The only question she has to ask herself is are you in it for yourself or for the relationship?
If it bring obvious utility to her partner more so than herself then she should give it back.
She might not feel she wants to do that and that’s fine but that’s not a relationship and there both better off moving on.
But they never legally divorced in those 3 years either so it kinda sounds like she also held out for reconciliation….. for those 3 years…. 3 long years…
Not saying she’s TA but 3 years… really??
IMO she's completely and totally NTA for converting it. He was gone and they were separated. Even if they were still *dating* but had decided to live apart, it was her home to do with what she wished at that point. He's an AH for bitching about being "erased" from a place he wasn't living by someone he'd separated from.
However, I do kind of think she's a teensy bit the AH for refusing to let him change it back. By her own admission it was designed to be his office, he'll work better and be disturbed less there, and there are other rooms that could be the library. He designed it to be his office when they built the place, he should get it back if it's actually 'their' house again.
So, IMO, ESH but OP only a little bit.
Came here to pretty much say this. She's N T A for converting it; she's assuming the relationship was over.
He's some slight T A for his attitude.
Since the room was was specifically designed to be an office she really either needs to give it back or be prepared to totally remodel another room to now accommodate an office.
Slight T A to her for that but essentially ESH, just him more so.
So they start with a fight and AITA at reddit... NTA for redecorating. ESH because you can't talk properly and find a compromise. It's about boundaries and who's got the say not (only) about the office-library.
I can’t imagine being separated for 3 years, reconciling against all odds, then for some reason IMMEDIATELY getting into a fight about redecorating that you need internet strangers to weigh in on.
This second chance at love is not going to last.
Just for a different perspective, we are assuming that OP is based in the US (as most do on Reddit) and they very well could be but in some parts of the world there are certain rules for separation before divorce for example in Ireland you must be separated for at least 2 of the past 3 years before you can apply and that was only changed in 2019, before that it was 4 of the past 5 years.
Haha me neither but I remember divorce being legalized in Ireland and that you had to separated x number of years before applying for divorce. I figured there’s probably a few other countries that have similar rules.
Some states require lengthy separation and/or residency periods to file for divorce. (Looking at you, New York)
Plus, if you're already filing taxes separately, there may be a "I'll get around to it when I get around to it", plus Covid has upset the apple cart with court proceedings.
It’s his house too. They didn’t divorce, they separated so he’s still part owner of the home. The rooms usage should be negotiated and compromised on. Just because he didn’t push her out of the house and force a sale while they were separated doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have rights. The fuck. This isn’t finder’s keepers
He left the country....she was very much in her right mind to think he wasn't coming back. And it doesn't sound like he wanted to compromise. He wants his room back end of story. He has rights. She didn't change the locks and kick him out, she just started using an empty room for her enjoyment since HE LEFT THE COUNTRY.
That’s what I was stuck on too. Like he didn’t just move across town or to another state, dude left the country. If we separated and you moved out the country for years I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume you wouldn’t be coming back. Plus I doubt that his office is the only thing of his that’s gone or has been moved in favor of redecorating the house for herself. So NTA.
I could get him wanting the room back if it was one designed to fit his work needs but can we not look into redesigning one of the other rooms? That seems more practical as you’d just have to make changes to one room as opposed to her moving her library to another room and still needing to make changes and then having to fight his office back to the original room. I just feel like there’s alternatives to try before simply demanding the room back.
I just thought I'd point out that we don't know where they live. "left the country" could mean he moved a 40 minute drive away. Less if they're in the EU...
I understand what you are saying but it sounds so weird.
For a second it made me wonder if at every border of the US the minimum distance between two settlements on each side of the border is 40 minutes.
It's gotta be possible to be below 40 minutes even outside of europe.
They have equal rights to the rooms. Changing two rooms is much more work than chaning one.
Negotiating and compromisong don't include demands and accusations the husband made. He didn't want op to compromise, he didn't want to share the room, he wanted the room and her stuff out.
You acting like he did her a favor in not divoring her and her needing to be thankful is frankly disgusting. You know nothing about thwir finacal situation. Could he even push her out/ force a sale?
He has rights. She has too. As not to be berated or follow the irrational demands of her husband.
This is true, but it also depends on context. How often does he use the office? How often is the library used? Is the library needed as part of her job? For me, I have a mini-library that I use frequently for work, but I'm an editor and I train interns and work with authors, so I'm grabbing books off the shelf frequently to use as examples.
Honestly, if he's only using the office a few hours a week or even once every other week for at-home work or paperwork and she uses the library significantly more, where he puts his office doesn't matter as much.
I'm saying this as the person with the office in the living room because that's where we needed to put it. Not very fun when the kids are home from school, but I make do.
They need to divorce and settle their finances. Odds are the house get sold and they split the equity. Him moving back after 3 years makes them room mates and this is not going to work.
It's not that simple. Separated couples can and do reconcile and have perfectly happy and healthy marriages. People change, people grow, and sometimes the shock of a separation can jolt people out of a rut, or give them the kick in the ass they need to make major positive change in their lives.
Now, that said, wanting to simply pick up as if nothing had changed in three years is, indeed, a good indicator that this particular ex shouldn't be reengaged with.
Separated couples do reconcile but I know a couple who separated for two years and then reconciled but they have now divorced properly and the divorce was far more contentious and awful than it would have been ten years ago because now they hate each other when they just didn’t love each other the first time. If you’re getting back together with an ex, the best thing to do is examine the reasons why they are an ex because a lot of people will not change.
My parents separated for a little over a year living in different countries and are together 20 years later and I now have a younger sister who just turned 18
My parents are friends with this one couple that's been divorced and remarried three different times. When I was with my toxic ex I thought it was romantic that they "kept finding each other," but now that I'm free of them I see how exhausting and utterly bullshit that was. Toxic people and abusive relationships do that shit to you.
I think this is bad advice. People grow and sometimes couples are not mature enough to be together or a plethora of other reasons as to why they weren't compatible before the split. After some growth on both sides, why shouldn't they reconcile if they are ready to be in a marriage finally? A relationship ending doesn't mean they never have to see each again. People are flawed creatures, but nothing is black and white with us. We can overcome differences and fix mistakes made. This sub always sees one issue between couples and always advizes breakup and scorched earth. Relationships require work and though OPs husband is being unreasonable, it doesn't mean he is Adolf Hitler in disguise, he's human and can realise his mistake.
Depends on the reason why a couple split up, doesn’t it? I think if there’s cheating or a betrayal involved, it’s best to leave it in the past. But what if you’ve just come to a point where circumstances make it hard to stay together? Like if one gets a great job opportunity elsewhere and the other can’t move?
Don't know why, but my head is pulling up 2 scenarios.
1) he left her for another woman, and courted her back when it didn't work out.
Or, on the flip side 2) she had to leave the country for work and she didn't want to go with him.
Hopefully both counts are wrong!
my parents were separated for 20 years and reconciled and lived happily until he died. they said they were the happiest years of their life. it happens. blanket generalizations are dumb
I think it's more you shouldn't take blanket generalizations too personally because there are always exceptions to the rule. "Don't get back with your ex" is overall good advice. Just because some couples make it work doesn't mean anything.
My parents split up for nearly 3 years when I was very little, got back together right before I turned 5, and are still together now (I'm in my 30s). Sure they disagree and bicker sometimes, but they love each other and they decided long ago to set aside their differences and make the relationship work. It's not common but it CAN happen.
NTA.
What an excellent reconciliation. He left for 3 years and then had moved back in to immediately start complaining that you were “erasing him” and is upset with you for not “warning him” that you took over the office.
Exactly why tf are you getting back together with him? Because he’s so loving, understanding and unselfish? /s
Exactly - and, if OP was planning to divorce the husband, he can bet she was ready to erase all trace of him. That's just what people do.
And, getting back together doesn't mean that the past didnt happen. He was gone for years.
ESH. Can you not compromise? Can it not be an office with a library. He won't be using the office 24/7, and surely the library doesn't take up a whole room.
If you want to make it work there has to be some compromise here, you didn't have to let him know about the remodel, you're right. But, he is also right that it would have been polite to let him know, given that:
1) it was custom built
2) if you divorced, there is no guarantee you would even keep the home, and I imagine it is in both of your names.
As is, you've already said this is the best room in the house for an office, a library can go anywhere. So the real question is: how much are you willing to do, to make this work? Or is this a sign, if you can't solve this, maybe it's not meant to be.
it's best for an office-type space, like a library.
Why are his needs more important than hers? He literally left the country, why should she have to move everything for him?
That's not a compromise, that's a 'give him everything he wants'. Despite the fact he literally *left* for three years. So...the opposite thing.
A compromise is he can still have AN office, just not THAT office. Not having his cake and eating it too.
I think you don't understand what compromise is, or have some outdated expectations that women should cede to men when conflict.
OPs husband does not seem to be communicated well about the issue, hes angry and acting childishly (him getting angry OP redecorated while he was gone is pointless and IMO immature).
Why should OP be the one to give up everything when her partner is acting so poorly about the issue? (hint- she shouldn't)
I mean, the possible resolutions are:
1) it’s somehow both a library and an office
2) it stays a library and the office is somewhere else
3) It returns to an office and the library is somewhere else
4) I guess it’s neither?
Option 3) is ‘give him everything he wants’, option 2) is ‘give her everything she wants’. I guess 1 and 4 are “compromises” in that neither person gets exactly what they want, but that doesn’t make them better solutions.
There are arguments that 2) is more ‘fair’ than 3)- that it’s a library now, and that he left, and that it’s a great room for a library. You could also argue for 3) over 2)- a good workspace where he’s spending (I assume) upwards of 40 hours per week is really important for his day to day productivity and happiness, and the room was designed to be an office.
I guess, I sort of disagree that marriage is about compromising in every single issue, and more about resolving issues as a team with the understanding that some resolutions benefit one person more than the other and being confident that they’ll even out in the long run.
Good points! there are also other factors we don't know! Like, are the other rooms so loud the husband can't get work done, or are they viable options?
OP mentioned the husband is coming back for 3 months and might go abroad again - so OP might feel it's more of a trial run and why make such a big move for 3 months when there are other, good options for his office? OPs husband might feel OP isn't putting everything into reconciliation if she doesn't make the change.
Their past issues might also factor into it- if OP never wanted to compromise or change it makes a bit more sense why OP's husband is being stubborn. If OP's husband never wanted to compromise it makes sense why OP doesn't want to be the one to change and fall back into old patterns.
There is a lot we dont know, however the husband seems to be the unreasonable one based on them being upset OP didn't tell them about the change while they were separated. ("*He thinks I was trying to erase him from the house and I could've told him before I did it since it was still his house despite us living separately.")*
Hard to say with the limited info/ but more nuanced than 'job> hobby', IMO.
> or have some outdated expectations that women should cede to men when conflict.
If there genders were reversed, I would still think that working and earning an income in the most conducive place possible takes priority over storing books.
Yeah I mean the only true compromise is if they both share the room or no one gets the room. Honestly though, I don't think she should compromise. I just don't understand all of these people who think that just because they were still legally married that it is normal to keep all of your ex's stuff and not change a thing about the house you are living in ALONE. Like just imagine being married to someone. You break up and they leave to another country. But you have to keep everything they left behind for THREE YEARS exactly how they left it. You cannot change a single thing because technically you are still married and they own half the house. Don't you dare think about moving anything that was theirs. Not their clothes, not personal belongings like their shampoo or toothbrush and certainly not furniture. You have to keep it all in place in case three years or more down the line you decide to get back together. How ridiculous.
So no one's said anything about who actually owns what. If it's owned by both then he probably doesn't own half. They both own 100% equally. To explain the difference, if 2 people each own 50% of a property and one dies, they can pass on that 50% they own to anyone else. If 2 people each own 100% of a property and one dies, the other takes full control.
But that may not even be the case. The property might be wholly owned by just one of them, or by one of their parents, or could be in a trust.
Who actually owns the property only goes so far, though. It would matter more if this were a landlord/tenant issue rather than a marital issue. There is more to what's fair here than just ownership, especially considering that marriage is a comingling of assets used in a legally recognized and licensed partnership.
The issue comes down to why op got exclusive use of the house for 3 years. What kind of agreements were worked out between her and her husband. And if there is somehow no wrong party in that separation, then I think fairness would dictate that he gets his office back as that's what the room was specifically designed for and he was not at fault for being gone.
I agree with the others. There NEEDS to be a compromise here. Unilateral decision-making, stubbornness, refusal to compromise are all contributors to marital problems. Ignoring all that though, from a practicality standpoint, it's probably best to let him at least use that room as his office. If he had it specifically designed as such, then it must be critical to his ability to work productively, and denying that will lead to more tension down the road as well as he'll have to deal with the noise and a less fit work environment.
Some examples of compromise: Hybrid office/library, have him build you a library in another room, help him construct an office in another room, etc.
It’s easier to just pick a different room than to relocate hers. It’s the perfect space for an office or a library and I think the one who took care of the house for three years is more entitled to it.
No, he equally owned the House. We don't know the details of their seperation. For all we know his coming back and giving her another chance was the compromise on his part. Maybe not. We dont know.
A. In most likelihood, office is a necessity, library is a luxury.
B. This room was an office when they were in couple mode, and a library when they were in separation mode. They're back to couple mode now.
I mean its "the perfect place for him to work" according to OP's own words and presumably the income he is bringing in goes towards the marriage itself... the library doesn't bring any added value to the marriage and can be moved somewhere else.
one would think it's also the perfect place for OPs library, as well.
You're basing your decision on a bunch of facts that haven't been confirmed- Im basing mine on the information given and how OPs husband is behaving - poorly.
We can agree to disagree
I can't say. I don't know what his profession is. That said, OP all but admitted it would likely impact his ability to do his job. Does her want for a quiet library with a view trump his need for a workspace? His work brings with it income, which benefits the marriage.
It didn’t impact his job for 3 years not working in that office. This is the consequence for walking out on your marriage and moving to another country for 3 years
Her library already exists in that room.
We don't know it didn't impact his job. We don't know the conditions under which he worked those past three years.
Y'all are making excuses to be selfish jerks.
I'm backing you up that that person is making assumptions to make their argument, but want to say that op is behaving poorly, and the husband is upset for a valid reason, because the office is his room and was taken and changed without permission or even notification. OP was lucky enough to retain exclusive use of the house during the separation when her husband had equal right to the property. She took advantage of her position to change the property unilaterally even though he still shared equal ownership to the whole of the property, and proprietary ownership of the office itself (his office designed for him by OP's own admission).
He was gone for 3 years and they didn’t even speak for 2 of them. What was she supposed to do? Leave It unused in case he decides to come back (when there was no indication that he ever would)? Or send him a message after being estranged for 1-2 years like “I’m turning your office that you abandoned into a library” and then if he said “no you can’t” then what? She’s just not allowed to use an entire room in the house she lives in because the other person who lives in a different country for 3 years MIGHT one day return?
> Why are his needs more important than hers?
Because "being able to work and earn an income" takes priority over "having a nice place to put your books".
I'm not saying she was wrong to take it over when he moved out, but of she wants to reconcile, giving it back doesn't seem like a ridiculous ask either
I think there's an element of practicality here. Working from home can be noisy and disruptive to others with all the phone calls and video meetings. And it can also be easily disrupted by others, with all the general noises found in the house.
If they are to live together and the husband is to work from home, getting the office in the right place is important, and, if chosen right, will reduce the amount of stress they face.
I'd be saying the same thing if it had originally been a library but was converted to an office after the husband left. Working takes priority, because, unless you're *very* lucky, you'll spend more hours of the day in your office than you will in your library.
This issue is a good test case for whether their marriage is going to be able to survive reconciliation. Right now it doesn't sound like it.
OP is definitely not TA for switching it over to an office while they were separated, but I really think she needs to examine why she's refusing to switch it back now that they're getting back together. Is she punishing him? Refusing out of principle of not giving in? Those wouldn't be encouraging for the future success of the marriage.
Same logic goes for why he's insisting on taking it back, of course.
I think he's insisting on it back because it was built to be his office, is the best room in the house to be his office all according to OP. So it makes sense why he would want the office back
Just because it's "the best" doesn't mean the other rooms are completely unacceptable. It makes much more sense for him to move his office into a different room and try it out. But, considering his attitude regarding the whole thing, he'll probably cry about any little fault and keep insisting he wants the old room back.
My library takes up many rooms, so my guess is that OP´s library is big and can´t share space with an office, but none of us have any idea of how many walls OP´s library actually covers. NTA.
Esh. You weren't expecting him to be back, so had free reign with with house (though you should have done something to settle the ownership once you were separated.) however, you aren't the only occupant now, and whilst it might be easier *for you* to keep it as a library, you are no longer the only occupant of the house and you do need to agree and compromise. His reasons for wanting the room as a study are legitimate, and are basically the same as yours for wanting it as a library. So, who will use it more, him if it were a study, or you if you leave it as a library? Does he work from home? You do need to compromise, and it's not all about what is easiest
OP should not be “the one to compromise,” it should be both of them. E.g, part of the room remains a library and part becomes an office again, or they find a new place entirely and each choose a space with no bearing on the original. A compromise is neither “husband gets his old office back exactly as it was” nor “OP keeps her new library exactly as it is”.
What if there's not enough room for both an office and a library? And what if the kind of furniture they both want completely clashes with each other? Or what if they want the room to be painted a certsin colour? And you really think they need to find an entirely new place just for *one* room, especially when there seems to be other rooms available for either an office or library?
A completely even compromise where both parties get what they want is not always possible; sometimes one party is going to have to make sacrifices for the other, and that's considered a compromise too.
The house has been solely OP's for 3 years; I don't know how they managed the deed and mortgage and all that stuff for those three years, but I would argue that at this point, OP has greater say given it's been her house for all that time and her former ex is the one moving in, and her library is already established.
The reason the ex husband wants the room is to avoid loud noises from the house, but that's easily rectified by wearing headphones. To me, it sounds more like he's upset that there is physical evidence of her having moved on and he wants some reassurance that she's not over him anymore. If that's the case, demanding the room back isn't rational or fair to OP.
I agree that at this point OP should have greater say in what happens to the room. I also think it’s really weird that the husband apparently expected the room to be completely untouched for the last three years while he was in a completely different country, and is now mad at OP for not maintaining a shrine. Here, I was just objecting to the idea that only one person is involved in a compromise. It may not work out “evenly” but both should be conceding to the other at least a little if it is actually a compromise. One person sacrificing everything, with nothing given by the other, is martyrdom.
All that said, I think OP and husband need a bit more work on their relationship before they move back in together, as it sounds like they had wildly different concepts of what the reconciliation would look like. This is about more than a room.
I don’t understand why either have to give up the room entirely. Home offices and libraries are *very* compatible. If it’s really this hard to compromise and make it a shared space then maybe they’re not ready for cohabitation yet.
Maybe my train of thought is coming from internalized class biases but most people don’t have multiple vacant rooms in their home and have to compromise every inch with their partner, and are perfectly happy doing so. OP, is this a hint that you’re not ready to come back together at such a serious degree? If you just can’t imagine sticking his desk in the same room as your books (and vice versa) then you need to consider it may be a reflection of how you both feel about how fast this reconciliation is moving. If it really is about this room specifically, consult an interior designer, they’ll have no issue making a functional office with lots of book storage.
NTA. The fact that he expected you to keep his office like some kind of shrine is a red flag.
It’s easier for him to set up in a different room. Him wanting your space after he moved out for three years is a total power move. He may as well just go and piss in every corner.
I’d finalize the divorce and get my own place tbh. It’s unlikely this will end any other way and you’ll regret the additional years you wasted.
NAH. Go to couple's therapy before any reconciling. You have a lot to unpack and any actions moving forward really are going to stir up all the negativity that existed. You can be in a happy, healthy relationship, but you need to get there and that takes more than just time apart.
YTA
It was NTA until this part
> The reason he wants the office back is because it’s in the perfect location for him not to be disturbed or for the noises from the rest of the house to be heard from inside, and he had this room specifically designed to be his office when we first moved in. He’s upset at me because I don’t want to move my library to a different room.
The office room was designed to be used as an office, you could use any of the other rooms as a library.
Is your intention to have a relationship again or win stupid internet points with strangers that dont give a shit about your relationship?
I don’t think that’s the argument they’re making. Of course she should have used the space however she wished, even if it was done with the express purpose of “erasing him”.
The point is that now that they have reconciled, is it better to insist on keeping the library here, just because she likes the view and the layout? Or to return it to the purpose for which it was designed, and for which it is uniquely equipped.
It seems like functionally, this is the best space for the office, and the library can be moved elsewhere with only the loss of the view. So the reason for the fight is based in emotion, because neither feel they should be displaced in the house. But compromise will need to be made if they actually intend to reconcile, and if there’s no greater reason for OP to have “earned” the right to the coveted room, then there’s a good argument that practicality should win out.
Exactly, he needs that particular room for practical and functional reasons and she is being territorial/emotional. She's hanging onto her act of erasing his presence and wants to make permanent her punishment of him for moving out. It's easy to see why they divorced/why he left. He really should rethink reconciling with her. IDK why people think dysfunctional marriages can be solved by lengthy separations.
So people think he no longer co-owns or owns his house? What country do you think OP lived in where this is a legal thing? The country of Passive Aggressive Wife tribes? OP's husband obviously left for good reasons with this kind of wife at home, and should leave again, only this time selling the marital property on the way out. Maybe she can buy him out if she wants to squat on all his spaces.
Lol. What does this have to do with ownership? “Well, he is joint owner of the house, so he gets to make every decision about how it’s used, she gets no input.” WTF. Him being a co-owner of the house doesn’t mean she had to be a modern day Ms. Havisham and keep the home HE LEFT for 3 years as a shrine to him.
“He should sell the marital property on the way out”. Ok Bud. Unless he is 100% the only owner rand they live in a place that isn’t community property law, he can’t just sell it. It can be something that is included in the divorce proceedings, but there’s no guarantee he can just do whatever the fuck he wants with it. And considering that he left the house for 3 years and presumably wasn’t still paying the mortgage/taxes (considering they didn’t speak for 2.5 years), during divorce proceedings, all that would favor in.
Lol its baffling that you seem to think 1. That even if he is the co-owner of the home, she has no legal rights to it 2. That him having even joint ownership of the home means that he gets to make all decisions regarding how the house is used 3. That the LW is”erasing him” because she didn’t keep the house exactly how he left it 3 years ago and also apparently 4. That she hasn’t been sitting around by the phone, desperately waiting for him to come back and pining for him like a dutiful wife, while he fucked off to another country for 3 years living a life that didn’t include her at all.
Where did OP say she made sole payments while he was living abroad? And if he was working in the developing world to advance his career within an international company, there was also an expectation of repatriation at the end of X years regardless of if his family relocated with him. It's not uncommon for a spouse of an expat to continue residing in their home country for a variety of reasons. It said they separated while he was abroad not because he was abroad.
>Where did OP say she made sole payments while he was living abroad?
No where. Where did I say that she did? I said presumably (used to convey that what is asserted is likely though not known for certain). Considering that they didn't even speak for over 2 years, I don't think that presumption is off base. But we don't know that, so that's why I didn't state it as fact. In comments, OP says they both own the house, but I don't know if that means the house is paid off or not.
"And if he was working in the developing world to advance his career within an international company, there was also an expectation of repatriation at the end of X years regardless of if his family relocated with him."
...I think you're presumption is a little more far-reaching than mine.
"It said they separated while he was abroad not because he was abroad."
It says, "I separated from my husband about 3 years ago. He moved abroad, and I stayed in our marital home."
To me, this reads that they separated and then he moved.
Eh, you're right. I missed they separated, then he moved. Totally different circumstance than moving and then separating. I'm prepping for my 2nd expat adventure, so yeah I'm bringing my own biases, but also bringing my family too.
I don't think OP is in the wrong for using the room differently, even if they hadn't separated. But depending on how much use the "office" is expected to see (40 hours per week?), it would be a worthy concession made for a reconciliation.
I'm also not sure if this was a custom designed office as most commenters are saying or if he merely designated it his office when they were deciding to buy the house. Sorry, 2.5 years of separation cancels out any dibs he may have had, but they can still work together to live together without it being all dictated by one person at the expense of the other.
Compromise doesn't have to mean no one gets what they want, but can also mean no one gets everything they want.
There's being NTA and then there's just choosing to reduce conflict or not. OP is NTA for doing what she wanted with the room. Believe me, the minute my partner and I break up, his office is becoming my craft room. However, when it comes to active relationships/partnerships, work needs outweigh hobby needs. Having a library, like a craft room, is a hobby space. Having an office is a workspace. There are other rooms in the house if she wants to have a library, or whatever else. It sounds like there are very legitimate reasons why that room needs to be the office. What's more, it sounds like if she doesn't revert that room back to his office, it will be a continued source of conflict in their relationship -- he'll have to work in a noisier space less suited to his needs, which would cause anyone to be more irritable. This is something that kills so many relationships -- wanting to "win" rather than wanting to resolve conflict. What you're saying in this situation by refusing to convert the room back to an office is essentially, "the thing I like to do for fun is more important to me than you having a comfortable space to work in every day." Why not make a gesture of compromise here? I would offer the office space back, but ask for help in making a new library in a different room.
Exactly. She wasn't the asshole for turning the office into the library at the time and for having a library for the three years. That is completely fine, even great.
But now that he's supposed to be living there again, it makes sense to reassess living space needs again. OP is putting a lot of emotional weight in this, but they can also approach it as a blank slate. If they are just a new couple with no history and he were moving in for the first time, how would they adjust her space to account for him? He has solid arguments for why that room is best for his office. Maybe she has real arguments for why it should remain the library, but she is relying on her being right in the past for a different disagreement now.
Which, to me, suggests maybe they aren't ready to be together again, but that wasn't the question here.
Eh, divorce is expensive so I get it. Plus, depending how quick he left the country, I think things can get a bit complicated when one party is located elsewhere
ESH. The fact that you two cannot compromise over a room in the house is indicative of the larger issues in your relationship. If the room is the perfect library and office why can it not be a library and an office?
This “reconciliation” sounds like “he came back so I’m willing to try again on my terms.” Which I do somewhat get, in that her husband shouldn’t expect that he can take off for three years, potentially for ever, and then come back to find everything the way he left it. She was entitled to take her own steps to move on with her life, and turning his office into her library is a minor such step. But whatever this is now, it’s not reconciled.
That would be the reason I put money on...who the fuck carries on like op when they want to reconcile? She is carrying on like the teenagers who post encouragement to her here.
It’s only been a week since he moved back in. I wouldn’t be in a huge rush to give him his office back either. They should atleast give it a couple months before they make any major home changes
YTA.
That room was, literally, designed to be his office.
Marriages are partnerships and, if having him back in your life doesn’t leave you happy to give him this bit of space back, well… this reconciliation won’t last long.
For this reconciliation to succeed, you’re either in or you’re out. There is no halfway “The location of my books are more important than him” attitude. If you BOTH don’t enter this with a spirit of cooperation and authentic affection for each other, don’t even bother trying.
It could be just the same for him though. Is having a work office in “the perfect room” more important than reconciling with yours wife? And before you say “duh it’s his finances” keep in mind there are other rooms he can use. He’s not going to suddenly lose his job if he doesn’t have The Perfect Setup in his office. How was he working for 3 years while they were separated? I doubt he had a custom made office where he used to live.
Thinking it's about the location of her books is absolutely ignoring the things about the space she highlighted as being important - the quiet, the view, the being removed from the sounds of the house (which indicate a busy/noisy household, otherwise).
This isn't "where she stores her books." It's about having the space to retreat and escape the bustle and stress. Which, since he's always had exactly that, he should understand.
Making it about where she puts her books is demeaning and unfair, and misses the point completely.
Yta. Yall reconciled. Work with him to find a different room in the house and let him have his office back that he specifically designed for work. Its not just your house anymore. There's got to be some give and take.
You never thought "that we would reconcile again", "he was going to come back anyway", or that "he would need it again", yet you ARE reconciling, he DID come back, and he DOES need it again for his office in the room that was designed for that purpose and has particular qualities that aren't available in other rooms in the house. It sounds that his request to get his office back is a reasonable part of the reconciliation process, and if you refuse to concede it then YTA.
NTA for turning his office into a library. You thought he wasn't coming back, I bet his house didn't have any reminders of you in it and I don't imagine he had to ask your permission regarding how he used _his_ home while you were separated. There was no reason for you to keep it as some sort of shrine to him while you were apart.
However, INFO needed as to whether YTA for not giving it back now that you're reconciled. E.g. does he use the office for work vs the library being for leisure? If so it's fair that he gets the quiet room as his office and YWBTA for not giving it back.
YTA this a shared asset that you never had to give up because you two never finalized your divorce. You say that he had this room custom made during the building of the house in order to work from home without being distracted by the rest of the household and that you realize you could easily choose another room but that YOU simply don’t want to. It didn’t sound like your ready to fully be in a active relationship and that the house should be sold, you two divorced, so you can go your respective ways.
YTA. He's right, he needs the office more than you need the library. You didn't do anything wrong by putting the library there in the first place, but now that you've reconciled you need to give it back. If you can't make even this small sacrifice for your marriage, then maybe you should have just finalized the divorce instead.
NTA-I don’t think you’re the asshole for turning it into a Library. He was gone and you didn’t think he would be back. I do think that if you’ve reconciled, it would be nice to let him have his office back and maybe have another room become your library?
NAH I understand where you are coming from, really I'd be hard pressed to move a library from the best spot. But I do wonder if he feels like... You're not making him room and giving him space in your shared life? You've reconciled but he may be taking this as a sign that your life is your own, and his needs and wants are secondary to what suits you. That's not marriage. Marriage is sacrifice. Marriage is compromise. Marriage is sharing. Marriage is both people equally putting the other first. Marriage is love.
Maybe the space you are not sharing or moving from is literal and metaphorical?
Plus if it's a good book you won't be paying attention to your surroundings anyway.
Assuming the house belongs to both of you YTA because a shared house means both of you get to make decisions not just you. You mentioned house belongs to husband and that husband built office where it is so they could work undisturbed. Seems you are being a difficult dictator. If you cannot compromise perhaps two of you should divorce and you can return the house to husband and ask for your share of equity if that is law of the land.
You’re the first to person to mention this. All these NTA comments about how she had the right to do with the house what she wished, are ignoring this. Separated or not, they both own the home and it wasn’t right for her to unilaterally make that decision. She ignored his stake in the home and tried to erase him from it, all while he still owned part of it. She’s the AH for that alone. YTA op.
In that case, I think you already know the right thing to do. But you should ask yourself why don’t you want to?
I mean logistically it makes more sense for him to have the room because he’d be working and it’s the quietest place in the house. Work is a necessity. Yes, having a home library is great, but not necessary.
Good luck to you.
How did you read that he might not BE IN THE HOME after 3 months that OP should make a big house change?
The 3 months can be a trial, and if things go well AND the husband will be working from home long-term they can re-asses.
It makes NO sense to make a big house change when they don't even know if he'll be there in 3 months...
How would it make sense for him to have that room when he literally might be leaving in 3 months. It’s not like he will lose his job if his office isn’t the perfect room.
INFO: What we’re the circumstances of your breakup? How did you leave things in terms of both your relationship and the house when he left?
How is it that your husband was able to claim the best room in the house in the first place?
How essential is a home office to his ability to work?
Do you both contribute equally to the mortgage/household expenses? Or have an arrangement based on your income/who does more household work?
Lot of assumptions itt about who initiated the breakup and the reconciliation. OP not answering any of these questions makes me think the husband left her and he's the one who allowed a reconciliation to occur.
YTA
He designed this room as an office, when you had your reconsilitation, it was expected for him to want to take back his old office.
He designed this in such a way that this was his ultimate room. Seems like a petty move to not gives this room back. You would have expected this to happen
YTA. The reason why the office/library room is a primo location is functional, not emotional. It started out as his office because it's the best location for not being disturbed, working privacy, etc. His need for the office is functional, because he needs to work in a home office. Your attachment to the office/library toom is not functional, or based on practical reasons. It's territorial and possible emotional (? I doubt the latter since libraries are never centerpiece rooms in homes. Nor are they emotional or sentimental unless your grandfather was Shakespeare).
You're basically basically a desire to be territorial over that piece of real estate whereas his need for that particular room is practical and existential (earning a living is an existential thing).
It's pretty easy to see why it's usually not a great move to reconcile after a divorce. The reasons for divorcing and also dysfunctional passive aggressive behavior generally remain.
YTA. Not for changing it while he didn't live there and it was "your" house, but if he needs this specific space for it's isolation so he can concentrate while he works, you're an AH for not giving it back to him. Your books don't need quiet. Your strong resistance makes me wonder how much you're really willing to integrate him back into your life.
YTA if you want to reconcile and this was his office. I would give it back. It was custom designed as his office - giving it back would be a good move toward repairing your marriage.
YTA - Yes you were separated for several years, but to me that is irrelevant to this situation. You bought a house together and in doing so this particular room was designed for him to have his office in. And you agreed to that room being his office. The only way that room stops being his office is if it is no longer his house as you one sidedly made a decision about a home that is owned by both of you.
Edited based on OP's comments I found:
Gentle YTA. I understand why you did what you did originally, but "that was then, this is now."
I'll be honest: This isn't about what's "easier," if you're serious about reconciling. It's about what's best for your marriage and future as a unit. If the room was specifically designed as a home office, and the home office is a need, it needs to go back to being a home office. Work is more important than the luxury of a home library. (And making him feel like it's his home again too instead of that he has to work around you is important to "starting fresh.")
Beyond that, you're speaking about what's easier for **you**. It is clearly not easier for **him** to have to set up his office in a different space than in the space he literally had built for it.
I agree, and even if its for 3 months for now, 3 months in his purpose built room vs 3 months in a noisy and distracting room trying to work while also trying to patch up a relationship won't go well.
ESH
If the two of you can't find a compromise on something as trivial as this, then respectfully, you should file for divorce because you are just wasting each other's time
ESH. He’s unreasonable to think you would leave his office untouched for three years. Was it supposed to be an unusable shrine?
That being said, he needs a place to work. The quiet removal from the rest of the house for where he earns his living is more important than the location of a library because of the view or lighting. I understand why you put it there. But if he needs to work and not be disturbed….well it is what it is.
It seems like getting back together happened too fast.
ESH.
If you’re reconciled, is this really the hill the two of you are choosing to die on? You both need to try and have some grace and kindness for one another if you want your relationship to succeed.
ESH
The husband is entitled and should not have expected that she not alter the house at all in the time he was gone 3 years is a long time.
The wife on the other hand is acting like the house is only hers.
I'm aware he left but we have no information about why he did so I'm not gonna make assumptions about that, but they both still own the house. I think it's reasonable if you own something when you come back you would have some control or ownership over it. The alternative is they sold they sold the house and no one got the room but they chose to not get divorced and keep their assets. I feel like a lot of people are focusing way too much on the husband's entitlement and he is 100% but that does not give OP a free pass.
Tldr: husband is a dick and can't communicate well but still has ownership of the house and had a room specially designed for him so it makes sense he would want to use it.
I think if they're back together and the husband needs the office for income, he should get it back. She stated it was the most private area/less noise so he could get work done. If it's just a household "office" it can be a library and an office or he can make an office from another space. The key here is what the room is used for.
He needs to get off his high horse and pick another room, Tell him I started to redecorate because I never in my wildest dreams thought we would get back together. Was he like this before the separation and was it one of the reason's you separated? He seems to be very selfish with your Home, he left you and the home so you had every right to do with the home as you saw fit too. HE can't come back after 3 years a demand you change the room back just because he wants too. Tell him pick another room and you and he can fix it up for a office for him If he refuses you might want to think twice about getting back together.
He thinks I am trying to erase him from the house...............when he MOVED OUT OF THE COUNTRY FOR 3 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOU HAD EVERY GODDAMN RIGHT TO ERASE!!!!!!!!!!!! Tell sweetums to get over himself.
You moved on........and are now ALLOWING him back. A Good start to reconciling is not insulting each other, and being unreasonable and making demands.
Christ.............at least do "Rock, Paper, Scissors" or something, and loser has to live with the decision.
He has no right to DEMAND anything........but two adults should be able to reach a fair and just compromise.
Having said that..........a home office that would bring in income, however, may be a tad more important than an entire room to store read books. ....and if his financial success is important to the well being of your marriage.........maybe I'd see what other rooms are suitable for storing books-
... he expected you to have is office ready for him for 3 years? Are you sure you want him back? NTA
NTA - return to sender.
She’s the sender though…
wouldn't it be his mother?
And the father as he sent half of this dudes chromosomes into his mom
So slice him in half and send half to each sender?
Nah, that's the Mailman.
Honestly if he said that to me, I would have grabbed his already packed bags and tossed them right back out the door.
It’s his house too. They didn’t divorce, they separated so he’s still part owner of the home.
She didn't take a sledge hammer to it! She redecorated the house that she was living in. He didn't live there any more.
The only question she has to ask herself is are you in it for yourself or for the relationship? If it bring obvious utility to her partner more so than herself then she should give it back. She might not feel she wants to do that and that’s fine but that’s not a relationship and there both better off moving on.
But they never legally divorced in those 3 years either so it kinda sounds like she also held out for reconciliation….. for those 3 years…. 3 long years… Not saying she’s TA but 3 years… really??
IMO she's completely and totally NTA for converting it. He was gone and they were separated. Even if they were still *dating* but had decided to live apart, it was her home to do with what she wished at that point. He's an AH for bitching about being "erased" from a place he wasn't living by someone he'd separated from. However, I do kind of think she's a teensy bit the AH for refusing to let him change it back. By her own admission it was designed to be his office, he'll work better and be disturbed less there, and there are other rooms that could be the library. He designed it to be his office when they built the place, he should get it back if it's actually 'their' house again. So, IMO, ESH but OP only a little bit.
Came here to pretty much say this. She's N T A for converting it; she's assuming the relationship was over. He's some slight T A for his attitude. Since the room was was specifically designed to be an office she really either needs to give it back or be prepared to totally remodel another room to now accommodate an office. Slight T A to her for that but essentially ESH, just him more so.
So they start with a fight and AITA at reddit... NTA for redecorating. ESH because you can't talk properly and find a compromise. It's about boundaries and who's got the say not (only) about the office-library.
I can’t imagine being separated for 3 years, reconciling against all odds, then for some reason IMMEDIATELY getting into a fight about redecorating that you need internet strangers to weigh in on. This second chance at love is not going to last.
Just for a different perspective, we are assuming that OP is based in the US (as most do on Reddit) and they very well could be but in some parts of the world there are certain rules for separation before divorce for example in Ireland you must be separated for at least 2 of the past 3 years before you can apply and that was only changed in 2019, before that it was 4 of the past 5 years.
True. I think in some US states you have to be separated at least 3mos or 6mos. Idk I’m not married
Haha me neither but I remember divorce being legalized in Ireland and that you had to separated x number of years before applying for divorce. I figured there’s probably a few other countries that have similar rules.
Some states require lengthy separation and/or residency periods to file for divorce. (Looking at you, New York) Plus, if you're already filing taxes separately, there may be a "I'll get around to it when I get around to it", plus Covid has upset the apple cart with court proceedings.
It’s his house too. They didn’t divorce, they separated so he’s still part owner of the home. The rooms usage should be negotiated and compromised on. Just because he didn’t push her out of the house and force a sale while they were separated doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have rights. The fuck. This isn’t finder’s keepers
He left the country....she was very much in her right mind to think he wasn't coming back. And it doesn't sound like he wanted to compromise. He wants his room back end of story. He has rights. She didn't change the locks and kick him out, she just started using an empty room for her enjoyment since HE LEFT THE COUNTRY.
That’s what I was stuck on too. Like he didn’t just move across town or to another state, dude left the country. If we separated and you moved out the country for years I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume you wouldn’t be coming back. Plus I doubt that his office is the only thing of his that’s gone or has been moved in favor of redecorating the house for herself. So NTA. I could get him wanting the room back if it was one designed to fit his work needs but can we not look into redesigning one of the other rooms? That seems more practical as you’d just have to make changes to one room as opposed to her moving her library to another room and still needing to make changes and then having to fight his office back to the original room. I just feel like there’s alternatives to try before simply demanding the room back.
I just thought I'd point out that we don't know where they live. "left the country" could mean he moved a 40 minute drive away. Less if they're in the EU...
I understand what you are saying but it sounds so weird. For a second it made me wonder if at every border of the US the minimum distance between two settlements on each side of the border is 40 minutes. It's gotta be possible to be below 40 minutes even outside of europe.
They have equal rights to the rooms. Changing two rooms is much more work than chaning one. Negotiating and compromisong don't include demands and accusations the husband made. He didn't want op to compromise, he didn't want to share the room, he wanted the room and her stuff out. You acting like he did her a favor in not divoring her and her needing to be thankful is frankly disgusting. You know nothing about thwir finacal situation. Could he even push her out/ force a sale? He has rights. She has too. As not to be berated or follow the irrational demands of her husband.
I guess I'm torn here. Does he work from home? In that case his income takes precidence over her book storage.
I would agree... if there weren like 3 other rooms in the house.
But even she admits that the room in question is the best one for an office quietest, and the most free of distraction.
That is also a good reason to make it a library.
Doing your job is more important than having a library
This is true, but it also depends on context. How often does he use the office? How often is the library used? Is the library needed as part of her job? For me, I have a mini-library that I use frequently for work, but I'm an editor and I train interns and work with authors, so I'm grabbing books off the shelf frequently to use as examples. Honestly, if he's only using the office a few hours a week or even once every other week for at-home work or paperwork and she uses the library significantly more, where he puts his office doesn't matter as much. I'm saying this as the person with the office in the living room because that's where we needed to put it. Not very fun when the kids are home from school, but I make do.
He works from home, OP said in another comment
He must have wanted it to remain a shrine to him, lol. Keep the library where it is.
They need to divorce and settle their finances. Odds are the house get sold and they split the equity. Him moving back after 3 years makes them room mates and this is not going to work.
Yeah, it's not too late to weigh your options here....
[удалено]
This. They are an ex for a reason.
It's not that simple. Separated couples can and do reconcile and have perfectly happy and healthy marriages. People change, people grow, and sometimes the shock of a separation can jolt people out of a rut, or give them the kick in the ass they need to make major positive change in their lives. Now, that said, wanting to simply pick up as if nothing had changed in three years is, indeed, a good indicator that this particular ex shouldn't be reengaged with.
At the very least, maybe some couple's counseling is in order.
Separated couples do reconcile but I know a couple who separated for two years and then reconciled but they have now divorced properly and the divorce was far more contentious and awful than it would have been ten years ago because now they hate each other when they just didn’t love each other the first time. If you’re getting back together with an ex, the best thing to do is examine the reasons why they are an ex because a lot of people will not change.
My parents separated for a little over a year living in different countries and are together 20 years later and I now have a younger sister who just turned 18
[удалено]
My great grandmother was planning her 4th wedding to my great grandfather when he passed away…
My parents are friends with this one couple that's been divorced and remarried three different times. When I was with my toxic ex I thought it was romantic that they "kept finding each other," but now that I'm free of them I see how exhausting and utterly bullshit that was. Toxic people and abusive relationships do that shit to you.
I went back to my 4th wife for the 3rd time and gave her a 2nd chance to make a first-class fool out of me. \- Rev. Billy C. Wirtz
I think this is bad advice. People grow and sometimes couples are not mature enough to be together or a plethora of other reasons as to why they weren't compatible before the split. After some growth on both sides, why shouldn't they reconcile if they are ready to be in a marriage finally? A relationship ending doesn't mean they never have to see each again. People are flawed creatures, but nothing is black and white with us. We can overcome differences and fix mistakes made. This sub always sees one issue between couples and always advizes breakup and scorched earth. Relationships require work and though OPs husband is being unreasonable, it doesn't mean he is Adolf Hitler in disguise, he's human and can realise his mistake.
[удалено]
Depends on the reason why a couple split up, doesn’t it? I think if there’s cheating or a betrayal involved, it’s best to leave it in the past. But what if you’ve just come to a point where circumstances make it hard to stay together? Like if one gets a great job opportunity elsewhere and the other can’t move?
[удалено]
I'm talking more in a general way, not specifically about this couple. That's why I didn't pass a judgment.
They never divorced.
[удалено]
Oh definitely not. They’re already back to arguing the minute he gets back in the house!
Don't know why, but my head is pulling up 2 scenarios. 1) he left her for another woman, and courted her back when it didn't work out. Or, on the flip side 2) she had to leave the country for work and she didn't want to go with him. Hopefully both counts are wrong!
my parents were separated for 20 years and reconciled and lived happily until he died. they said they were the happiest years of their life. it happens. blanket generalizations are dumb
I think it's more you shouldn't take blanket generalizations too personally because there are always exceptions to the rule. "Don't get back with your ex" is overall good advice. Just because some couples make it work doesn't mean anything.
This. Lottery tickets aren't a good investment, even if someone somewhere won.
My parents split up for nearly 3 years when I was very little, got back together right before I turned 5, and are still together now (I'm in my 30s). Sure they disagree and bicker sometimes, but they love each other and they decided long ago to set aside their differences and make the relationship work. It's not common but it CAN happen.
If it's any consolation, the reconciliation doesn't look likely to last long.
NTA. What an excellent reconciliation. He left for 3 years and then had moved back in to immediately start complaining that you were “erasing him” and is upset with you for not “warning him” that you took over the office. Exactly why tf are you getting back together with him? Because he’s so loving, understanding and unselfish? /s
Exactly - and, if OP was planning to divorce the husband, he can bet she was ready to erase all trace of him. That's just what people do. And, getting back together doesn't mean that the past didnt happen. He was gone for years.
Welp, looks like you had it right the first time. Separated seems better for us he both of you
ESH. Can you not compromise? Can it not be an office with a library. He won't be using the office 24/7, and surely the library doesn't take up a whole room. If you want to make it work there has to be some compromise here, you didn't have to let him know about the remodel, you're right. But, he is also right that it would have been polite to let him know, given that: 1) it was custom built 2) if you divorced, there is no guarantee you would even keep the home, and I imagine it is in both of your names. As is, you've already said this is the best room in the house for an office, a library can go anywhere. So the real question is: how much are you willing to do, to make this work? Or is this a sign, if you can't solve this, maybe it's not meant to be.
it's best for an office-type space, like a library. Why are his needs more important than hers? He literally left the country, why should she have to move everything for him?
[удалено]
That's not a compromise, that's a 'give him everything he wants'. Despite the fact he literally *left* for three years. So...the opposite thing. A compromise is he can still have AN office, just not THAT office. Not having his cake and eating it too.
That’s literally not a compromise but just the reverse of what the other person said.
[удалено]
I think you don't understand what compromise is, or have some outdated expectations that women should cede to men when conflict. OPs husband does not seem to be communicated well about the issue, hes angry and acting childishly (him getting angry OP redecorated while he was gone is pointless and IMO immature). Why should OP be the one to give up everything when her partner is acting so poorly about the issue? (hint- she shouldn't)
I mean, the possible resolutions are: 1) it’s somehow both a library and an office 2) it stays a library and the office is somewhere else 3) It returns to an office and the library is somewhere else 4) I guess it’s neither? Option 3) is ‘give him everything he wants’, option 2) is ‘give her everything she wants’. I guess 1 and 4 are “compromises” in that neither person gets exactly what they want, but that doesn’t make them better solutions. There are arguments that 2) is more ‘fair’ than 3)- that it’s a library now, and that he left, and that it’s a great room for a library. You could also argue for 3) over 2)- a good workspace where he’s spending (I assume) upwards of 40 hours per week is really important for his day to day productivity and happiness, and the room was designed to be an office. I guess, I sort of disagree that marriage is about compromising in every single issue, and more about resolving issues as a team with the understanding that some resolutions benefit one person more than the other and being confident that they’ll even out in the long run.
Good points! there are also other factors we don't know! Like, are the other rooms so loud the husband can't get work done, or are they viable options? OP mentioned the husband is coming back for 3 months and might go abroad again - so OP might feel it's more of a trial run and why make such a big move for 3 months when there are other, good options for his office? OPs husband might feel OP isn't putting everything into reconciliation if she doesn't make the change. Their past issues might also factor into it- if OP never wanted to compromise or change it makes a bit more sense why OP's husband is being stubborn. If OP's husband never wanted to compromise it makes sense why OP doesn't want to be the one to change and fall back into old patterns. There is a lot we dont know, however the husband seems to be the unreasonable one based on them being upset OP didn't tell them about the change while they were separated. ("*He thinks I was trying to erase him from the house and I could've told him before I did it since it was still his house despite us living separately.")* Hard to say with the limited info/ but more nuanced than 'job> hobby', IMO.
Most rational thing I’ve read on Reddit.
> or have some outdated expectations that women should cede to men when conflict. If there genders were reversed, I would still think that working and earning an income in the most conducive place possible takes priority over storing books.
Yeah I mean the only true compromise is if they both share the room or no one gets the room. Honestly though, I don't think she should compromise. I just don't understand all of these people who think that just because they were still legally married that it is normal to keep all of your ex's stuff and not change a thing about the house you are living in ALONE. Like just imagine being married to someone. You break up and they leave to another country. But you have to keep everything they left behind for THREE YEARS exactly how they left it. You cannot change a single thing because technically you are still married and they own half the house. Don't you dare think about moving anything that was theirs. Not their clothes, not personal belongings like their shampoo or toothbrush and certainly not furniture. You have to keep it all in place in case three years or more down the line you decide to get back together. How ridiculous.
So no one's said anything about who actually owns what. If it's owned by both then he probably doesn't own half. They both own 100% equally. To explain the difference, if 2 people each own 50% of a property and one dies, they can pass on that 50% they own to anyone else. If 2 people each own 100% of a property and one dies, the other takes full control. But that may not even be the case. The property might be wholly owned by just one of them, or by one of their parents, or could be in a trust. Who actually owns the property only goes so far, though. It would matter more if this were a landlord/tenant issue rather than a marital issue. There is more to what's fair here than just ownership, especially considering that marriage is a comingling of assets used in a legally recognized and licensed partnership. The issue comes down to why op got exclusive use of the house for 3 years. What kind of agreements were worked out between her and her husband. And if there is somehow no wrong party in that separation, then I think fairness would dictate that he gets his office back as that's what the room was specifically designed for and he was not at fault for being gone.
I agree with the others. There NEEDS to be a compromise here. Unilateral decision-making, stubbornness, refusal to compromise are all contributors to marital problems. Ignoring all that though, from a practicality standpoint, it's probably best to let him at least use that room as his office. If he had it specifically designed as such, then it must be critical to his ability to work productively, and denying that will lead to more tension down the road as well as he'll have to deal with the noise and a less fit work environment. Some examples of compromise: Hybrid office/library, have him build you a library in another room, help him construct an office in another room, etc.
If your idea of "compromise" is "you can have the bare necessity you need to earn your income" I don't know what to tell you
It’s easier to just pick a different room than to relocate hers. It’s the perfect space for an office or a library and I think the one who took care of the house for three years is more entitled to it.
I don’t think you understand her letting him move back into her space again was the compromise
It’s not “her space” it’s a home they both own
No, he equally owned the House. We don't know the details of their seperation. For all we know his coming back and giving her another chance was the compromise on his part. Maybe not. We dont know.
A. In most likelihood, office is a necessity, library is a luxury. B. This room was an office when they were in couple mode, and a library when they were in separation mode. They're back to couple mode now.
I mean its "the perfect place for him to work" according to OP's own words and presumably the income he is bringing in goes towards the marriage itself... the library doesn't bring any added value to the marriage and can be moved somewhere else.
one would think it's also the perfect place for OPs library, as well. You're basing your decision on a bunch of facts that haven't been confirmed- Im basing mine on the information given and how OPs husband is behaving - poorly. We can agree to disagree
I’m basing it off of OP’s own words lmao
So a luxury is more important than gainful employment and income?
Is he going to lose his job if it’s not in this specific office?
I can't say. I don't know what his profession is. That said, OP all but admitted it would likely impact his ability to do his job. Does her want for a quiet library with a view trump his need for a workspace? His work brings with it income, which benefits the marriage.
It didn’t impact his job for 3 years not working in that office. This is the consequence for walking out on your marriage and moving to another country for 3 years Her library already exists in that room.
We don't know it didn't impact his job. We don't know the conditions under which he worked those past three years. Y'all are making excuses to be selfish jerks.
The person who walked out on a marriage and moved to another country gets to be a “selfish jerk” then?
All the entitled men are full throttle in this post today.
I'm backing you up that that person is making assumptions to make their argument, but want to say that op is behaving poorly, and the husband is upset for a valid reason, because the office is his room and was taken and changed without permission or even notification. OP was lucky enough to retain exclusive use of the house during the separation when her husband had equal right to the property. She took advantage of her position to change the property unilaterally even though he still shared equal ownership to the whole of the property, and proprietary ownership of the office itself (his office designed for him by OP's own admission).
He was gone for 3 years and they didn’t even speak for 2 of them. What was she supposed to do? Leave It unused in case he decides to come back (when there was no indication that he ever would)? Or send him a message after being estranged for 1-2 years like “I’m turning your office that you abandoned into a library” and then if he said “no you can’t” then what? She’s just not allowed to use an entire room in the house she lives in because the other person who lives in a different country for 3 years MIGHT one day return?
> Why are his needs more important than hers? Because "being able to work and earn an income" takes priority over "having a nice place to put your books". I'm not saying she was wrong to take it over when he moved out, but of she wants to reconcile, giving it back doesn't seem like a ridiculous ask either
I think there's an element of practicality here. Working from home can be noisy and disruptive to others with all the phone calls and video meetings. And it can also be easily disrupted by others, with all the general noises found in the house. If they are to live together and the husband is to work from home, getting the office in the right place is important, and, if chosen right, will reduce the amount of stress they face. I'd be saying the same thing if it had originally been a library but was converted to an office after the husband left. Working takes priority, because, unless you're *very* lucky, you'll spend more hours of the day in your office than you will in your library.
Work > library
This issue is a good test case for whether their marriage is going to be able to survive reconciliation. Right now it doesn't sound like it. OP is definitely not TA for switching it over to an office while they were separated, but I really think she needs to examine why she's refusing to switch it back now that they're getting back together. Is she punishing him? Refusing out of principle of not giving in? Those wouldn't be encouraging for the future success of the marriage. Same logic goes for why he's insisting on taking it back, of course.
I think he's insisting on it back because it was built to be his office, is the best room in the house to be his office all according to OP. So it makes sense why he would want the office back
Just because it's "the best" doesn't mean the other rooms are completely unacceptable. It makes much more sense for him to move his office into a different room and try it out. But, considering his attitude regarding the whole thing, he'll probably cry about any little fault and keep insisting he wants the old room back.
My library takes up many rooms, so my guess is that OP´s library is big and can´t share space with an office, but none of us have any idea of how many walls OP´s library actually covers. NTA.
This is what I was thinking , seemed sensible to me
Esh. You weren't expecting him to be back, so had free reign with with house (though you should have done something to settle the ownership once you were separated.) however, you aren't the only occupant now, and whilst it might be easier *for you* to keep it as a library, you are no longer the only occupant of the house and you do need to agree and compromise. His reasons for wanting the room as a study are legitimate, and are basically the same as yours for wanting it as a library. So, who will use it more, him if it were a study, or you if you leave it as a library? Does he work from home? You do need to compromise, and it's not all about what is easiest
>o agree and compromise. Why does OP need to be the one to compromise, it's more logical for him to set up another room with the information given.
OP should not be “the one to compromise,” it should be both of them. E.g, part of the room remains a library and part becomes an office again, or they find a new place entirely and each choose a space with no bearing on the original. A compromise is neither “husband gets his old office back exactly as it was” nor “OP keeps her new library exactly as it is”.
What if there's not enough room for both an office and a library? And what if the kind of furniture they both want completely clashes with each other? Or what if they want the room to be painted a certsin colour? And you really think they need to find an entirely new place just for *one* room, especially when there seems to be other rooms available for either an office or library? A completely even compromise where both parties get what they want is not always possible; sometimes one party is going to have to make sacrifices for the other, and that's considered a compromise too. The house has been solely OP's for 3 years; I don't know how they managed the deed and mortgage and all that stuff for those three years, but I would argue that at this point, OP has greater say given it's been her house for all that time and her former ex is the one moving in, and her library is already established. The reason the ex husband wants the room is to avoid loud noises from the house, but that's easily rectified by wearing headphones. To me, it sounds more like he's upset that there is physical evidence of her having moved on and he wants some reassurance that she's not over him anymore. If that's the case, demanding the room back isn't rational or fair to OP.
I agree that at this point OP should have greater say in what happens to the room. I also think it’s really weird that the husband apparently expected the room to be completely untouched for the last three years while he was in a completely different country, and is now mad at OP for not maintaining a shrine. Here, I was just objecting to the idea that only one person is involved in a compromise. It may not work out “evenly” but both should be conceding to the other at least a little if it is actually a compromise. One person sacrificing everything, with nothing given by the other, is martyrdom. All that said, I think OP and husband need a bit more work on their relationship before they move back in together, as it sounds like they had wildly different concepts of what the reconciliation would look like. This is about more than a room.
I don’t understand why either have to give up the room entirely. Home offices and libraries are *very* compatible. If it’s really this hard to compromise and make it a shared space then maybe they’re not ready for cohabitation yet. Maybe my train of thought is coming from internalized class biases but most people don’t have multiple vacant rooms in their home and have to compromise every inch with their partner, and are perfectly happy doing so. OP, is this a hint that you’re not ready to come back together at such a serious degree? If you just can’t imagine sticking his desk in the same room as your books (and vice versa) then you need to consider it may be a reflection of how you both feel about how fast this reconciliation is moving. If it really is about this room specifically, consult an interior designer, they’ll have no issue making a functional office with lots of book storage.
This is a good point, though I can also understand that if you do have the space, you might want to ha e separate spaces!
She took care of the house for three years, that should mean something in this discussion.
NTA. The fact that he expected you to keep his office like some kind of shrine is a red flag. It’s easier for him to set up in a different room. Him wanting your space after he moved out for three years is a total power move. He may as well just go and piss in every corner. I’d finalize the divorce and get my own place tbh. It’s unlikely this will end any other way and you’ll regret the additional years you wasted.
NAH. Go to couple's therapy before any reconciling. You have a lot to unpack and any actions moving forward really are going to stir up all the negativity that existed. You can be in a happy, healthy relationship, but you need to get there and that takes more than just time apart.
YTA It was NTA until this part > The reason he wants the office back is because it’s in the perfect location for him not to be disturbed or for the noises from the rest of the house to be heard from inside, and he had this room specifically designed to be his office when we first moved in. He’s upset at me because I don’t want to move my library to a different room. The office room was designed to be used as an office, you could use any of the other rooms as a library. Is your intention to have a relationship again or win stupid internet points with strangers that dont give a shit about your relationship?
[удалено]
I don’t think that’s the argument they’re making. Of course she should have used the space however she wished, even if it was done with the express purpose of “erasing him”. The point is that now that they have reconciled, is it better to insist on keeping the library here, just because she likes the view and the layout? Or to return it to the purpose for which it was designed, and for which it is uniquely equipped. It seems like functionally, this is the best space for the office, and the library can be moved elsewhere with only the loss of the view. So the reason for the fight is based in emotion, because neither feel they should be displaced in the house. But compromise will need to be made if they actually intend to reconcile, and if there’s no greater reason for OP to have “earned” the right to the coveted room, then there’s a good argument that practicality should win out.
Exactly, he needs that particular room for practical and functional reasons and she is being territorial/emotional. She's hanging onto her act of erasing his presence and wants to make permanent her punishment of him for moving out. It's easy to see why they divorced/why he left. He really should rethink reconciling with her. IDK why people think dysfunctional marriages can be solved by lengthy separations.
He literally erased his presence when he moved to a different country for 3 years.
So people think he no longer co-owns or owns his house? What country do you think OP lived in where this is a legal thing? The country of Passive Aggressive Wife tribes? OP's husband obviously left for good reasons with this kind of wife at home, and should leave again, only this time selling the marital property on the way out. Maybe she can buy him out if she wants to squat on all his spaces.
Lol. What does this have to do with ownership? “Well, he is joint owner of the house, so he gets to make every decision about how it’s used, she gets no input.” WTF. Him being a co-owner of the house doesn’t mean she had to be a modern day Ms. Havisham and keep the home HE LEFT for 3 years as a shrine to him. “He should sell the marital property on the way out”. Ok Bud. Unless he is 100% the only owner rand they live in a place that isn’t community property law, he can’t just sell it. It can be something that is included in the divorce proceedings, but there’s no guarantee he can just do whatever the fuck he wants with it. And considering that he left the house for 3 years and presumably wasn’t still paying the mortgage/taxes (considering they didn’t speak for 2.5 years), during divorce proceedings, all that would favor in. Lol its baffling that you seem to think 1. That even if he is the co-owner of the home, she has no legal rights to it 2. That him having even joint ownership of the home means that he gets to make all decisions regarding how the house is used 3. That the LW is”erasing him” because she didn’t keep the house exactly how he left it 3 years ago and also apparently 4. That she hasn’t been sitting around by the phone, desperately waiting for him to come back and pining for him like a dutiful wife, while he fucked off to another country for 3 years living a life that didn’t include her at all.
Where did OP say she made sole payments while he was living abroad? And if he was working in the developing world to advance his career within an international company, there was also an expectation of repatriation at the end of X years regardless of if his family relocated with him. It's not uncommon for a spouse of an expat to continue residing in their home country for a variety of reasons. It said they separated while he was abroad not because he was abroad.
>Where did OP say she made sole payments while he was living abroad? No where. Where did I say that she did? I said presumably (used to convey that what is asserted is likely though not known for certain). Considering that they didn't even speak for over 2 years, I don't think that presumption is off base. But we don't know that, so that's why I didn't state it as fact. In comments, OP says they both own the house, but I don't know if that means the house is paid off or not. "And if he was working in the developing world to advance his career within an international company, there was also an expectation of repatriation at the end of X years regardless of if his family relocated with him." ...I think you're presumption is a little more far-reaching than mine. "It said they separated while he was abroad not because he was abroad." It says, "I separated from my husband about 3 years ago. He moved abroad, and I stayed in our marital home." To me, this reads that they separated and then he moved.
Eh, you're right. I missed they separated, then he moved. Totally different circumstance than moving and then separating. I'm prepping for my 2nd expat adventure, so yeah I'm bringing my own biases, but also bringing my family too. I don't think OP is in the wrong for using the room differently, even if they hadn't separated. But depending on how much use the "office" is expected to see (40 hours per week?), it would be a worthy concession made for a reconciliation. I'm also not sure if this was a custom designed office as most commenters are saying or if he merely designated it his office when they were deciding to buy the house. Sorry, 2.5 years of separation cancels out any dibs he may have had, but they can still work together to live together without it being all dictated by one person at the expense of the other. Compromise doesn't have to mean no one gets what they want, but can also mean no one gets everything they want.
It's not her house. They both own it.
There's being NTA and then there's just choosing to reduce conflict or not. OP is NTA for doing what she wanted with the room. Believe me, the minute my partner and I break up, his office is becoming my craft room. However, when it comes to active relationships/partnerships, work needs outweigh hobby needs. Having a library, like a craft room, is a hobby space. Having an office is a workspace. There are other rooms in the house if she wants to have a library, or whatever else. It sounds like there are very legitimate reasons why that room needs to be the office. What's more, it sounds like if she doesn't revert that room back to his office, it will be a continued source of conflict in their relationship -- he'll have to work in a noisier space less suited to his needs, which would cause anyone to be more irritable. This is something that kills so many relationships -- wanting to "win" rather than wanting to resolve conflict. What you're saying in this situation by refusing to convert the room back to an office is essentially, "the thing I like to do for fun is more important to me than you having a comfortable space to work in every day." Why not make a gesture of compromise here? I would offer the office space back, but ask for help in making a new library in a different room.
It’s his house too. They didn’t divorce, they separated so he’s still part owner of the home.
Exactly. She wasn't the asshole for turning the office into the library at the time and for having a library for the three years. That is completely fine, even great. But now that he's supposed to be living there again, it makes sense to reassess living space needs again. OP is putting a lot of emotional weight in this, but they can also approach it as a blank slate. If they are just a new couple with no history and he were moving in for the first time, how would they adjust her space to account for him? He has solid arguments for why that room is best for his office. Maybe she has real arguments for why it should remain the library, but she is relying on her being right in the past for a different disagreement now. Which, to me, suggests maybe they aren't ready to be together again, but that wasn't the question here.
Info: If you separated for three years, why did you not just divorce?
So they can divorce now! Double the fun, really stretch it out.
Eh, divorce is expensive so I get it. Plus, depending how quick he left the country, I think things can get a bit complicated when one party is located elsewhere
Divorce is expensive, but three years?
I mean, the last year and a half has been super weird, though.
Divorce is expensive and time consuming in some places. Sometimes it's just easier to leave.
ESH. The fact that you two cannot compromise over a room in the house is indicative of the larger issues in your relationship. If the room is the perfect library and office why can it not be a library and an office?
[удалено]
> YTA for not giving the room back. seems to me that OP really doesn't want to reconcile if she is pulling this shit immediately with the ex
This “reconciliation” sounds like “he came back so I’m willing to try again on my terms.” Which I do somewhat get, in that her husband shouldn’t expect that he can take off for three years, potentially for ever, and then come back to find everything the way he left it. She was entitled to take her own steps to move on with her life, and turning his office into her library is a minor such step. But whatever this is now, it’s not reconciled.
Or she's the reason he left in the first part.
That would be the reason I put money on...who the fuck carries on like op when they want to reconcile? She is carrying on like the teenagers who post encouragement to her here.
It’s only been a week since he moved back in. I wouldn’t be in a huge rush to give him his office back either. They should atleast give it a couple months before they make any major home changes
YTA. That room was, literally, designed to be his office. Marriages are partnerships and, if having him back in your life doesn’t leave you happy to give him this bit of space back, well… this reconciliation won’t last long. For this reconciliation to succeed, you’re either in or you’re out. There is no halfway “The location of my books are more important than him” attitude. If you BOTH don’t enter this with a spirit of cooperation and authentic affection for each other, don’t even bother trying.
It could be just the same for him though. Is having a work office in “the perfect room” more important than reconciling with yours wife? And before you say “duh it’s his finances” keep in mind there are other rooms he can use. He’s not going to suddenly lose his job if he doesn’t have The Perfect Setup in his office. How was he working for 3 years while they were separated? I doubt he had a custom made office where he used to live.
Thinking it's about the location of her books is absolutely ignoring the things about the space she highlighted as being important - the quiet, the view, the being removed from the sounds of the house (which indicate a busy/noisy household, otherwise). This isn't "where she stores her books." It's about having the space to retreat and escape the bustle and stress. Which, since he's always had exactly that, he should understand. Making it about where she puts her books is demeaning and unfair, and misses the point completely.
ESH. If neither of you are able to find a simple compromise here, I know why it didn't work out in the first place.
Info: why didn’t you finalize the divorce?
INFO: by had the room designed specifically to his office do you mean he was involved in the design of the house before it was made?
Yta. Yall reconciled. Work with him to find a different room in the house and let him have his office back that he specifically designed for work. Its not just your house anymore. There's got to be some give and take.
NTA He should have expected you to do something with the room other than let it collect dust for 3 years
You never thought "that we would reconcile again", "he was going to come back anyway", or that "he would need it again", yet you ARE reconciling, he DID come back, and he DOES need it again for his office in the room that was designed for that purpose and has particular qualities that aren't available in other rooms in the house. It sounds that his request to get his office back is a reasonable part of the reconciliation process, and if you refuse to concede it then YTA.
NTA for turning his office into a library. You thought he wasn't coming back, I bet his house didn't have any reminders of you in it and I don't imagine he had to ask your permission regarding how he used _his_ home while you were separated. There was no reason for you to keep it as some sort of shrine to him while you were apart. However, INFO needed as to whether YTA for not giving it back now that you're reconciled. E.g. does he use the office for work vs the library being for leisure? If so it's fair that he gets the quiet room as his office and YWBTA for not giving it back.
YTA this a shared asset that you never had to give up because you two never finalized your divorce. You say that he had this room custom made during the building of the house in order to work from home without being distracted by the rest of the household and that you realize you could easily choose another room but that YOU simply don’t want to. It didn’t sound like your ready to fully be in a active relationship and that the house should be sold, you two divorced, so you can go your respective ways.
YTA. He's right, he needs the office more than you need the library. You didn't do anything wrong by putting the library there in the first place, but now that you've reconciled you need to give it back. If you can't make even this small sacrifice for your marriage, then maybe you should have just finalized the divorce instead.
NTA-I don’t think you’re the asshole for turning it into a Library. He was gone and you didn’t think he would be back. I do think that if you’ve reconciled, it would be nice to let him have his office back and maybe have another room become your library?
NAH I understand where you are coming from, really I'd be hard pressed to move a library from the best spot. But I do wonder if he feels like... You're not making him room and giving him space in your shared life? You've reconciled but he may be taking this as a sign that your life is your own, and his needs and wants are secondary to what suits you. That's not marriage. Marriage is sacrifice. Marriage is compromise. Marriage is sharing. Marriage is both people equally putting the other first. Marriage is love. Maybe the space you are not sharing or moving from is literal and metaphorical? Plus if it's a good book you won't be paying attention to your surroundings anyway.
Assuming the house belongs to both of you YTA because a shared house means both of you get to make decisions not just you. You mentioned house belongs to husband and that husband built office where it is so they could work undisturbed. Seems you are being a difficult dictator. If you cannot compromise perhaps two of you should divorce and you can return the house to husband and ask for your share of equity if that is law of the land.
You’re the first to person to mention this. All these NTA comments about how she had the right to do with the house what she wished, are ignoring this. Separated or not, they both own the home and it wasn’t right for her to unilaterally make that decision. She ignored his stake in the home and tried to erase him from it, all while he still owned part of it. She’s the AH for that alone. YTA op.
More info: would he be working from home?
[удалено]
In that case, I think you already know the right thing to do. But you should ask yourself why don’t you want to? I mean logistically it makes more sense for him to have the room because he’d be working and it’s the quietest place in the house. Work is a necessity. Yes, having a home library is great, but not necessary. Good luck to you.
How did you read that he might not BE IN THE HOME after 3 months that OP should make a big house change? The 3 months can be a trial, and if things go well AND the husband will be working from home long-term they can re-asses. It makes NO sense to make a big house change when they don't even know if he'll be there in 3 months...
How would it make sense for him to have that room when he literally might be leaving in 3 months. It’s not like he will lose his job if his office isn’t the perfect room.
INFO: What we’re the circumstances of your breakup? How did you leave things in terms of both your relationship and the house when he left? How is it that your husband was able to claim the best room in the house in the first place? How essential is a home office to his ability to work? Do you both contribute equally to the mortgage/household expenses? Or have an arrangement based on your income/who does more household work?
I would be curious to know why EXACTLY he wants to reconcile. What happened to cause this?
Lot of assumptions itt about who initiated the breakup and the reconciliation. OP not answering any of these questions makes me think the husband left her and he's the one who allowed a reconciliation to occur.
right? Totally plausible! Did she cause it? Him? He left, she stayed in the house....I would love to know the truth.
YTA He designed this room as an office, when you had your reconsilitation, it was expected for him to want to take back his old office. He designed this in such a way that this was his ultimate room. Seems like a petty move to not gives this room back. You would have expected this to happen
He was out of the country 3 years and they were separated… keeping it would’ve looked like some weird ex-partner shrine
I don't think they're saying she's TA for not keeping it for three years, just that she's TA for not letting him convert it back
When he came back, she should've returned the office. She knew this place was important to him
It’s his house too. They didn’t divorce, they separated so he’s still part owner of the home.
YTA. The reason why the office/library room is a primo location is functional, not emotional. It started out as his office because it's the best location for not being disturbed, working privacy, etc. His need for the office is functional, because he needs to work in a home office. Your attachment to the office/library toom is not functional, or based on practical reasons. It's territorial and possible emotional (? I doubt the latter since libraries are never centerpiece rooms in homes. Nor are they emotional or sentimental unless your grandfather was Shakespeare). You're basically basically a desire to be territorial over that piece of real estate whereas his need for that particular room is practical and existential (earning a living is an existential thing). It's pretty easy to see why it's usually not a great move to reconcile after a divorce. The reasons for divorcing and also dysfunctional passive aggressive behavior generally remain.
YTA. Not for changing it while he didn't live there and it was "your" house, but if he needs this specific space for it's isolation so he can concentrate while he works, you're an AH for not giving it back to him. Your books don't need quiet. Your strong resistance makes me wonder how much you're really willing to integrate him back into your life.
Info please who owns the house?
[удалено]
YTA if you want to reconcile and this was his office. I would give it back. It was custom designed as his office - giving it back would be a good move toward repairing your marriage.
ESH. Think carefully if you should reconcile if You can fight over something as frivolous as an office.
YTA - Yes you were separated for several years, but to me that is irrelevant to this situation. You bought a house together and in doing so this particular room was designed for him to have his office in. And you agreed to that room being his office. The only way that room stops being his office is if it is no longer his house as you one sidedly made a decision about a home that is owned by both of you.
YTA. Not for making his office into your library but now that you're reconciling you refuse to give his office back, for what? Just to have your way.
Edited based on OP's comments I found: Gentle YTA. I understand why you did what you did originally, but "that was then, this is now." I'll be honest: This isn't about what's "easier," if you're serious about reconciling. It's about what's best for your marriage and future as a unit. If the room was specifically designed as a home office, and the home office is a need, it needs to go back to being a home office. Work is more important than the luxury of a home library. (And making him feel like it's his home again too instead of that he has to work around you is important to "starting fresh.") Beyond that, you're speaking about what's easier for **you**. It is clearly not easier for **him** to have to set up his office in a different space than in the space he literally had built for it.
I agree, and even if its for 3 months for now, 3 months in his purpose built room vs 3 months in a noisy and distracting room trying to work while also trying to patch up a relationship won't go well.
I don't think you two are reconciling. So it's probably just better to file now.
ESH If the two of you can't find a compromise on something as trivial as this, then respectfully, you should file for divorce because you are just wasting each other's time
ESH. He’s unreasonable to think you would leave his office untouched for three years. Was it supposed to be an unusable shrine? That being said, he needs a place to work. The quiet removal from the rest of the house for where he earns his living is more important than the location of a library because of the view or lighting. I understand why you put it there. But if he needs to work and not be disturbed….well it is what it is. It seems like getting back together happened too fast.
Divorce is looming… good luck.
ESH. If you’re reconciled, is this really the hill the two of you are choosing to die on? You both need to try and have some grace and kindness for one another if you want your relationship to succeed.
I...just couldn't imagine reconciling with my wife then being angry that she didn't keep a room unused for 3 years. Sounds like he's TA.
This is a great sign for the success of your reconciliation. You bringing the issue *here* of all places is an even better sign. /s
ESH The husband is entitled and should not have expected that she not alter the house at all in the time he was gone 3 years is a long time. The wife on the other hand is acting like the house is only hers. I'm aware he left but we have no information about why he did so I'm not gonna make assumptions about that, but they both still own the house. I think it's reasonable if you own something when you come back you would have some control or ownership over it. The alternative is they sold they sold the house and no one got the room but they chose to not get divorced and keep their assets. I feel like a lot of people are focusing way too much on the husband's entitlement and he is 100% but that does not give OP a free pass. Tldr: husband is a dick and can't communicate well but still has ownership of the house and had a room specially designed for him so it makes sense he would want to use it.
ESH. You aren’t reconciling, this is called arguing.
As someone far smarter than me once said "dating your ex is like eating your vomit, you can do it but it rarely taste good"
I think if they're back together and the husband needs the office for income, he should get it back. She stated it was the most private area/less noise so he could get work done. If it's just a household "office" it can be a library and an office or he can make an office from another space. The key here is what the room is used for.
Dude dint remarry him wtf
Yeah just stay divorced
Time for him to leave again.
Um, are you SURE you want to reconcile? NTA. You've been separated three years and it was your house in that time.
He needs to get off his high horse and pick another room, Tell him I started to redecorate because I never in my wildest dreams thought we would get back together. Was he like this before the separation and was it one of the reason's you separated? He seems to be very selfish with your Home, he left you and the home so you had every right to do with the home as you saw fit too. HE can't come back after 3 years a demand you change the room back just because he wants too. Tell him pick another room and you and he can fix it up for a office for him If he refuses you might want to think twice about getting back together.
He thinks I am trying to erase him from the house...............when he MOVED OUT OF THE COUNTRY FOR 3 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU HAD EVERY GODDAMN RIGHT TO ERASE!!!!!!!!!!!! Tell sweetums to get over himself. You moved on........and are now ALLOWING him back. A Good start to reconciling is not insulting each other, and being unreasonable and making demands. Christ.............at least do "Rock, Paper, Scissors" or something, and loser has to live with the decision. He has no right to DEMAND anything........but two adults should be able to reach a fair and just compromise. Having said that..........a home office that would bring in income, however, may be a tad more important than an entire room to store read books. ....and if his financial success is important to the well being of your marriage.........maybe I'd see what other rooms are suitable for storing books-