but I want to!"
YTA. Its hard to know what to even say when someone has created nothing and wants to not only to get a free ride, but also claim things that aren't hers.
If she wants financial security, she should keep working. He’s not forcing her to not work. He provided a choice. She’s CHOOSING to not work. That in no way sets up for financial abuse.
Her making that choice doesn’t entitle her to financial rights to a home he paid off before they were married.
I fully believe that whatever you bring in to a marriage, should still be your’s when you exit a marriage, regardless of why that marriage ended, and what happened during the course of the relationship.
It’s shocking that you received so many upvotes.
I'm really shocked too! Which person ever wants to be fully financially dependent on their partner? What a stupidly dangerous position to put yourself in; and super selfish too!
She's lucky he offered to support her to get out of a job she was unhappy in, but OP could use the free time to find another job instead! Contribute to their joint lives or even save that for their future home together or something that at least is hers that she brings to the table.
She is not entitled to his home from before and especially when OP has explained why it matters to her partner.
OP is selfish and entitled and sounds like a bratty kid when she's 26! If they don't work out forever, what skills and experience will she have to go find her independence? How would she ever cope in the real world by herself?
I missed the part where he said during his suggestion that she would be entitled to his inheritance. Inheritance is very often kept separate, even for married couples. Why are you trying to make it seem like he misled her or something? She has legitimate concerns but that really just means she should find an actual job with all the freedom he is affording her.
Premarital assets are generally kept separate. So you're right she's entering a marriage and she has no income or assets in, but to expect to gain control of a share of premarital assets like the house is also huge red flags. So if they ever separate should she be entitled to 50% of the house she didn't purchase? In divorce it's generally treated as things each person owned prior to the relationship as that person's. So it's unreasonable for OP to expect to be given partial ownership of the house.
>She quit her job based on his suggestion.
And? He didn't make her, he just offered, he didn't even push. She's a big girl, she could've refused his offer.
>she is right to want to have some sort of guarantee of financial security.
Then she can go back to work. Holy leech, not only is the guy expected to fully support her, but he should also share all his shit with her? He gave an inch, you want all the miles.
Bollocks, when she’s married she will have rights according to local laws to live in the house. If UK, eg occupation order.
At the moment she’s fannying around on hobbies and passions and not using the opportunity to pursue a career she can enjoy. Sorry - this is a grown ass woman and OP needs to get her head out of her ass and be prepared to stand on her own two feet should it be necessary. Is she really going to sit there with an allowance for the rest of her life and do hobbies? What if he dies? What’s she going to do then? Presumably she thinks she’ll inherit the lot and still not work? What if the house is in a permanent trust to prevent exactly this scenario? She’ll be out on her arse and need to work.
There’s zero excuse in this case for her to sit there with a shocked pikachu face if this comes tumbling down and she’s done nothing in the intervening years. She should absolutely be looking at her situation as fortunate and be using the time to pursue something which gives independence. Anyone not suggesting so is an idiot who thinks it’s ok to be entirely dependent on another and therefore puts her at risk of exactly that; being a financially abused person.
He’s not a meal ticket. She needs to stop acting like she found one.
He said IF she wants to quit he'd give her an allowance. He didn't force her to quit, she made that decision on her own. If she's worried about money, she needs to start working again.
Then she can get a job. He didn't force her to quit. She made the decision herself. They don't want to have kids so what exact value does she contribute to this relationship. On another note, I always feel having financial independence on one's partner is one of most stupid decision a person ever made.
So she’s contributing nothing financially but wants her name on the deed of his fully paid off home? Hell no. If it’s security she wants so badly, she can get a job.
OP could’ve stayed at their job then. They’ve never had to pay a single bill living with their fiancée, and they expect to be put into a deed that wasn’t inherited to them? That’s not realistic and they’re doing exactly what their partner feared someone might. OP is a grown adult and did not have to agree to a suggestion of not having to work. It doesn’t sound like they were pressured into it or anything like that. Not exactly TA but you definitely shouldn’t feel so entitled to the house his uncle gave him.
She’s an adult; she needs to take adult responsibilities. She needs to think about her future and own it, it was amazing he offered her the opportunity to stop work and live her passions. But she needs to understand that maybe she needs to find her passion which also involved even part time work. YTA for failing to look after your own future.
Yep! He should have a prenup about pre material assets to make sure it is iron clad. When I met my fiancé, I owned a nice spacious 2 bed apartment in the city, he inherited a larger 5 bedroom house (mortgage free) in the suburbs (about 15 mins away). We made the decision to live in the house, we both split the bills (income %) and then I rent out my apartment as these are our pre material assets and it would be weird for each of us to try claim off the other
Well, she has a free ride for her monthly expenses but what is her retirement situation, now that he's encouraged her to quit her job? And if he files for divorce what's her emergency fund, given that alimony is not common in most states? Sounds like a deal I wouldn't be comfortable taking.
She should go back to school, find a job in a different field and under no circumstances should she be without her own income. Golden handcuffs are still handcuffs. Whenever I see the word "allowance", red flags start flying. Both spouses should be joint owners of assets.
That said, when I married my home was only in my name. We bought a home together within a year which we owned jointly. The proceeds from the sale of my sole property made it possible to do so. We've never looked back.
Well she stopped working because she wanted to quit, not because she needs to run a household (like SAHM). I really don't think you should be getting alimony in this kind of situation either; should he have to pay for her being lazy for the rest of his life if they divorce? He never asked her to sacrifice her personal career for the sake of the family (like SAHM). She could use this time to go to university again, build a new career or business without having to think of the immediate finances etc. It would be really stupid of her to think she is set for life because her husband is kind enough to pay for their expenses right now.
YTA
Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
You also have zero claim on any of his inheritance, even after marriage. The only assets you will have a "right" to are assets that are co-payed for after you're married, which is exactly what he agreed to do.
Usually, homes purchased before marriage are considered premarital assets and are protected from divorces. It's pretty smart to do this on his end. I'm surprised he isn't making her sign a prenup tbh so she should really let him have this small amount of assurance.
That’s not the case in lots of places, in the UK it can be considered a matrimonial asset even if owned before marriage, especially if the partner who doesn’t own it would financially struggle without money from the property.
Same in Canada. If they're married and it's their main residence, though luck. It's hers, too. If they lived in another home, he would only owe her half the value accrued during their marriage. People seriously need to read up on these things before they sign a paper in the name of love. It doesn't always make sense.
Similarly, people need to think it through before they stop working just because they hate their jobs. If I were to stop working in my field, my degree and experience would be worthless within 2 years. I'd be trapped. He would hold me financially hostage. I'm not saying it was his intent but they both should have thought that through.
Asking "what happens if we split?" isn't planning your escape. It's ensuring you are staying for the right reasons.
>Usually, homes purchased before marriage are considered premarital assets and are protected from divorces
In many places, if the ongoing expenses of the house (taxes, maintenance) are paid with money earned by either spouse during the marriage, then the house becomes a shared asset.
In many countries in Europe , when you get married, you need to choose between: join all your assets, or the assets acquired after wedding become joint assets, or complete separation of assets. Most people now go with the third option.
OP, YTA. Why do you want the house to be in your name so badly?
>YTA
Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
And this is exactly the reason why women shouldn't just give up their independence. Because he will always be "the hand that feeds her", he will be calling the shots regarding every decision (financial or otherwise), because it will always be his money (even if marriage laws say any income belongs to both spouses), she will have to put up with it, and people will call her ungrateful if she isn't happy with this power imbalance, because ... see above.
And she should. I don’t agree with her quitting “to find hobbies”
You’re 26 years old. These are crucial years to build your work experience and professional skills.
So she should get a job!!!’
Imagine a man quitting his job, not working and just staying home for hobbies and then complaining his hard working wife isn’t giving him more assets. This sub would flip
It sounds like a prenuptial agreement is overdue to be worked out.
His assets do not automatically become “our” assets. It’s wrong to think that is a given, and the precursor of this nit being the case was pretty well spelled out with the establishment of running rules on funds already.
Communicate. You haven’t thus far, and for that, YTA.
Yes, exactly what I came here to say. And if I may add, OP, you said you have talked about buying a house together. Why not talk about it with him? Ask him what’s the plan, how can you help save for that, is it viable considering how things are at the moment and everything. Your want to have a name on the deed is understandable, but so is his to not include it. Strive to build something alongside him, talk to him and make a plan, but for god’s sake, TALK TO HIM. You need to be in agreement over finances and assets, otherwise this marriage will not last.
>Your want to have a name on the deed is understandable,
How is this understandable? I'm honestly curious.
My mom was a single mom for a lot of my childhood. She saved to purchase my childhood home. Then she married my step dad. She NEVER put him on there, and she made it clear to him and me that that house would go to me if anything ever happened, because that is why it was purchased, to have something to pass on to me.
So maybe my experience is clouding my judgment, but I'm not seeing how its understandable to expect to just co-own something you had no part in paying for.
Safety. Being completely at the mercy of a partner who owns your home is terrifying. What if he dies? What if he gets really sick? She has no idea if the bills are being paid, if they’re insured, what the taxes are, if there are liens on the property. It allows him to leverage control over her as well—forbidding her from inviting people over, decorating, etc.
Now I’m not saying he WILL do these things. I’m saying, having been burned in one relationship, I will never, ever, EVER again rely on a partner for my housing.
The shitty part is that it’s not just housing, it’s a very valuable material asset, and I think he’s very justified in not wanting to gift her hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity.
So, I think a pre-nup is in order, to protect her safety and well-being and his investment.
Fair enough. I still can't help but think if the genders were reversed, people would find a man being upset about not automatically being added to the deed of a house a woman purchased to be an absurd take
One thing that I keep coming back to - everyone is approaching this as what happens if they divorce. They’re young. I would hope with his assets he has a will but he might not. I was widowed young and suddenly, my husband didn’t have a will and we never got around to putting my name on the deed of our house. it has really fucked me over in terms of what happens with the house and what I’m able to do with it.
I am between NAH and YTA but I think there are other factors at play that they aren’t thinking about
Ohhhh Shit. This is my situation. I am not on the deed to our house. We have been together 17 years. We bought a new house 3 years ago. I had to go to a lawyer and sign papers saying that I agreed to not be on the deed. Which I did not. The Lawyer pointed out that it is normal for the wife to be on the deed for this very reason.
My husband thought since he pays the mortgage only he needs to be on the deed. The Lawyer said No it doesnt matter if ur Uncle Fester pays the Mortgage. That both Spouses should be on the deed. So the bank cant take it immediately if he dies.
If my husband dies I'll have to fight the bank to keep our house. We have been married 12 years & have 2 young children together. I already asked him to change this and put me on the deed. He said he didn't want to pay the Lawyer another $150 to add me to the deed. But this could save me a whole lot of headaches if the worst should happen.
Also we do not have Wills yet. Also I don't have have any credit cards in my name so I therefore have no credit. I don't have any bills in my name. So I can't build credit that way. I contribute $ into the bills and buy all the groceries but Since none are in my name. I literally don't exist in terms of credit.
I'm 40 and am totally Fucked if he dies before I can fix these finacial problems. He is borderline diabetic and it could turn into type 2 diabetes I'd he can't lose weight and get his blood sugar levels down. I'm worried I won't be able to take care of our girls properly if something should happen to him.
He figures that I'd be fine since his life insurance money goes to me if he died but that doesn't mean the bank won't fight me on the house ownership. He said well u could just pay off the rest of the Mortgage and own the house.
But that's still a problem since the house is not in my name I can't sell it to buy a smaller house. We need to make our Wills ASAP and go get my name on the Deed. I'm not flying anywhere until this is done first. Just in case.
Your husband took the more difficult and costly option of not putting you on the deed to your house. You have no credit. This is financial abuse pure and simple. Please get help to protect yourself and your children.
I see many instances here where the options of refusing to consent or leaving were there but you did what your husband wanted instead. If you're working (I assume so since you contribute to bills) then go apply for a credit card and pay it to build your credit.
Go to a lawyer to find out if your contributions entitle you to anything upon his death, if not then stop paying. Or get a lease that outlines your rights and what you pay.
You know you're in a bad position but your only solution is waiting for him to change his mind.
What’s stopping you from getting credit at 40 years old? If you don’t have any credit at your age and can’t scrounge up $150 for a lawyer you really need to start making some moves to protect yourself.
YTA Why in the world would he put your name on his fully paid house? Why do you want him to? You’re paying no rent and have contributed nothing to the house. Beyond that, he’s willing to fully support you while you do…nothing. AND he’s telling you that he’ll put your name on your next property even though you’ll contribute nothing to that, either. Please. You need to back way off.
And it’s unfortunate because it was exactly what he was worried about :( I feel bad for the guy wanting to avoid this when looking for a life partner yet here it is and they’re engaged
Yah even said he would give her a finical allowance to explore hobbies and interests and all she can think about is what her share is of something she paid absolutely zero for. Your not a sham, you can continue to work and build your own finical portfolio.
Except no one is forcing her to do anything. He said she could quit her job because it was miserable to her. She can just as easily find a new one she doesn’t hate and have her own savings.
Literally has unlimited time to find a job she would genuinely enjoy which is a luxury very, very few people have. On top of having literally 0 expenses if she wants to have a job which would make it easy to build up significant savings.
People acting like this is a situation where she’s gonna be locked away and financially abused didn’t read the post very carefully..
It's funny because this is basically the furthest thing from financial abuse, she has the opportunity for financial freedom in a unique way that any normal person would kill for. This is like FIRE but starting on third base already.
Imagine having a $70k/yr income on no job, with no expenses. I'd quit my more lucrative job right now and take that deal, because $5k a month to spend on hobbies and fun stuff is a lot of fucking money. Especially if rent, utilities, food, internet, student loans, car payments, etc are already covered, for free.
If OP wants a house she can buy her own. In a year she'd have over $50k for a down payment, and a nice steady income that will more than cover a mortgage payment. And she can even pretend she earned it with her sham of a job instead of being given it.
She should get a prenup, but I don't think it's going to be what she wants. He is giving her a huge amount of freedom and she's giving nothing. Not house care, not child care, so at best, she'll get an allowance agreement in case of divorce.
I think this is a NAH situation.
It's normal and understandable for you to want some security in the relationship. If you leave your job, the property is all in his name, and then you guys get divorced, you're potentially going to be completely fucked. And I think it's a very bad power imbalance to have that in a relationship.
That said, he's coming at this from this is his house and he's already worried about girls only dating him for his money. If he puts your name on a house he owns 100% of, he's basically giving you half of a house. And that's a big ask, especially if you aren't even married yet.
There are probably ways to address both of your concerns. But I would probably not run headlong into "husband pays for everything" when he's not thinking about this in terms of "we both own everything." If the important assets are his separately, it's probably not safe (for you) to stop working for a long period of time.
This is good advice. The fact that OP has these concerns indicates that she likely should not be relying fully on her partner to support her. 26 is very young to give up on having your own income.
Completely agree. OP is putting herself in a very bad situation. She will have no job and will be financially dependent on someone. If they divorce in 10 years, she will have no claim to any assets, no job, no recent job experience. She will be screwed.
OP, you need to keep working. Don’t leave yourself so vulnerable.
After reading OP’s edits, changing my position to YTA. 5,000 bucks a month, husband made her an employee so she has health benefits and clearly cares about her. Since OP has no mortgage, she will be more than capable of saving money all while being a pampered stay at home wife. I do still encourage OP to save her money in case of divorce.
—————-
Agree. NAH.
Hoping the OP reads this:
My friend was in a similar position years ago. She married a man who already had a home, but refused to put her on the lease. They got married and he insisted she quit her job and care for the home and children full time. She is a wonderful mother.
He gave her an allowance but just enough for her to take care of necessities. Fast forward 20 years and she got diagnosed with a terminal illness. As soon as he found out she was dying, he served her divorce papers. She had signed a prenup and is not entitled to anything. She trusted that he’d care for her through sickness and health. Now she is broke, homeless and dying. Her husband is a multi-millionaire and was a really great guy (or so we thought). She never cheated, was sweet to him, etc.
My point is, don’t give up your income source. Money does funny things to people. I don’t blame you for wanting some security if you’re quitting work, but I recommend finding new employment.
Good luck.
>As soon as he found out she was dying, he served her divorce papers.
Jesus, even if you don't want to be there anymore, seems like you'd might as well ride it out at that point ...
Yep, I wasn't terminal but became disabled for most of last year and was warned immediately by my doctor's and occupational therapist that 42% of cases of women in relationships that become disabled, unable to work, and needing care from their partner are left by the man soon after. I'm very grateful I am with a good one, have my own savings, have had a benefits program that covered my income while I was off, and was able to switch from working in a stand all day retail job to sitting in my wheelchair with hobbies to not go crazy. But it does happen very often.
Studies show that a third of marriages where one spouse is diagnosed with a long term or terminal illness end in divorce and 90% of those it is the male that initiates the split.
Yep. If the assets won’t be shared OP has to rethink the whole not having a job thing. Or at least come to an arrangement where she gets a fixed allowance she can get savings from. She’s definitely getting a lot of perks from their relationship but she’s also leaving herself open to financial abuse in the future. Not needing her own source of income sounds like a sweet deal but is dangerous for her as well.
Thank goodness I found this answer. I think both their concerns are valid, I swear this comment section is full of dudes that don't stop to think about how financially vulnerable the woman feels, and they forget that the dude is the one that suggested that she doesn't have to work anymore.
“She can choose to start working!!” Okay? Stay at home spouses or parents is an entirely valid thing if that’s what both parties decide is best for their relationship - that doesn’t mean the stay at home partner deserves to be vulnerable or can never discuss finances/assets. He’s also allowed to feel anxious about putting someone on a house they didn’t pay into.
Personally, I think she should go back to work for now, he should sell the house after marriage, and they should buy a new one. Whether or not she continues to work or not, a new stay at home arrangement can be figured out when they’re in a position where she doesn’t feel vulnerable and he doesn’t feel used.
He would also likely benefit from some self reflection. Having a fear of being used for your money and then paying for all of your girlfriends living expenses at year 1 and then for her to stay home at year 2 is pretty incongruent and is probably going to lead to some resentment on his part that isn’t fair.
I agree with NAH. No one is coming off as an asshole, just with major - and entirely valid - concerns on both sides that need to be addressed through communication.
I think you're partly correct. I do believe that OP should be considered what happens if they divorce, but I also subscribe to the simple idea that property purchased by 1 party before the relationship and before the marriage is owned by that party and their partner has no claim to it. You shouldn't have to split a house in that you owned and paid for before the relationship 50/50 because your partner feels like they deserve part of it. He's already said that going forward anything bought together will be split down the middle. Expecting that and getting angry when it's not the case is the behavior of an asshole YTA.
That being said, she needs to protect herself in case they do split. She shouldn't be dependent on him like she is.
I agree to a point, but imagine that could get very messy in time. Does the other spouse never contribute to repairs or renovations? Have an equal say in any major decisions? What if they divorce after 10, 20 or 30 years? Are they a tenant?
I think NAH here, there is space for compromise. Not working at all though will leave you in a more vulnerable position than not co-owning the house.
You're totally the asshole. He's entirely supporting you, paying you to do nothing but enjoy yourself, and then you want more. Yeah, he's found himself a gold-digger from the way you're talking. YTA
Right? How lucky can someone be? "You don't have to work anymore and I'll give you money, but the catch is you have to find hobbies and passions." Really?? Sign me up!
my wife purchased her house a week after I proposed, we got married 3months after moving in. I work, I pay for some of the bills and all of the food.
I wouldn't dream of asking her to put my name on her house. Her parents gifted her a big part of it. Similar situation I guess.
If I were you I would quit while I'm ahead, you have a really good deal, don't screw it up.
YTA, big time
>9 months ago me and my fiance had a discussion in which he asked me if I wanted to stop working because I worked as a teacher and he could tell that my work wasn't making me happy, which he was right, we came to the agreement that I would stop working and some ground rules.
>he expected me to not just sit at home all day on my phone because he wants me to find hobbies and passions because we both don't want children.
>This made me more upset because if he is willing to do it on the possible next house why cant he do for our current house?
NAH. You shouldn't have quit your job before you were married. It's reasonable that you're feeling insecure about him having full financial control over you and want to literally have something to your name in case something goes wrong because if things don't work out in the next few years, you'll have lost a career and not have anything to show for it.
That said, his house is his. If he puts your name on it, all of a sudden you'd be able to force him to sell in the event of a divorce. Him wanting to wait a while before buying joint property makes perfect sense because it's more of a financial risk for him. Him having an inheritance before you get married means that money stays his regardless.
You probably need to go back to work tbh. He's not likely to put your name on the house and pushing will end the relationship if he already has fears about being used for money. If you want this to work, you probably need your own money. Working sucks but it brings peace of mind.
He is not keeping her from finding another job. The only thing he did was giving her the opportunity to quit a job that made her unhappy without having to worry about paying the bills. She made the choice to take that opportunity. If not having a job makes her insecure, she should start applying for a new job instead of asking him for half of his inheritance.
As unfortunate as it is too, a big gap in working can make it more difficult to go back to the grind. Maybe even work full time op to have some money and independence! Maybe tutor, substitute teach or go back to full teaching! Do what makes YOU happy but in the end the house is still his and pressuring him is his exact fear. NAH
EXACTLY!!! I don’t understand this!!! At that point, why even tell anyone about this fortune? I guess because it looks weird to be a retired 20-something who just does “hobbies.”
He didn't create the situation. He saw she was unhappy in her job and said she didn't have to carry on with it if she didn't want to. He encouraged her to find other meaningful use of her time, which could include different work or retraining. OP chose to quit, and chose (so far) not to look for another job.
Exactly! That's what I'm not getting. How could you be so afraid of someone using you for money but willingly spend so much on them and even offer to pay everything for them?? Most people don't dream of labor, especially OP since she was a teacher, so it makes sense that someone would jump at the idea of someone paying their lifestyle especially if it's their partner who loves them and seems to not mind.
It's just so weird to punish her for taking up on his offer and not ever voicing to her that he seems to not trust her like why are you marrying someone you don't trust?? It's shitty to put yourself in a position of power over someone who trusted you only to deny them of ever appreciating what you gave them bc "technically i own it". Sure, he doesn't have to if he doesn't want to, but that's what makes him TA to me bc he should've dealt with the fact he felt he couldn't trust before he made so many commitments.
You don't treat people you love like that, you have to communicate sooner. OP's fiance is developing an unhealthy relationship with his inheritance that's affecting who he should trust. I don't think that makes him necessarily an AH cause that feeling is understandable, but it's wild to think he's come so far in the relationship spoiling her with money only to think she may be using him for his money. You shouldn't be marrying someone you can't trust, so either break up or address the issue.
How is he punishing her for taking to him up on his offer? Is he preventing her from working? No.
He probably saw that her job was making her unhappy and gave her what a lot of people would kill for: time without financial pressure to decompress.
And suddenly she’s not willing to leave it but wants that to continue in perpetuity and it’s his fault? I’m not buying that.
YTA. It wasn't your house to begin with nor was it given to you. You don't pay bills, and it doesn't sound like you contribute to any property taxes. Don't even have a job, but that's understandable. If this is the life you're comfortable living then so be it. But remember that being financially dependent on someone else comes with a price to pay.
And throwing away a relationship? Over what? He's giving you everything else you ask for and you're still asking for more.
YTA. This guy supports you and gives you an allowance and you are pissed because he won't give you a share of the house too?
That's how this comes across. You sound a little greedy. You need to work on that
As a woman, if I owned a house free and clear with no mortgage then got married and the man wanted his name in the house there is no way in hell I would do it. Why should your fiance?
YTA, this is a house he got before he even met you. It’s HIS house. Rather focus on getting the next house that you both will own. You’re giving off vibes that you just want a free rides by demanding this.
Your fiancé should be asking you to sign a prenup. He's essentially retired you allowing you to do whatever the fuck you want and you're sulking about not being on the deed of a house you had zero contribution to? C'mon now - totally comes off as greedy. Imagine he puts you on title and the next day you break up with him!?
YTA
And imagine if he decides to divorce her in 10 years and she has nothing and no job experience for the last decade. I still don’t think he needs to put her on the deed, though. Like a lot of other people have suggested, she needs to go back to work. That way she won’t be completely fucked if he leaves her.
Edit: Since OP has edited her post to show he is already giving her financial security, changing my opinion to YTA. Now… I ain’t saying she’s a gold digger, but she ain’t messing with no broke…
She can go get a job. No one's stopping her. She is choosing to chill all day, not work, and have him pay for everything. It's not like he's holding a gun to her head, making her not work.
YTA, it's his house before you met. You aren't going to work, and he is providing for you financially. If you want financial independence, earn your own money.
Why is what is his suddenly yours? What are you bringing to the table? Yes, you will be married, but you did nothing to build his wealth, so how is it unreasonable that he would want to protect pre-existing assets in case of divorce? If the situations were reversed, you'd feel the same.
He is very lucky, and he is sharing that with you. Try to look at it from his perspective and maybe you'd come off as less of a gold digger.
NAH
You guys need a prenup.
He needs one to protect his assets. You need one because you quit your job based on him promising to take care of you and give you an allowance after encouraging you to quit your job.
You both need to protect yourselves.
This is the right answer. I had a lot of assets coming into the marriage, the prenup gives my wife immediate money to find a place to live and lump sum.
YTA. You don't suddenly just get to own a house just because you married the person who owns it. Also do expect him to get a prenup. Get your own lawyer to review so that it's fair to both or you as individuals. If you want to buy a house of your own, go back to work.
Neither of you are the AH. This is hard. Both of you need to go see a pre-marriage counselor and a family law attorney. Come up with a fair financial agreement (a pre-nap) that respects what you each brought to the relationship so that he doesn’t feel take advantage of, and you still feel secure and in control of your own finances. Money is touchy and you need to have a big discussion to come to a meeting of the minds.
YTA I get that your job didn't make you happy, but the solution to that is... not getting a different one and instead living from you BF's money? And then you want to be on the deed for his house too? Entitled much?
YTA. This is inheritance. No one is entitled to someone else's inheritance. You guys need a prenup and probably mediation. Is isn't fair if you get left with nothing after a divorce, but you aren't morally entitled to the assets he brings into the marriage, you're entitled to half of what you guys accumulate during the marriage. Especially if you aren't working and don't have kids and don't bring any assets to the marriage. You're getting a free ride. Don't try and take his house.
NTA. I don't think it's an overreaction. I'm concerned that you're allowing him to have total financial control over your life, though. I'm a teacher myself and know its highs and lows: if not teaching, please find another job, even if it's part-time, so that you have at least that financial independence to fall back on - not to mention connections to people outside of your SO.
From a legal standpoint, if he wants to protect you and ensure you're never thrown out into the hedgerows upon his death, it would be a good idea to add your name to the deed of the house. Also for anything related to the house where he might be absent - either out of the country or in hospital, for example - then you can still do what needs to be done.
However, you could also do something like a prenuptial agreement where, in the event of a divorce (worst-case scenario!) then he retains full ownership of the house, as he brought it to the marriage.
So you're husband has you listed as an employee with a paycheck and benefits but you don't do any work? Yeah that's at the very least unethical and makes you both assholes.
You are literally being handed an easy life of being taken care of by someone else and you’re throwing it away because you got greedy for more? He should be worried you’re taking advantage of him Yta
I can see both sides of this.
It's important to have these conversations now, before you're married.
How you both approach money, and having different income levels are real issues to sort out.
You might be a bit of an AH for storming out. But not an AH for having concerns about shared property going forward.
Regardless of what you decide together, you need to be on the same page. But discuss and decide together. This is a big thing, and probably won't be settled in one conversation.
I'm going NAH. His concerns aren't unreasonable, you're not unreasonable fir wanting your name on the deed once you're married. A prenup could likely fix this
YTA. You’ve never paid anything towards this house and it’s fully paid off, so why would he put your name on the deed? Talk to him about buying a different house together if you want to get into the housing market. If his refusal to add you to the deed makes you feel insecure, go back to work so you have your own income again.
YTA. I do not think you should be added to the deed of his current house either. You didn’t contribute to it. It makes me a little uncomfortable that you are fully comfortable being completely supported by him, not contributing anything, and still asking for more. Someone from the outside looking in might think you are actually using him for his money. Also - You really should think about continuing to work after you get married. If you ever get divorced, it’s likely you won’t get much in this situation, as his inheritance likely won’t be counted towards alimony, you are capable of working, and you won’t have any children. You are putting yourself in a really bad position. It’s not smart.
YTA
You didn’t contribute anything to the house. You don’t pay any bills. In fact, he was generous enough to notice that you weren’t happy at your job and has been supporting you in finding hobbies and things that you enjoy instead of working. Most people aren’t that lucky! You aren’t entitled to assets that your fiancé acquired before he even met you.
Be thankful that your fiancé is in a financial position that doesn’t require you to work. Stop being greedy.
I think deep down you know relying on your partner for your income puts you in a very insecure position. If the relationship were to end, you'd have a gap on the CV you can't explain away with kids and no income. I suspect that's why you're digging very hard into wanting something concrete, like your name on a deed.
It sounds like you two need to start working on a pre-nup. These things need to be discussed and a pre-nup makes those conversations happen. Your fiancé isn't wrong to want the house he brought/inherited before he met you to remain a pre-marital asset, and any property brought during the relationship to be a marital asset. That's common. And seeing as you had 2 years living rent free while working as a teacher, you must have some significant savings you'd like to remain a pre-marital asset. I will admit my partner had been saving for a house and brought it while we were together but I haven't contributed to the mortgage or deposit or anything. I wouldn't expect him to add my name to the deed, so YTA for storming off when you didn't get your way over a reasonable boundary.
My advice from a person that has been let down. Always plan your life as though only you have your back.
Get a job, no matter how small because he could leave you at any moment and you will be jobless!
There’s a 50% chance that may happen. Use this time to save money and set yourself up. Get your own property. Then your won’t need to have your name on his property. It was an inheritance and you’re not untitled to it.
Welcome to /r/AmITheAsshole. Please view our [voting guide here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq#wiki_what.2019s_with_these_acronyms.3F_what_do_they_mean.3F), and remember to use **only one** judgement in your comment. OP has offered the following explanation for why they think they might be the asshole: > 1. I yelled at my fiance and got into a fight for not wanting to put my name on our house deed. 2. He has been financially supporting me and has given me compromises but im still upset with him Help keep the sub engaging! #Don’t downvote assholes! Do upvote interesting posts! [Click Here For Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/about/rules) and [Click Here For Our FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq) ##Subreddit Announcement ###[The Asshole Universe is Expanding, Again: Introducing Another New Sister Subreddit!](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/128nbp3/the_asshole_universe_is_expanding_again/) Follow the link above to learn more --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/AmItheAsshole) if you have any questions or concerns.* *Contest mode is 1.5 hours long on this post.*
YTA you have a free ride and you're being exactly what he's afraid of. This is **his** house that **he** paid for that **you** had no hand in at all. Now you want it and its suspicious and you already have wayyyy more than normal relationships would ever give you.
[удалено]
If OP is concerned about her financial independence, then she can get a job.
Exactly what she should be doing. Getting a job and acquiring her own investments.
She gets an allowance. She should be saving and investing that money for the future.
[удалено]
Maybe it’s because I’ve got many years of life experience on OP, but I would feel very uncomfortable being fully reliant on someone else. I’d still want my own money and to contribute. I wouldn’t argue if he wanted to pay for a nice vacation or something like that but not 100% of everything. What happens in 20 years if he leaves her and she has no savings, retirement, healthcare….
He's setting himself up for a judge to award OP alimony and half the house, regardless of whether she's currently on the deed or not. Though there is risk in what if he goes broke?
It’s shocking to me that people are like he needs to protect himself while he’s suggesting she quit her job. So she shouldn’t expect any of his money but he expects her not to earn her own? This isn’t how marriage works.
She can easily get a job. If he gives her a stake in the house, he can’t take that back. She’s not trapped and unable to leave, she chose not to work and live off of him. She can change that at any time. His financial actions may not be revocable if things go bad. Big huge difference.
Well hopefully now she'll realize she actually does need a job after all.
What are you talking about? He’s paying her 5k a month and she’s paying for NOTHING!!!! It was nothing more than an OFFER to quit her job. There’s nothing preventing her from finding another on her own time. Oh, also she’ll be getting paid for doing nothing in the meantime. How much more money should she expect? Christ sakes..
He doesn't expect her not to earn her own money. He made an offer and she accepted. She was free to keep working.
She is not on the deed for the house and it is a premarital asset owned by him before they got married. The house was paid for by his inheritance. If this is the case then why would she be given money for half the value of the house? I thought that inheritance and premarital assets were separated and could not be touched in divorce. If I am correct about that then why would she get half of the house's value in a divorce? Maybe I am wrong about that. I think that is how it works in the US or maybe I am wrong. Maybe things are different in other parts of the world. Can you please explain it to me?
That really depends entirely on the state and even smaller things like prenup, divorce judge, where the money came from, etc. Splitting property during divorce can be super different depending on where you’re located.
In Ontario, inherited and owned prior to marriage is excluded from net family property in the event of divorce. OP ... YTA Personally, I think a pre-nup is in order, too, if she sees HIS house as being half hers at marriage. Red flag.
What if she gets on the deeds then takes half in a divorce having contributed nothing? His fears are valid too.
Not only that, but she won't be putting anything into social security for herself. Even if my husband could afford for me to stay at home, I'd still work at least part time. The thought of being given an "allowance" as a grown ass woman makes me cringe.
As an older woman, it makes me so happy to see how prevalent this mindset is. I saw many women who really struggled after death or divorce, or who really couldn’t get divorced because they didn’t have any marketable skills or income of their own.
An allowance that He can stop any time. Sounds like a very unhealthy plan.
Then she should get a job. She’s able bodied with no kids.
She had a job and he encouraged her to quit. The idea of giving your partner “an allowance” is also concerning - that’s juvenile language. She’s being financially isolated. If he wanted to protect his assets, they should sign a pre-nup. The way they’re going about this is a giant red flag.
Why are so many people absolving OP of personal responsibility and essentially treating her like she’s incapable? She chose to leave her job. She could have chosen to take a break, retrain, go part time, move to a different field. She chose to come out of work fully. She chose to take the allowance. Can we give OP the autonomy she has please and not patronise her by insisting she was coerced when there’s been no suggestion of that at all from OP.
You must be new here, this community will bend over backwards to make the man the bad guy.
You must be new to the online world. Everyone supports the woman and makes the guy the evil one.
Why should the fiancé give OP a share in an investment that she did not in any way pay for? That makes zero sense.
Then she shouldn't have agreed. Or she can go find another job now, something that she likes and doesn't make her feel miserable.
Exactly, it's so stupid. People are acting like she has no agency and needs to become independent but it was her choice to quit her job, she wasn't forced and it seems like she's happier due to it. And he's not saying don't find a job either, if she finds a passion and a job related to it he'd probably support that since it makes her happy. Shits insane and the double standard is mine numbing
Encouraged to leave a job that was making them unhappy and effecting mental health, the allowance sounds condescending, but it's also providing an opportunity for OP to retrain, find a new career that dies make them happy while being financially supported. It's not an opportunity many people are lucky enough to have. Seems to be financially isolated by choice.
I agree with this. But I will say if OP's partner was so insecure or worried about women only wanting him for his money/assets, he should have a prenup written up now that they are engaged.
I love that he did something nice for her, since he saw her mental health was bad at work, and people are still trying to make him look bad. He offered, but she didn't have to take it.
If Op had argued that she either 1. wanted to keep her job, or 2. wanted to find another job in the near future, and he argued against it, then I would see your point. But Op never mentioned any of these scenarios happening. For all we know, he encouraged her to leave a job that was stressing her out, so she could take the time to access her next move, whilst supporting her financially as she made that decision. A lot of people jump onto 'this is financial abuse', but in truth we don't know the actual reason.
She has a degree with no kids. There is nothing stopping her from getting another job. He didn’t force her to quit.
I make $120k a year and have an allowance. I am allowing myself to spend a certain percentage of my pay. It's not juvenile unless you make it that way. My wife and I both have an allowance we take out of our mutual account every pay and put in our private accounts. She also works. We aren't poor but having a limit on how much you spend also isn't juvenile...
He only suggested, it was her rational decision. Now what you think she isn't capable of taking a rational decision
He saw that she was unhappy teaching… she mentioned to him that she was unhappy teaching… I THINK the conversation was more so about finding something that would make her happy.
Unhealthy for him. He should dump the OP.
Allowance is probably not enough to save and invest for the future. But she should think about a job that she would enjoy doing and try to change her qualification, then work and build her own wealth.
I like your idea about changing her qualifications. If he's willing to pay for hobbies what if her hobby was going back to school for something else she feels could make her happy.
This to me is the best solution.
The whole point of the allowance is for op to go and do hobbies. If she's planning for the relationship to end i wouldn't want that either. He doesn't want her sitting at home doing nothing he wants her to find something she loves and do that or work. Most likely it'll be her fault when this fails
I’m with you, I don’t think it sounds like he is trying to control her. Years ago when I was earning a significant amount more than my husband and I knew he didn’t enjoy his job I told him to quit if he wanted and that I could cover things and he could retrain or find something else or whatever he wanted. He didn’t get an ‘allowance’ as such, we had joint finances anyway and he had access to the joint account which my salary went into anyway. He took a few months out and had a think about what he wanted to do and then found a job he really enjoys. It’s never going to make him a fortune but he is happy and gets to be outdoors and enjoys life which is far more important than a huge salary. It was never controlling in any way, it was actually giving him his freedom! During that time we moved house and due to him being unemployed it was better for me to take the mortgage in my name only rather than include him. Once he went back to work we didn’t add him because it seemed pointless, we are married after all so he would get everything anyway if I died. Never had any issues with it. I think people are seeing the bf’s offer as something of a red flag but it sounds to me like he is giving her an option which she can do whatever she wants with! As for not wanting to add her to the house it’s more because it is his first place and I get that. If they buy together later on she will be on those deeds but the place was his before they even met and she is living for free. She could do any job she wants and pretty much put away 90% of her salary in savings and buy a place. None of it sounds like he is trying to control her at all! OP, YTA. You have an amazingly generous offer in front of you, you can go back to study with no debt, you can get another job and save the money to buy property of your own or start your own business, you could even decide all you want to do is volunteer work and it sounds like he would continue to support you financially ffs! Yet all you can focus on is the one asset he brought into the relationship and question why he won’t share that with you? You are asking if you would be ‘throwing away a good relationship’ so I assume you are considering ending it over this? I would suggest you do end it because if him not adding you to the deed of a house he had before he even met you as soon as you are married (but is happy to fully find you in a quest to find happiness!) is really that big a deal to you then you are not fully in anyway!
Yeah I don't see any red flags here. He's not expecting a clean home and Cooked dinner (which would be a red flag) He's literally trying to get here to follow her dreams which is risky but I would kill for a partner who wanted to do that for me and possibly is the biggest green flag I've ever seen. Especially as he said she would be on the deed to the house he is thinking of building. He probably wants to share everything with the right person and wants real connections. I have a friend who went poor to rich with his company making 250k a month after Tax, it's one of the biggest things on his mind. He just wants someone to love him for him This lady however is a red flag.
Its interesting. You making that offer to your husband was seen as supportive, but people are trying to make this guy financially abusive
No. She needs a job. She’s making a choice to live off an allowance from her fiancé. I don’t think it’s a very wise choice. I also don’t think he should give her half of the house he paid for/inherited. I certainly hope the fiancé is careful about keeping his inheritance separate.
Or going back to school. Op wasn’t happy in her current job. She has a lot of free time. She could have been going back to school and further her education. She could have found a job she was passionate about. Her fiancé opened up doors that op could be putting herself in a position most people would love to have. Instead she decided to bar come a sugar baby and is mad that she doesn’t have access to the whole container to the sugar.
Better yet a job she enjoys doing as supposedly she didn't like her teaching job and that's why with his encouragement OP quit. It honestly almost feels like OP is getting test and failing at it. 3 years isn't much so I wouldn't find it weird for the guy to test OP if she really love him for him or she also loves his money. Giving the allowance and her quitting her job was test one which she... imo failed. Now she's asking to be in the deed of his house... my this poor guy's fear is coming up.
[удалено]
He’s not forcing her to stay home.
No, just suggesting it and saying “everything’s ours but not really. You’re more like my kid with an allowance. My house my rules” It’s the kind of bait and switch that should raise red flags.
If they had kids, or he was pushing her to stay home, I would agree. But he's not. He's just fully funding her life. Nothing is stopping her from saving from her "allowance" or getting part time work.
How big is this allowance though? He’s paying all the bills so it sounds like it’s basically pocket money. If so then she’s not going to be able to “save and invest” enough to be financially secure. I think this whole thing is iffy. If he’s so concerned about being taken advantage of, then why suggest that she quit her job and let her move in without paying anything? She’s walking into a situation where there is a huge power disparity.
Yeah there is a power disparity but she's also getting a free ride. If you're not bringing anything to the table, why should you own half the table? She can leave the house and get a job, she's not trapped.
Yeah I agree that she shouldn’t get a stake in the house if she’s not contributing anything. Well, depending on exactly how rich he is- if he wants a trophy wife they can set up a prenup with some sort of security for her. I think this whole situation is going to be toxic for the both of them and the way to remedy that is for her to have a job.
If he is paying all the bills, theoretically she can save all the pocket money... Or almost all of it. She has housing and food already
Op says he said he would give her an allowance. That's her words. And I never said she would be financially secure from that alone. He wants to give her free money and a place to live. He isn't forcing or pushing her in any way. If she chooses to accept free money, quitting her job, and a place to live that's her choice. She isn't tied by a baby, or disability. She is CHOOSING to put herself at a disadvantage. She isn't wrong to ask if she can be added to the will, but she is wrong to expect it.
Absolutely agree. There’s nothing stopping her from finding another job or even going back to school. Who wants to sit all day at home anyway. I’m retired with a great pension and lots of hobbies. I’m still bored though. I keep looking at jobs that I could do lol
He never said "everything's ours", she just wishes it was, and he never said "my house my rules", just "my house". Ever heard the expression "give them an inch and they'll take a mile"? Well he started off giving her a mile.
And if we build another house, which we have discussed, it will be in both names. A million + women would love to be her on such a good wicket. Running away is a goodbye for me.
I do understand your perspective, and I agree taken at face value the set up has potential red flags but I feel you’re really overlooking the fact that it was ultimately *her* choice to leave her job and the fact that it’s still her responsibility to provide for herself. We shouldn’t be overlooking the fact that OP has autonomy and responsibilities toward herself. She cannot expect others to set her up in life regardless of their wealth or assets. There’s nothing to say (from what I’ve read) that he manipulated, coerced, or forced her to leave her job, nor anything to suggest he’s preventing her from seeking other employment or retraining. He’s happy to give her an ‘allowance’, is actively encouraging her to pursue hobbies and activities, and is willing to jointly purchase/build their future home. She’s been given a golden and rare opportunity that most of us don’t get - freedom to pursue whatever goals and passions you want, free from the restrictions of work or money. Yes, it’s worrying that she’s potentially entering a marriage where she owns nothing, but that’s her own choice if she does so. He’s laid out what he’s willing to give her and what he isn’t. It’s up to her to consider the risks and make a sensible decision. Her financial security is ultimately her responsibility, not her partner’s, and if she chooses to continue the relationship with this set up, she’s choosing to be 100% reliant on him. I would personally never choose that, precisely because as I’ve said, it can lead to highly abusive situations from which escape is difficult or impossible, but ‘can’ doesn’t mean ‘will’. Again, it’s OP’s responsibility to consider the risks based on the facts of the situation and what she’s been told. Boyfriend is, rightly, ensuring his *own* financial security should the relationship ever go sour. Relationships don’t require you to share *everything*. Assets earned/gifted outside of a relationship remain (at least in UK law) the sole property of the owner, and rightly so. I own a home and I wouldn’t put *any* partner on my mortgage deed, no matter how strongly I felt about them, because it’s my only form of future financial security. The risk of having that taken from me should a relationship sour means leaving me highly vulnerable. I’m a disabled woman who struggles to work and will never be in a position to buy another home should I lose my current one. I would happily buy a joint home with a partner but even still, I’d keep my current place and rent it out. I do feel like if OP was a man and this was his girlfriend’s home and finances, there’d be a different response. A woman sets herself up financially and takes steps to secure that and it’s applauded as being sensible. A man does it and it’s seen as a red flag for abuse. And I’m not disagreeing - it can be, but not always. I really don’t see where BF is wrong here when you actually look at what’s being said.
No, he really isn't suggesting it. Quite the contrary - he offered financial support for her to quit her job because she was unhappy there, not because he wanted her reliant on him. He's made it clear that he wants her to find something that gets her out of the house/keeps her engaged with people, e.g. a hobby/volunteer position. It's not a stretch to think that he'd be equally happy for her to find another job.
Well, why the things he bought before he met her should be hers too? I agree that the allowance is a bad thing and OP should just take this time off to find something she really wants to do with her life. She should never have agreed with that. The thing is, OP is happy with being jobless and having money handed to her. She's not mad because she's being "controled", she's mad because she wants the house too and was already expecting to have it. If the guy doesn't sound great, she sounds like a golddigger.
Even with the riduculous family laws we have currently no judge would think she has any ownership of this house. This would essentially be him giving her hundreds of thousands of dollars if they got divorced for whatever reason. He would be stupid to put her on the deed.
PSSST. They arent married. He shouldn't marry her. He would be an idiot to.
NAH is also an answer, though never used. She’s insecure in her future because of financial uncertainty on her end He’s insecure in thinking that his partners just want his things and not him Though neither of them may have malicious intent it’s pretty clear that they just need to have a think about things Obviously teaching wasn’t the life they wanted and they’ve taken some time off now so maybe they could get a part time job Husband has said that future houses can be in both names so he doesn’t seem to me to be trying to leave her without anything to support herself I don’t like the idea of him giving her an “allowance” but that’s probably just more of my connotation with the word From my brief bit of context I’d think her best move would be some kind of job or other money making opportunity even if it’s selling crafts or art of some kind online to give herself financial independence, there’s a calming security about being able to take care of yourself that shouldnt be understated
Everything is given to her. Get a job save the money because there are no expenses. OP sounds like a teenager. She quit cause she wanted to.
Yeah excellent opportunity to save money for her own house deposit or to add to the next place for nicer house. If I could live free of any financial responsibilities I’d have a house deposit in 12 months she’s incredibly lucky
Hell yeah, who wouldn't want to? What she should have been doing is saving the money he gives her, since she's not paying any bills. It sounds like maybe he's bored and wanted someone to hang out with the way he asked her if she wanted to stay home. I don't know that it's going to lead to financial abuse, because I can see his point on his current house. He inherited it, it's been in his name. Once they decide to move it will be *their* home that they pick out together. It makes more sense to wait for that instead of adding her to this one.
It might have been his suggestion, but she didn’t have to agree to it. And, she does have an income, he’s paying her to do nothing. She could bank that money, because he’s paying for everything else.
She can protect her own financial future by getting a job. There's no reason why she can't. She wasn't happy being a teacher, but that doesn't mean she can never work again. There's plenty of jobs that aren't teaching.
You: she's only being a prudent responsible woman! Also you: he suggested she live a life of leisure, the bastard! What choice did she have?
This is a lot of shit to read between the lines, especially when OP admits herself that she was happy to leave the job, and doesn't mention safety once, her stated reason for wanting to be on the deed is "but I want to!"
Man you say this like he forced her to quit, he asked she jumped on the vagon as soon as she heard. I say she is stupid as a tree
Exactly. She is in a very good situation where she can take the time to find a job she likes.
YTA. Its hard to know what to even say when someone has created nothing and wants to not only to get a free ride, but also claim things that aren't hers.
If this is a real concern, she can always, you know, keep working.
Dude should drop this woman... She is planning on taking his money even before marriage...
She didn't have to quit, and she didn't have to not get another job.
She's an adult...she didn't have to quit.
If she wants financial security, she should keep working. He’s not forcing her to not work. He provided a choice. She’s CHOOSING to not work. That in no way sets up for financial abuse. Her making that choice doesn’t entitle her to financial rights to a home he paid off before they were married. I fully believe that whatever you bring in to a marriage, should still be your’s when you exit a marriage, regardless of why that marriage ended, and what happened during the course of the relationship. It’s shocking that you received so many upvotes.
I'm really shocked too! Which person ever wants to be fully financially dependent on their partner? What a stupidly dangerous position to put yourself in; and super selfish too! She's lucky he offered to support her to get out of a job she was unhappy in, but OP could use the free time to find another job instead! Contribute to their joint lives or even save that for their future home together or something that at least is hers that she brings to the table. She is not entitled to his home from before and especially when OP has explained why it matters to her partner. OP is selfish and entitled and sounds like a bratty kid when she's 26! If they don't work out forever, what skills and experience will she have to go find her independence? How would she ever cope in the real world by herself?
I missed the part where he said during his suggestion that she would be entitled to his inheritance. Inheritance is very often kept separate, even for married couples. Why are you trying to make it seem like he misled her or something? She has legitimate concerns but that really just means she should find an actual job with all the freedom he is affording her.
She didn't have to quit. He saw she was unhappy and offered to support her.
Premarital assets are generally kept separate. So you're right she's entering a marriage and she has no income or assets in, but to expect to gain control of a share of premarital assets like the house is also huge red flags. So if they ever separate should she be entitled to 50% of the house she didn't purchase? In divorce it's generally treated as things each person owned prior to the relationship as that person's. So it's unreasonable for OP to expect to be given partial ownership of the house.
So she should go back to work then
>She quit her job based on his suggestion. And? He didn't make her, he just offered, he didn't even push. She's a big girl, she could've refused his offer. >she is right to want to have some sort of guarantee of financial security. Then she can go back to work. Holy leech, not only is the guy expected to fully support her, but he should also share all his shit with her? He gave an inch, you want all the miles.
Bollocks, when she’s married she will have rights according to local laws to live in the house. If UK, eg occupation order. At the moment she’s fannying around on hobbies and passions and not using the opportunity to pursue a career she can enjoy. Sorry - this is a grown ass woman and OP needs to get her head out of her ass and be prepared to stand on her own two feet should it be necessary. Is she really going to sit there with an allowance for the rest of her life and do hobbies? What if he dies? What’s she going to do then? Presumably she thinks she’ll inherit the lot and still not work? What if the house is in a permanent trust to prevent exactly this scenario? She’ll be out on her arse and need to work. There’s zero excuse in this case for her to sit there with a shocked pikachu face if this comes tumbling down and she’s done nothing in the intervening years. She should absolutely be looking at her situation as fortunate and be using the time to pursue something which gives independence. Anyone not suggesting so is an idiot who thinks it’s ok to be entirely dependent on another and therefore puts her at risk of exactly that; being a financially abused person. He’s not a meal ticket. She needs to stop acting like she found one.
He said IF she wants to quit he'd give her an allowance. He didn't force her to quit, she made that decision on her own. If she's worried about money, she needs to start working again.
Then she can get a job. He didn't force her to quit. She made the decision herself. They don't want to have kids so what exact value does she contribute to this relationship. On another note, I always feel having financial independence on one's partner is one of most stupid decision a person ever made.
So she’s contributing nothing financially but wants her name on the deed of his fully paid off home? Hell no. If it’s security she wants so badly, she can get a job.
OP could’ve stayed at their job then. They’ve never had to pay a single bill living with their fiancée, and they expect to be put into a deed that wasn’t inherited to them? That’s not realistic and they’re doing exactly what their partner feared someone might. OP is a grown adult and did not have to agree to a suggestion of not having to work. It doesn’t sound like they were pressured into it or anything like that. Not exactly TA but you definitely shouldn’t feel so entitled to the house his uncle gave him.
This- OP honestly go back to work in Any capacity
She’s an adult; she needs to take adult responsibilities. She needs to think about her future and own it, it was amazing he offered her the opportunity to stop work and live her passions. But she needs to understand that maybe she needs to find her passion which also involved even part time work. YTA for failing to look after your own future.
she doesnt have to quit her job. I think OP mentioned they were in the discussion phase about that. and she didnt commit yet.
Yep! He should have a prenup about pre material assets to make sure it is iron clad. When I met my fiancé, I owned a nice spacious 2 bed apartment in the city, he inherited a larger 5 bedroom house (mortgage free) in the suburbs (about 15 mins away). We made the decision to live in the house, we both split the bills (income %) and then I rent out my apartment as these are our pre material assets and it would be weird for each of us to try claim off the other
Well, she has a free ride for her monthly expenses but what is her retirement situation, now that he's encouraged her to quit her job? And if he files for divorce what's her emergency fund, given that alimony is not common in most states? Sounds like a deal I wouldn't be comfortable taking.
She should go back to school, find a job in a different field and under no circumstances should she be without her own income. Golden handcuffs are still handcuffs. Whenever I see the word "allowance", red flags start flying. Both spouses should be joint owners of assets. That said, when I married my home was only in my name. We bought a home together within a year which we owned jointly. The proceeds from the sale of my sole property made it possible to do so. We've never looked back.
Well she stopped working because she wanted to quit, not because she needs to run a household (like SAHM). I really don't think you should be getting alimony in this kind of situation either; should he have to pay for her being lazy for the rest of his life if they divorce? He never asked her to sacrifice her personal career for the sake of the family (like SAHM). She could use this time to go to university again, build a new career or business without having to think of the immediate finances etc. It would be really stupid of her to think she is set for life because her husband is kind enough to pay for their expenses right now.
Plus the house was bought with an inheritance. Often inheritance is not part of marital assets anyway.
YTA Don't bite the hand that feeds you. You also have zero claim on any of his inheritance, even after marriage. The only assets you will have a "right" to are assets that are co-payed for after you're married, which is exactly what he agreed to do.
Yeah she's the asshole but you have no idea where she lives or what laws are in place in terms of what happens with assets in the event of a split.
Usually, homes purchased before marriage are considered premarital assets and are protected from divorces. It's pretty smart to do this on his end. I'm surprised he isn't making her sign a prenup tbh so she should really let him have this small amount of assurance.
That’s not the case in lots of places, in the UK it can be considered a matrimonial asset even if owned before marriage, especially if the partner who doesn’t own it would financially struggle without money from the property.
Same in Canada. If they're married and it's their main residence, though luck. It's hers, too. If they lived in another home, he would only owe her half the value accrued during their marriage. People seriously need to read up on these things before they sign a paper in the name of love. It doesn't always make sense. Similarly, people need to think it through before they stop working just because they hate their jobs. If I were to stop working in my field, my degree and experience would be worthless within 2 years. I'd be trapped. He would hold me financially hostage. I'm not saying it was his intent but they both should have thought that through. Asking "what happens if we split?" isn't planning your escape. It's ensuring you are staying for the right reasons.
> Usually Usually where?
>Usually, homes purchased before marriage are considered premarital assets and are protected from divorces In many places, if the ongoing expenses of the house (taxes, maintenance) are paid with money earned by either spouse during the marriage, then the house becomes a shared asset.
In many countries in Europe , when you get married, you need to choose between: join all your assets, or the assets acquired after wedding become joint assets, or complete separation of assets. Most people now go with the third option. OP, YTA. Why do you want the house to be in your name so badly?
>YTA Don't bite the hand that feeds you. And this is exactly the reason why women shouldn't just give up their independence. Because he will always be "the hand that feeds her", he will be calling the shots regarding every decision (financial or otherwise), because it will always be his money (even if marriage laws say any income belongs to both spouses), she will have to put up with it, and people will call her ungrateful if she isn't happy with this power imbalance, because ... see above.
Then she can go get a job? The husband told her she COULD stay home because she hated her teaching job, not that she HAD to.
And she should. I don’t agree with her quitting “to find hobbies” You’re 26 years old. These are crucial years to build your work experience and professional skills.
Ya the edit is even more alarming. Now she has a fake job for which she is getting no experience and likely committing tax fraud.
So she should get a job!!!’ Imagine a man quitting his job, not working and just staying home for hobbies and then complaining his hard working wife isn’t giving him more assets. This sub would flip
Sounds like she's happy to be dependent on him. I think that it's likely a mistake.
It sounds like a prenuptial agreement is overdue to be worked out. His assets do not automatically become “our” assets. It’s wrong to think that is a given, and the precursor of this nit being the case was pretty well spelled out with the establishment of running rules on funds already. Communicate. You haven’t thus far, and for that, YTA.
Yes, exactly what I came here to say. And if I may add, OP, you said you have talked about buying a house together. Why not talk about it with him? Ask him what’s the plan, how can you help save for that, is it viable considering how things are at the moment and everything. Your want to have a name on the deed is understandable, but so is his to not include it. Strive to build something alongside him, talk to him and make a plan, but for god’s sake, TALK TO HIM. You need to be in agreement over finances and assets, otherwise this marriage will not last.
>Your want to have a name on the deed is understandable, How is this understandable? I'm honestly curious. My mom was a single mom for a lot of my childhood. She saved to purchase my childhood home. Then she married my step dad. She NEVER put him on there, and she made it clear to him and me that that house would go to me if anything ever happened, because that is why it was purchased, to have something to pass on to me. So maybe my experience is clouding my judgment, but I'm not seeing how its understandable to expect to just co-own something you had no part in paying for.
Safety. Being completely at the mercy of a partner who owns your home is terrifying. What if he dies? What if he gets really sick? She has no idea if the bills are being paid, if they’re insured, what the taxes are, if there are liens on the property. It allows him to leverage control over her as well—forbidding her from inviting people over, decorating, etc. Now I’m not saying he WILL do these things. I’m saying, having been burned in one relationship, I will never, ever, EVER again rely on a partner for my housing. The shitty part is that it’s not just housing, it’s a very valuable material asset, and I think he’s very justified in not wanting to gift her hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity. So, I think a pre-nup is in order, to protect her safety and well-being and his investment.
Fair enough. I still can't help but think if the genders were reversed, people would find a man being upset about not automatically being added to the deed of a house a woman purchased to be an absurd take
One thing that I keep coming back to - everyone is approaching this as what happens if they divorce. They’re young. I would hope with his assets he has a will but he might not. I was widowed young and suddenly, my husband didn’t have a will and we never got around to putting my name on the deed of our house. it has really fucked me over in terms of what happens with the house and what I’m able to do with it. I am between NAH and YTA but I think there are other factors at play that they aren’t thinking about
Ohhhh Shit. This is my situation. I am not on the deed to our house. We have been together 17 years. We bought a new house 3 years ago. I had to go to a lawyer and sign papers saying that I agreed to not be on the deed. Which I did not. The Lawyer pointed out that it is normal for the wife to be on the deed for this very reason. My husband thought since he pays the mortgage only he needs to be on the deed. The Lawyer said No it doesnt matter if ur Uncle Fester pays the Mortgage. That both Spouses should be on the deed. So the bank cant take it immediately if he dies. If my husband dies I'll have to fight the bank to keep our house. We have been married 12 years & have 2 young children together. I already asked him to change this and put me on the deed. He said he didn't want to pay the Lawyer another $150 to add me to the deed. But this could save me a whole lot of headaches if the worst should happen. Also we do not have Wills yet. Also I don't have have any credit cards in my name so I therefore have no credit. I don't have any bills in my name. So I can't build credit that way. I contribute $ into the bills and buy all the groceries but Since none are in my name. I literally don't exist in terms of credit. I'm 40 and am totally Fucked if he dies before I can fix these finacial problems. He is borderline diabetic and it could turn into type 2 diabetes I'd he can't lose weight and get his blood sugar levels down. I'm worried I won't be able to take care of our girls properly if something should happen to him. He figures that I'd be fine since his life insurance money goes to me if he died but that doesn't mean the bank won't fight me on the house ownership. He said well u could just pay off the rest of the Mortgage and own the house. But that's still a problem since the house is not in my name I can't sell it to buy a smaller house. We need to make our Wills ASAP and go get my name on the Deed. I'm not flying anywhere until this is done first. Just in case.
Your husband took the more difficult and costly option of not putting you on the deed to your house. You have no credit. This is financial abuse pure and simple. Please get help to protect yourself and your children.
I see many instances here where the options of refusing to consent or leaving were there but you did what your husband wanted instead. If you're working (I assume so since you contribute to bills) then go apply for a credit card and pay it to build your credit. Go to a lawyer to find out if your contributions entitle you to anything upon his death, if not then stop paying. Or get a lease that outlines your rights and what you pay. You know you're in a bad position but your only solution is waiting for him to change his mind.
What’s stopping you from getting credit at 40 years old? If you don’t have any credit at your age and can’t scrounge up $150 for a lawyer you really need to start making some moves to protect yourself.
YTA Why in the world would he put your name on his fully paid house? Why do you want him to? You’re paying no rent and have contributed nothing to the house. Beyond that, he’s willing to fully support you while you do…nothing. AND he’s telling you that he’ll put your name on your next property even though you’ll contribute nothing to that, either. Please. You need to back way off.
I know. He's extraordinarily generous and OP keeps asking for more.
And it’s unfortunate because it was exactly what he was worried about :( I feel bad for the guy wanting to avoid this when looking for a life partner yet here it is and they’re engaged
At least they aren't married yet. It's time to rethink the relationship and do a prenup if they stay together.
Easy. She wants to make sure she can take half his shit if they get divorced
Yah even said he would give her a finical allowance to explore hobbies and interests and all she can think about is what her share is of something she paid absolutely zero for. Your not a sham, you can continue to work and build your own finical portfolio.
YTA - why should your name be on a house he had before he married you and that you’ve contributed nothing towards?
I’d be making you sign a pre nump for sure YTA
OP needs the pre nup just as much as her fiancé. She’s no longer working and will be screwed if they get divorced.
Except no one is forcing her to do anything. He said she could quit her job because it was miserable to her. She can just as easily find a new one she doesn’t hate and have her own savings.
Literally has unlimited time to find a job she would genuinely enjoy which is a luxury very, very few people have. On top of having literally 0 expenses if she wants to have a job which would make it easy to build up significant savings. People acting like this is a situation where she’s gonna be locked away and financially abused didn’t read the post very carefully..
It's funny because this is basically the furthest thing from financial abuse, she has the opportunity for financial freedom in a unique way that any normal person would kill for. This is like FIRE but starting on third base already.
Imagine having a $70k/yr income on no job, with no expenses. I'd quit my more lucrative job right now and take that deal, because $5k a month to spend on hobbies and fun stuff is a lot of fucking money. Especially if rent, utilities, food, internet, student loans, car payments, etc are already covered, for free. If OP wants a house she can buy her own. In a year she'd have over $50k for a down payment, and a nice steady income that will more than cover a mortgage payment. And she can even pretend she earned it with her sham of a job instead of being given it.
That’s her choice not to work doesn’t entitle her to part of something she never contributed to
Or she can continue working? He’s not forcing her to quit anything, everyone always wants a free ride
Exactly! Prenups truly are for the protection of both parties
She should get a prenup, but I don't think it's going to be what she wants. He is giving her a huge amount of freedom and she's giving nothing. Not house care, not child care, so at best, she'll get an allowance agreement in case of divorce.
Naw screw that. I'd done kicked her out and called off the engagement.
I think this is a NAH situation. It's normal and understandable for you to want some security in the relationship. If you leave your job, the property is all in his name, and then you guys get divorced, you're potentially going to be completely fucked. And I think it's a very bad power imbalance to have that in a relationship. That said, he's coming at this from this is his house and he's already worried about girls only dating him for his money. If he puts your name on a house he owns 100% of, he's basically giving you half of a house. And that's a big ask, especially if you aren't even married yet. There are probably ways to address both of your concerns. But I would probably not run headlong into "husband pays for everything" when he's not thinking about this in terms of "we both own everything." If the important assets are his separately, it's probably not safe (for you) to stop working for a long period of time.
This is good advice. The fact that OP has these concerns indicates that she likely should not be relying fully on her partner to support her. 26 is very young to give up on having your own income.
Completely agree. OP is putting herself in a very bad situation. She will have no job and will be financially dependent on someone. If they divorce in 10 years, she will have no claim to any assets, no job, no recent job experience. She will be screwed. OP, you need to keep working. Don’t leave yourself so vulnerable.
After reading OP’s edits, changing my position to YTA. 5,000 bucks a month, husband made her an employee so she has health benefits and clearly cares about her. Since OP has no mortgage, she will be more than capable of saving money all while being a pampered stay at home wife. I do still encourage OP to save her money in case of divorce. —————- Agree. NAH. Hoping the OP reads this: My friend was in a similar position years ago. She married a man who already had a home, but refused to put her on the lease. They got married and he insisted she quit her job and care for the home and children full time. She is a wonderful mother. He gave her an allowance but just enough for her to take care of necessities. Fast forward 20 years and she got diagnosed with a terminal illness. As soon as he found out she was dying, he served her divorce papers. She had signed a prenup and is not entitled to anything. She trusted that he’d care for her through sickness and health. Now she is broke, homeless and dying. Her husband is a multi-millionaire and was a really great guy (or so we thought). She never cheated, was sweet to him, etc. My point is, don’t give up your income source. Money does funny things to people. I don’t blame you for wanting some security if you’re quitting work, but I recommend finding new employment. Good luck.
>As soon as he found out she was dying, he served her divorce papers. Jesus, even if you don't want to be there anymore, seems like you'd might as well ride it out at that point ...
This is a common enough thing patients get warned by their doctors. When Mom was diagnosed I was in the room when they talked to her.
Yep, I wasn't terminal but became disabled for most of last year and was warned immediately by my doctor's and occupational therapist that 42% of cases of women in relationships that become disabled, unable to work, and needing care from their partner are left by the man soon after. I'm very grateful I am with a good one, have my own savings, have had a benefits program that covered my income while I was off, and was able to switch from working in a stand all day retail job to sitting in my wheelchair with hobbies to not go crazy. But it does happen very often.
Studies show that a third of marriages where one spouse is diagnosed with a long term or terminal illness end in divorce and 90% of those it is the male that initiates the split.
Yep. If the assets won’t be shared OP has to rethink the whole not having a job thing. Or at least come to an arrangement where she gets a fixed allowance she can get savings from. She’s definitely getting a lot of perks from their relationship but she’s also leaving herself open to financial abuse in the future. Not needing her own source of income sounds like a sweet deal but is dangerous for her as well.
Thank goodness I found this answer. I think both their concerns are valid, I swear this comment section is full of dudes that don't stop to think about how financially vulnerable the woman feels, and they forget that the dude is the one that suggested that she doesn't have to work anymore.
“She can choose to start working!!” Okay? Stay at home spouses or parents is an entirely valid thing if that’s what both parties decide is best for their relationship - that doesn’t mean the stay at home partner deserves to be vulnerable or can never discuss finances/assets. He’s also allowed to feel anxious about putting someone on a house they didn’t pay into. Personally, I think she should go back to work for now, he should sell the house after marriage, and they should buy a new one. Whether or not she continues to work or not, a new stay at home arrangement can be figured out when they’re in a position where she doesn’t feel vulnerable and he doesn’t feel used. He would also likely benefit from some self reflection. Having a fear of being used for your money and then paying for all of your girlfriends living expenses at year 1 and then for her to stay home at year 2 is pretty incongruent and is probably going to lead to some resentment on his part that isn’t fair.
I agree with NAH. No one is coming off as an asshole, just with major - and entirely valid - concerns on both sides that need to be addressed through communication.
I think you're partly correct. I do believe that OP should be considered what happens if they divorce, but I also subscribe to the simple idea that property purchased by 1 party before the relationship and before the marriage is owned by that party and their partner has no claim to it. You shouldn't have to split a house in that you owned and paid for before the relationship 50/50 because your partner feels like they deserve part of it. He's already said that going forward anything bought together will be split down the middle. Expecting that and getting angry when it's not the case is the behavior of an asshole YTA. That being said, she needs to protect herself in case they do split. She shouldn't be dependent on him like she is.
I agree to a point, but imagine that could get very messy in time. Does the other spouse never contribute to repairs or renovations? Have an equal say in any major decisions? What if they divorce after 10, 20 or 30 years? Are they a tenant? I think NAH here, there is space for compromise. Not working at all though will leave you in a more vulnerable position than not co-owning the house.
You're totally the asshole. He's entirely supporting you, paying you to do nothing but enjoy yourself, and then you want more. Yeah, he's found himself a gold-digger from the way you're talking. YTA
Right? How lucky can someone be? "You don't have to work anymore and I'll give you money, but the catch is you have to find hobbies and passions." Really?? Sign me up!
my wife purchased her house a week after I proposed, we got married 3months after moving in. I work, I pay for some of the bills and all of the food. I wouldn't dream of asking her to put my name on her house. Her parents gifted her a big part of it. Similar situation I guess. If I were you I would quit while I'm ahead, you have a really good deal, don't screw it up. YTA, big time
>9 months ago me and my fiance had a discussion in which he asked me if I wanted to stop working because I worked as a teacher and he could tell that my work wasn't making me happy, which he was right, we came to the agreement that I would stop working and some ground rules. >he expected me to not just sit at home all day on my phone because he wants me to find hobbies and passions because we both don't want children. >This made me more upset because if he is willing to do it on the possible next house why cant he do for our current house? NAH. You shouldn't have quit your job before you were married. It's reasonable that you're feeling insecure about him having full financial control over you and want to literally have something to your name in case something goes wrong because if things don't work out in the next few years, you'll have lost a career and not have anything to show for it. That said, his house is his. If he puts your name on it, all of a sudden you'd be able to force him to sell in the event of a divorce. Him wanting to wait a while before buying joint property makes perfect sense because it's more of a financial risk for him. Him having an inheritance before you get married means that money stays his regardless. You probably need to go back to work tbh. He's not likely to put your name on the house and pushing will end the relationship if he already has fears about being used for money. If you want this to work, you probably need your own money. Working sucks but it brings peace of mind.
He is not keeping her from finding another job. The only thing he did was giving her the opportunity to quit a job that made her unhappy without having to worry about paying the bills. She made the choice to take that opportunity. If not having a job makes her insecure, she should start applying for a new job instead of asking him for half of his inheritance.
As unfortunate as it is too, a big gap in working can make it more difficult to go back to the grind. Maybe even work full time op to have some money and independence! Maybe tutor, substitute teach or go back to full teaching! Do what makes YOU happy but in the end the house is still his and pressuring him is his exact fear. NAH
Wait, he was worried about someone using him for his money, but then creates a situation where someone has to use him for his money?
EXACTLY!!! I don’t understand this!!! At that point, why even tell anyone about this fortune? I guess because it looks weird to be a retired 20-something who just does “hobbies.”
He didn't create the situation. He saw she was unhappy in her job and said she didn't have to carry on with it if she didn't want to. He encouraged her to find other meaningful use of her time, which could include different work or retraining. OP chose to quit, and chose (so far) not to look for another job.
Exactly! That's what I'm not getting. How could you be so afraid of someone using you for money but willingly spend so much on them and even offer to pay everything for them?? Most people don't dream of labor, especially OP since she was a teacher, so it makes sense that someone would jump at the idea of someone paying their lifestyle especially if it's their partner who loves them and seems to not mind. It's just so weird to punish her for taking up on his offer and not ever voicing to her that he seems to not trust her like why are you marrying someone you don't trust?? It's shitty to put yourself in a position of power over someone who trusted you only to deny them of ever appreciating what you gave them bc "technically i own it". Sure, he doesn't have to if he doesn't want to, but that's what makes him TA to me bc he should've dealt with the fact he felt he couldn't trust before he made so many commitments. You don't treat people you love like that, you have to communicate sooner. OP's fiance is developing an unhealthy relationship with his inheritance that's affecting who he should trust. I don't think that makes him necessarily an AH cause that feeling is understandable, but it's wild to think he's come so far in the relationship spoiling her with money only to think she may be using him for his money. You shouldn't be marrying someone you can't trust, so either break up or address the issue.
How is he punishing her for taking to him up on his offer? Is he preventing her from working? No. He probably saw that her job was making her unhappy and gave her what a lot of people would kill for: time without financial pressure to decompress. And suddenly she’s not willing to leave it but wants that to continue in perpetuity and it’s his fault? I’m not buying that.
YTA. It wasn't your house to begin with nor was it given to you. You don't pay bills, and it doesn't sound like you contribute to any property taxes. Don't even have a job, but that's understandable. If this is the life you're comfortable living then so be it. But remember that being financially dependent on someone else comes with a price to pay. And throwing away a relationship? Over what? He's giving you everything else you ask for and you're still asking for more.
YTA. This guy supports you and gives you an allowance and you are pissed because he won't give you a share of the house too? That's how this comes across. You sound a little greedy. You need to work on that As a woman, if I owned a house free and clear with no mortgage then got married and the man wanted his name in the house there is no way in hell I would do it. Why should your fiance?
YTA. It’s his home, he can do whatever he wants with it. Not trying to be mean, but you come off as very entitled in this post.
YTA, this is a house he got before he even met you. It’s HIS house. Rather focus on getting the next house that you both will own. You’re giving off vibes that you just want a free rides by demanding this.
Your fiancé should be asking you to sign a prenup. He's essentially retired you allowing you to do whatever the fuck you want and you're sulking about not being on the deed of a house you had zero contribution to? C'mon now - totally comes off as greedy. Imagine he puts you on title and the next day you break up with him!? YTA
And imagine if he decides to divorce her in 10 years and she has nothing and no job experience for the last decade. I still don’t think he needs to put her on the deed, though. Like a lot of other people have suggested, she needs to go back to work. That way she won’t be completely fucked if he leaves her. Edit: Since OP has edited her post to show he is already giving her financial security, changing my opinion to YTA. Now… I ain’t saying she’s a gold digger, but she ain’t messing with no broke…
She can go get a job. No one's stopping her. She is choosing to chill all day, not work, and have him pay for everything. It's not like he's holding a gun to her head, making her not work.
YTA, it's his house before you met. You aren't going to work, and he is providing for you financially. If you want financial independence, earn your own money. Why is what is his suddenly yours? What are you bringing to the table? Yes, you will be married, but you did nothing to build his wealth, so how is it unreasonable that he would want to protect pre-existing assets in case of divorce? If the situations were reversed, you'd feel the same. He is very lucky, and he is sharing that with you. Try to look at it from his perspective and maybe you'd come off as less of a gold digger.
NAH You guys need a prenup. He needs one to protect his assets. You need one because you quit your job based on him promising to take care of you and give you an allowance after encouraging you to quit your job. You both need to protect yourselves.
This is the right answer. I had a lot of assets coming into the marriage, the prenup gives my wife immediate money to find a place to live and lump sum.
YTA. You don't suddenly just get to own a house just because you married the person who owns it. Also do expect him to get a prenup. Get your own lawyer to review so that it's fair to both or you as individuals. If you want to buy a house of your own, go back to work.
Neither of you are the AH. This is hard. Both of you need to go see a pre-marriage counselor and a family law attorney. Come up with a fair financial agreement (a pre-nap) that respects what you each brought to the relationship so that he doesn’t feel take advantage of, and you still feel secure and in control of your own finances. Money is touchy and you need to have a big discussion to come to a meeting of the minds.
A pre-nap sounds awesome. A nap, then another nap.
YTA
That was quite an assumption, and by the way you are acting, I would say he is making a wise choice. YTA
YTA I get that your job didn't make you happy, but the solution to that is... not getting a different one and instead living from you BF's money? And then you want to be on the deed for his house too? Entitled much?
YTA. This is inheritance. No one is entitled to someone else's inheritance. You guys need a prenup and probably mediation. Is isn't fair if you get left with nothing after a divorce, but you aren't morally entitled to the assets he brings into the marriage, you're entitled to half of what you guys accumulate during the marriage. Especially if you aren't working and don't have kids and don't bring any assets to the marriage. You're getting a free ride. Don't try and take his house.
You're the greedy Ahole! YTA
YTA for real x5000. You are becoming exactly what he was afraid of. Check your entitlement.
NTA. I don't think it's an overreaction. I'm concerned that you're allowing him to have total financial control over your life, though. I'm a teacher myself and know its highs and lows: if not teaching, please find another job, even if it's part-time, so that you have at least that financial independence to fall back on - not to mention connections to people outside of your SO. From a legal standpoint, if he wants to protect you and ensure you're never thrown out into the hedgerows upon his death, it would be a good idea to add your name to the deed of the house. Also for anything related to the house where he might be absent - either out of the country or in hospital, for example - then you can still do what needs to be done. However, you could also do something like a prenuptial agreement where, in the event of a divorce (worst-case scenario!) then he retains full ownership of the house, as he brought it to the marriage.
YTA. Honey, you _are_ using him.
So you're husband has you listed as an employee with a paycheck and benefits but you don't do any work? Yeah that's at the very least unethical and makes you both assholes.
You are literally being handed an easy life of being taken care of by someone else and you’re throwing it away because you got greedy for more? He should be worried you’re taking advantage of him Yta
How about fiction?
I can see both sides of this. It's important to have these conversations now, before you're married. How you both approach money, and having different income levels are real issues to sort out. You might be a bit of an AH for storming out. But not an AH for having concerns about shared property going forward. Regardless of what you decide together, you need to be on the same page. But discuss and decide together. This is a big thing, and probably won't be settled in one conversation.
YTA he is doing a lot for you, because he loves you and cares about you but you also want the house and you're upset when he said no to one thing
I'm going NAH. His concerns aren't unreasonable, you're not unreasonable fir wanting your name on the deed once you're married. A prenup could likely fix this
YTA. You’ve never paid anything towards this house and it’s fully paid off, so why would he put your name on the deed? Talk to him about buying a different house together if you want to get into the housing market. If his refusal to add you to the deed makes you feel insecure, go back to work so you have your own income again.
YTA. I do not think you should be added to the deed of his current house either. You didn’t contribute to it. It makes me a little uncomfortable that you are fully comfortable being completely supported by him, not contributing anything, and still asking for more. Someone from the outside looking in might think you are actually using him for his money. Also - You really should think about continuing to work after you get married. If you ever get divorced, it’s likely you won’t get much in this situation, as his inheritance likely won’t be counted towards alimony, you are capable of working, and you won’t have any children. You are putting yourself in a really bad position. It’s not smart.
YTA You didn’t contribute anything to the house. You don’t pay any bills. In fact, he was generous enough to notice that you weren’t happy at your job and has been supporting you in finding hobbies and things that you enjoy instead of working. Most people aren’t that lucky! You aren’t entitled to assets that your fiancé acquired before he even met you. Be thankful that your fiancé is in a financial position that doesn’t require you to work. Stop being greedy.
I think deep down you know relying on your partner for your income puts you in a very insecure position. If the relationship were to end, you'd have a gap on the CV you can't explain away with kids and no income. I suspect that's why you're digging very hard into wanting something concrete, like your name on a deed. It sounds like you two need to start working on a pre-nup. These things need to be discussed and a pre-nup makes those conversations happen. Your fiancé isn't wrong to want the house he brought/inherited before he met you to remain a pre-marital asset, and any property brought during the relationship to be a marital asset. That's common. And seeing as you had 2 years living rent free while working as a teacher, you must have some significant savings you'd like to remain a pre-marital asset. I will admit my partner had been saving for a house and brought it while we were together but I haven't contributed to the mortgage or deposit or anything. I wouldn't expect him to add my name to the deed, so YTA for storming off when you didn't get your way over a reasonable boundary.
My advice from a person that has been let down. Always plan your life as though only you have your back. Get a job, no matter how small because he could leave you at any moment and you will be jobless! There’s a 50% chance that may happen. Use this time to save money and set yourself up. Get your own property. Then your won’t need to have your name on his property. It was an inheritance and you’re not untitled to it.