Your Opinion - Another Divorce Situation

[Skywalker]

Here is a situation I have been hearing all about. My opinion has been swayed so much that I'm curious what others think about it.

My cousin (Mary) is married to John. John has an ex-wife (Jane). John and Jane had two children before they divorced.

The house John and Jane lived in was completely paid off by them before the divorce. Because Jane has a job where she travels most of the time, they decided John would stay in the house with the kids and she would live in a nearby condo. Because the divorce was very amicable, the house remains in both their names and theirs wills state the house is going to their sons.

Also, because John felt bad living mortgage-free while Jane was now paying rent, he agreed to pay half her rent to even them both out.

Now, my cousin is married to John. Since she married him she's always accepted this, though it bothered her. The main things that bothered her were the fact that the husband was paying half of Jane's (very large) rent, and the fact that the house was in the wife's name, so that my cousin always still felt like she was living in another woman's house, and everything from cleaning the house to maintenance to yard work would irritate her because it was all for someone else's benefit in the end.

But she put up with it until her and John had their own child.

It bothers her that her child will grow up and not have any right to the childhood home, while his two half-brothers will get it.

My cousin would like Jane to move back into that home, and then her and her husband could buy their own home for their own little family and leave it to their son, or in honour of all the contributions she is making, add her son into the will for a share of this home.

John and Jane both won't budge.

So, my cousin is ready to walk away. At this stage she says it isn't even so much about the house as it is that it's clear he is putting his original family ahead of his new family.

Do you think she's right about that?

Of course, as with all situations I can't possibly include every single factor, I'm just curious.

 

[PatsGirl]

Depends on how old John and Jane's kids are. I think that your idea is more than fair but if neither of them are willing to consider it, I'd compromise and ask that the change happen when their kids graduate from high school. She can either move back in under your "arrangement" or the house should be sold.

It's always difficult to meld families. I know, I tried, and it didn't work out

 

[joviroxx]

I would say its time to sell the house and John and Jane both move on. Either that, or have one sell off their share of the house to the other. Each can then decide to do what they wish with the proceeds.

Although the arrangement worked well before, personally, I think it needs some adjusting. I completely understand you. You have a right to build something with your husband and family as well.

 

[barkley]

if the house is the deal breaker on a marriage (esp. one with a young child) then i think it's crazy.

it's not that unusual a situation. i've known several people who re-married and certain pre-marital assetts they had aquired with a former spouse were allready ear-marked for the children of that marriage. subsequent assetts aquired with the new spouse were earmarked for the children of that marriage. i've not seen them co-own these items with prior spouses however (too much of a gamble-if the former spouse ends up sued or with some kind of insane expenses/debt it endangers the property and can force it to be sold).

none of it was a secret, and the new spouses married with that understanding (and some took the steps to do similar arrangements with their pre-existing assetts for their children from prior relationships).


the only issues i would be concerned about is how the wills are written up-if the ex wife pre-deceases your cousin's husband would he be forced to sell or take out a new mortgage in order to satisfy the terms of the ex's share of the home passing to their children? or is it written that the inheritance of the home does not occur until both are deceased? in the event that the husband pre-deceases the ex wife would your cousin be forced to move or is there a provision wherein she and her child could remain until that child reached adulthood/graduated from highschool?

 

[msmayor]

I think the time for Jane to be concerned about this situation was before she married John and got pregnant.

She accepted him and his baggage for better or worse. She doesn't get to now insist on changes because she perceives something as unfair. She's not a party to the agreement, and therefore has no right to interject.

By pressing the issue, she risks driving a wedge between herself and her stepchildren.

 

[Carly_Roach]

Here is a situation I have been hearing all about. My opinion has been swayed so much that I'm curious what others think about it.

My cousin (Mary) is married to John. John has an ex-wife (Jane). John and Jane had two children before they divorced.

The house John and Jane lived in was completely paid off by them before the divorce. Because Jane has a job where she travels most of the time, they decided John would stay in the house with the kids and she would live in a nearby condo. Because the divorce was very amicable, the house remains in both their names and theirs wills state the house is going to their sons.

Also, because John felt bad living mortgage-free while Jane was now paying rent, he agreed to pay half her rent to even them both out.

Now, my cousin is married to John. Since she married him she's always accepted this, though it bothered her. The main things that bothered her were the fact that the husband was paying half of Jane's (very large) rent, and the fact that the house was in the wife's name, so that my cousin always still felt like she was living in another woman's house, and everything from cleaning the house to maintenance to yard work would irritate her because it was all for someone else's benefit in the end.

But she put up with it until her and John had their own child.

It bothers her that her child will grow up and not have any right to the childhood home, while his two half-brothers will get it.

My cousin would like Jane to move back into that home, and then her and her husband could buy their own home for their own little family and leave it to their son, or in honour of all the contributions she is making, add her son into the will for a share of this home.

John and Jane both won't budge.

So, my cousin is ready to walk away. At this stage she says it isn't even so much about the house as it is that it's clear he is putting his original family ahead of his new family.

Do you think she's right about that?

Of course, as with all situations I can't possibly include every single factor, I'm just curious.

Without reading any of the other responses so I'm not swayed, I have to say that my initial impression is that Mary knew this was going on before she decided to marry John. John and Jane had worked things out amicably regarding their children and the housing situation. Mary can't expect what has become a solid business relationship to now change just because she wants it to.

Mary is in no position to dictate terms and should be careful when giving ultimatums. If she is willing to leave because she feels the situation is bad enough for her to do so, then she should leave.

Personally, I feel Mary will probably make John and Jane's life miserable simply because she will allow her resentment to build up to the point where she feels justified in making John and Jane miserable. John's best action for himself and his children would probably be to cut his losses now, separate from Mary and eventually divorce.

Sorry if this isn't what you want to hear, but it's what I see. Mary has no business trying to change what was an amicable divorce, agreed to by all parties involved long before Mary came into the picture.

 

[NHdisneylover]

Oh that is sticky I have to admire John and Jane for putting their children first in their divorce

My parents have done something similar with teh house they both own free and clear. Kept it in both names, will go to me some day. They switch out living in it every two years or so and the other gets and apartment (and then the one getting the apartment in that time pays all of the rent--mom usually gets a nice place and dad gets a hole in the wall--so they always have to be willing to pay for THEIR level of comfort-not the other's).

BUT--there are no new children involved and it is highly unlikely there will be (should never be, but men can have a child at any age so I will not say never--but goodness me I hope not)

My first reaction then is to think that Mary knew about this when she married John and certainly knew about it (and how she was feeling about it) before she had a child with John. The time to iron all of this out was BEFORE getting married/pregnant. Now to some extent she has no leg to stand on.

That said, it does also seem inherently unfair to the new little one (and any others that may come along). Yet, making the other boys move and messing with the amicable relationship between their parents for the sake of the new little one is also unfair.

I think there needs to be a maximum amount that both Jane and John agree to that is the most he will pay toward her rent (meaning if she decides to move into a million dollar penthouse he does not continue to pay half) and also an end date (even a mortgage does not last forever--maybe 20 years from the divorce--that would be as if it were a mortgage on a second home).

Next I think John and Mary need to start putting away $$ for something special that will become their child's inheritance to sort of balance out the other two getting the house. Inheriting a childhood home is not the be all and end all and honestly most people will sell the ones they do get--so Mary needs to stop thinking of it in that way and think of it as just a dollar figure. Perhaps they can buy a vacation cottage that has a smaller value than the home but they can build memories there and it can become the new child's Or they can just save him a lump sum of cash. Or anything else they come up with.
Likewise John and Mary need to come up with a plan for Mary in the even that something happens to John. Will Mary suddenly become homeless upon John's death? Will John and Jane rewrite the will so that Mary gets to live out her life in the house but it then becomes the property of the older boys upon her death? Etc.

Another option would be to find out what the house is worth and ask (not demand--she may well say no) Jane if she will allow them to buy her out (by paying her half of its worth) and then stop the rent payments. John and Mary may need to take out a mortgage to do this. Clearly part of this negotiation would be to decide how the kids then inherit the home. Perhaps Jane will be okay with the home going to ALL of John's children if John creates (now) a trust for each of the older two with a set amount (maybe $10K each) for each boy that is to represent the portion of the house that SHE paid for for her children.

 

[Northstar]

No, I don't think she's right about that. Not unless he's not making some effort to save up some money to will to their child, to compensate for the other children's already-funded inheritance.

Like her, I'd certainly be pressing John to re-negotiate the permanent rent payment for the ex's condo... when he reaches the point where he could have bought the ex's share of the house outright, that tips over into being permanent alimony.

And I would also, in this situation, not pool my money and my husband's money into one pot that pays all expenses... not fair for her to be funding the ex's rent and renos or repairs to a house that doesn't belong to her.

So if I were Mary, I would re-negotiate the way she and John share their money, and pull a share of my money out of the stream to go into a savings account that is for me and my child only. I'd expect John to also put some money towards savings for child #3.

And in this situation, there's no way I would count on being able to be a SAHM. I would be scared to death to be financially dependent on a partner who's already got such major financial commitments elsewhere.


But I'm not Mary. Sounds to me like having her own house is very important to her. And I know that working outside the home looks a whole lot different once you have a child.

Hope she and John can work it out.

 

[Eeyore'sthebest]

Without reading any of the other responses so I'm not swayed, I have to say that my initial impression is that Mary knew this was going on before she decided to marry John. John and Jane had worked things out amicably regarding their children and the housing situation. Mary can't expect what has become a solid business relationship to now change just because she wants it to.

Mary is in no position to dictate terms and should be careful when giving ultimatums. If she is willing to leave because she feels the situation is bad enough for her to do so, then she should leave.

Personally, I feel Mary will probably make John and Jane's life miserable simply because she will allow her resentment to build up to the point where she feels justified in making John and Jane miserable. John's best action for himself and his children would probably be to cut his losses now, separate from Mary and eventually divorce.

Sorry if this isn't what you want to hear, but it's what I see. Mary has no business trying to change what was an amicable divorce, agreed to by all parties involved long before Mary came into the picture.

I completely agree! Mary should have thought everthing through before she married John and had a child together.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

How old are the kids? Frankly I cannot see this working out, unless some negotiation takes place. You would always be a guest in your own home. Can you imagine teenagers telling you what you cannot do with THEIR house?!

They could easily change the terms of the divorce. Instead of the kids "getting the house", they could change it to a trust fund.

Hopefully the rent arrangement has an ending date as well.

I do not understand why she would go into a marriage under those terms. It really is a mind bender.

 

[anniemae]

I think the arrangement between John and Jane worked out fine for everyone when they were divorced. But now that John has remarried and started a second family, I think it's time to re-evaluate the situation. Things change, people grow and move on. I think Mary should have had this whole thing hammered out before she married John, but it's too late for that. I think if I were Mary, I would want the house sold and then John and Jane split the money and everyone move on. Jane pays her own way, and John and Mary get a house and pay there own way. Or, if they can agree that one buys the other one out. What is the divorce agreement, does John pay child support/alimony in addition to the half rent?

 

[sunnyday123]

Without reading any of the other responses so I'm not swayed, I have to say that my initial impression is that Mary knew this was going on before she decided to marry John. John and Jane had worked things out amicably regarding their children and the housing situation. Mary can't expect what has become a solid business relationship to now change just because she wants it to.

Mary is in no position to dictate terms and should be careful when giving ultimatums. If she is willing to leave because she feels the situation is bad enough for her to do so, then she should leave.

Personally, I feel Mary will probably make John and Jane's life miserable simply because she will allow her resentment to build up to the point where she feels justified in making John and Jane miserable. John's best action for himself and his children would probably be to cut his losses now, separate from Mary and eventually divorce.

Sorry if this isn't what you want to hear, but it's what I see. Mary has no business trying to change what was an amicable divorce, agreed to by all parties involved long before Mary came into the picture.

Totally agree. John and Jane paid off that house, not John and Mary. And really, if she's so bitter that she doesn't want to clean because she feels it has no benefit for her and that 50 years down the road the house isn't going to her son, she needs to pack up and head out.

Has it occured to her she probably won't get the house in the divorce settlement?

 

[PaulaSB12]

Am I understanding this correctly, John's ex travels a lot so the two children of this marriage are living with their father? The second wife expects him to leave his home and children and buy a house just for her new family? Basically telling her husband that he should walk away from his sons? This is going to end in divorce and a nasty one at that. I can not see any happy ending as this should have been thought of before not turn round and say we have a child now walk away from the old family.

 

[allison443]

It bothers her that her child will grow up and not have any right to the childhood home, while his two half-brothers will get it.

My cousin would like Jane to move back into that home, and then her and her husband could buy their own home for their own little family and leave it to their son, or in honour of all the contributions she is making, add her son into the will for a share of this home.

I think there has to be more to the whole sharing ownership/leaving it to their kids situation. Is there some kind of legal agreement that John and Jane must keep joint ownership of this house until they both die? Assume John dies first, does Jane then own the entire house or does his half go to the sons at the point, so Jane owns 50% and the kids own 25% each? Is there a provision that Mary and the new kid can still live there? What if John or Jane gets a job transfer and wants to move away, and needs the equity from this house to buy a new house? What if John needs long term care and needs to get his equity out of the house?

I don't think there's anything wrong with revisiting these arrangements. However, Mary sounds like a piece of work-she is irritated by cleaning/maintenance because it will benefit someone else in the end? How selfish of her. Isn't she benefiting now by living in a paid for house that Jane paid for in part? And she's ready to walk over this?

 

[Skywalker]

Hello, just adding that when Mary (no real names of course,lol) and John got married it was with the understanding that they would have no children. Well, as things sometimes happen, they changed their minds along the way and wanted to add to their family. It wasn't until after their baby came that her feelings started changing about the situation. She dealt with it just fine for a few years before that. Things change though.

I mean, of course, things should have been hammered out before they got married but many people can not be just that rational and analytical, emotions are strong.

And no she doesn't want him to walk away from his sons. Not at all. She'd be the first one that would never allow that, believe me. Please don't try to turn this into an "evil stepmom" issue because that is not the issue at all.

I just understand her frustration but of course I see the other side too.

 

[Rora]

Honestly, I can understand how your cousin feels. Although I probably wouldn't leave my husband, I would certainly be very upset if he wasn't willing to move.

 

[allison443]

Please don't try to turn this into an "evil stepmom" issue because that is not the issue at all.

Being irritated by cleaning/maintaining the mortgage-free home you are living in because it will benefit someone else in the future (her stepsons, who will inherit the home) doesn't sound very nice, though, does it?

 

[NHdisneylover]

Now, my cousin is married to John. Since she married him she's always accepted this, though it bothered her. The main things that bothered her were the fact that the husband was paying half of Jane's (very large) rent, and the fact that the house was in the wife's name, so that my cousin always still felt like she was living in another woman's house, and everything from cleaning the house to maintenance to yard work would irritate her because it was all for someone else's benefit in the end.

But she put up with it until her and John had their own child.

Your OP does not make it sound like her "feelings started changing about the situation" only after the baby was born

Either way, while I do think she and John need to work out something else for their child, I also think John is honoring the commitments he made and the terms her agreed to and Mary is not. Again, she knew what she was getting into--she changed her mind about having a child but apparently did not figure this all out before taking the plunge AND she (at least based on your OP) was already resentful about it so she should have known better.

I have not seen anything in your posts to indicate she is a bad stepmother and i am unclear as to why you would bring that up since none of the responses do I do tend to think that it was irresponsible of her and John to have a child in these circumstances without figuring out the issue first--perhaps more irresponsible of her than John if he was unaware of her resentments about the arrangement before having a child.

 

[barkley]

you have to wonder if it's even financialy feasable for them to move.

if the house were to be sold, and the husband took his share of the proceeds and put them into a trust for the children who are from the prior marriage, could the couple even purchase or afford a home? that would have to be a consideration b/c the new wife seemingly can't look to the existing home as a nest egg of equity to purchase with.

sometime people are just stubborn about doing things, sometimes there are underlying financial issues/obligations that they would believe that their spouse realizes, may have even spoken to their spouse about it-but the spouse either does not "get" or does not divulge when venting to a friend or family member.

it could be that beyond the logistics of the husband wanting to live in the house with his kids when the divorce occured, there were other financial considerations that made the situation where he pays "rent" monies to the ex the best arrangement for both of them. if the house is sold it may not remove his obligation to provide some means of financial payments to the ex which could severly curtail any subsequent home purchase.

just b/c they sold the house does'nt mean he would'nt still have to be giving that "rent" money to the ex, it might just get called something else-and the new wife might find that having that obligation on top of a mortgage is not do-able.

 

[Skywalker]

I have not seen anything in your posts to indicate she is a bad stepmother and i am unclear as to why you would bring that up since none of the responses do

Yeah, sorry it was just the way I took PaulaS post that she was making it out like my cousin was trying to rip apart a family for goodness sake. She's not.

Also, I am in no way trying to make John out to be a bad guy here - neither does my cousin think that - he's being very honourable. But it just leaves her little guy out in the cold in that respect.

I appreciate all the opinions!