Your Opinion - Another Divorce Situation

[Gigi22]

Why did Mary not have a pre-nuptual agreement in place before marrying John? (And why did John not insist on a pre-nup.? Was he assuming there would be no second family?)
And another question--is Jane by any chance a lawyer? I have a couple of reasons for asking.
The house is John and Jane's, and since they live in Ontario--they own it as either joint tenants (each owns 1/2, and on the decease of one, their half automatically goes to the survivor, and this is important--the property transfer is outside of their wills), or as tenants in common (each owns the proportion of the house they paid for, and on the decease of one, their portion is taxed and can be willed elsewhere, including to a 3rd party). There is a slim possibility that John and Jane jointly created a trust that owns the house--but given the absence of a pre-nup. for Mary and John, this seems unlikely. By far the most common arrangement is for a married couple to own a property as joint tenants.
If Mary does not already know, she should find out how John and Jane own the house, as joint tenants, or as tenants in common. If as joint tenants, should John pre-decease Mary, the house becomes Jane's outright. Mary should really take steps to be on very good terms with Jane at all times!
Mary should have a contingency plan in place--and should approach John about making one. I would suggest John take out a life insurance policy whose value should be equal to 1/2 the value of the house to leave to Mary. Leave Jane out of it--or ask her for the name of her divorce lawyer.
--------
I am not a lawyer, I just have had to settle a couple of estates recently...

 

[NHdisneylover]

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!

Okay, I can kind of see the reaction. Then again, there is a good question there: are the older boys still young enough that they are living at home? Is this house their primary residence? If so, Mary is essentially demanding that they be uprooted and moved and that they loose a share of an inheritance because Dad remarried and had another kid. NONE of the kids asked to be put in this situation or had any say in it so I do not think it is fair to the older ones to do that either.

The best I can say is to figure out what 1/3 of the mortgage would be and for Mary and John to put that figure away for the new little one every month (either as straight cash OR as a vacation home where he will have childhood memories too--whatever they feel is best) and to make arrangements for what happens upon the deaths of each adult involved (for all of the reasons many PPs have stated).

 

[mickeywho?]

Another option to help keep things fair...rent out the house to someone not attached. Take the rental income - pay any expenses regarding the house and split anything left between John and the ex. He can use his half as he sees fit and the ex can use her half for her own housing. House remains in the childrens name and John and new wife can build something new for their own child and any more that come into the picture. Plus what if the ex remarries - a whole other set of issues...
This should have been negotiated before he remarried. There will always be resentment unless a new agreement can be reached between the three of them.

 

[NHdisneylover]

gigi22 has a good idea with the life insurance If he can take out a policy on himself for the new little guy worth half of what the home is worth that would even things up pretty well. I would do that in addition to figuring out what Mary needs to do to care for herself once John is gone.

 

[Skywalker]

Another option to help keep things fair...rent out the house to someone not attached. Take the rental income - pay any expenses regarding the house and split anything left between John and the ex. He can use his half as he sees fit and the ex can use her half for her own housing. House remains in the childrens name and John and new wife can build something new for their own child and any more that come into the picture. Plus what if the ex remarries - a whole other set of issues...
This should have been negotiated before he remarried. There will always be resentment unless a new agreement can be reached between the three of them.

I just wanted to say, my cousin made this exact suggestion...John and Jane shot it down outright.

 

[NHdisneylover]

I just wanted to say, my cousin made this exact suggestion...John and Jane shot it down outright.

It sounds like John and Jane really want the older boys to grow up in that home. Did they give some other reason as to why--or is that it?

 

[luvmy3]

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.

No way would I live in a house with my husband while the mortgage had the ex wife's name on it. If my dh wasnt willing to remove her name, or move into another home with me, I would definitely wonder about the future of our marriage. I feel for your cousin.

 

[GoodFairies]

Hmm...what happens if John dies?

 

[barkley]

you know, allot can happen over the years. what a person intends to leave as an inheritance may not be in existance at their death.

an adult with every intention of leaving the family home (or it's proceeds) for their children can find themselves in situations where even non emergent financial issues create the need for them to use that money well before their death.

we had to explain this to a family member very recently when they were shocked to learn that their inheritance was SIGNIFICANTLY less than they anticpated. they were under the assumption that b/c "mom" had sold her house a few years prior to her death, and had what most would consider a good retirement income, that they would come into a substantial sum of money for their share.

the reality is that even a "good" retirement income can fall short of what is needed for senior assisted living, and very short of end of life-even short term-in home care. those expenses in addition to the increased cost of living that everyone deals with can depleat even a significant next egg in a short period of time.

i guess what i'm saying is-i think the current wife should'nt focus so much on what will be inherited by who, but rather-what is being set aside for her/her dh/their child's current and future needs.

 

[NHdisneylover]

No way would I live in a house with my husband while the mortgage had the ex wife's name on it. If my dh wasnt willing to remove her name, or move into another home with me, I would definitely wonder about the future of our marriage. I feel for your cousin.

See, now I do not feel for her because she married him knowing full well that was the case and having agreed to those terms. I am with you that I would not do it--but I would have not married him in the first place. I don't think you get to change the rules after the fact when you have a change or heart (just like you do not get to sleep with the cute coworker who flirts with you after you have agreed to the monogamy of marriage--if you have really changed your mind that much you need to get out but not play the emotions got the best of me card and try to have your cake and eat it too.).

 

[luvmy3]

Hmm...what happens if John dies?

The ex-wife moves into the house with her boys and kicks the OP's cousin and her child out. Not saying that it would happen, but legally she could do that.

See, now I do not feel for her because she married him knowing full well that was the case and having agreed to those terms. I am with you that I would not do it--but I would have not married him in the first place. I don't think you get to change the rules after the fact when you have a change or heart (just like you do not get to sleep with the cute coworker who flirts with you after you have agreed to the monogamy of marriage--if you have really changed your mind that much you need to get out but not play the emotions got the best of me card and try to have your cake and eat it too.).

I feel for her because her dh isn't willing to compromise with her now. What we agree to in the beginning of our relationship and marriage is bound to change over time, so I can see her agreeing at the very beginning but now after being married to him and starting a family how things changed for her. I would expect her dh to also change because of this, because keeping the ex-wife's name on it is not the only way to ensure that their son's get it. His unwillingness to change things (when there are other options) is a huge red flag to me.

 

[robinb]

I assume that all the repair expenses are shared between John and Jane. In that case, I think it sounds like Mary has had a sweet deal only paying rent on half a condo for her family. I'm sure that she and John would have to pay a whole lot more in their own mortgage.

Having the proceeds from the sale of the house (way, way in the future) is nice and all but John and Jane worked their butts off and paid for the house themselves and THEIR kids. Mary and John should take some of that money that they are saving in not paying a mortgage or rent for a house and put it into something for Mary and John's kids. Someone mentioned a life insurance policy. That's a great idea ... my DH's aunt and uncle have been putting $$ into a life insurance policy (with payouts to each niece/nephew) for as long as I have known him.

 

[barkley]

The ex-wife moves into the house with her boys and kicks the OP's cousin and her child out. Not saying that it would happen, but legally she could do that.



I feel for her because her dh isn't willing to compromise with her now. What we agree to in the beginning of our relationship and marriage is bound to change over time, so I can see her agreeing at the very beginning but now after being married to him and starting a family how things changed for her. I would expect her dh to also change because of this, because keeping the ex-wife's name on it is not the only way to ensure that their son's get it. His unwillingness to change things is a huge red flag to me.

it's not just the dh's decision-it has to be mutualy agreed to by his ex. he likely knows his ex much better than his current wife does, and knows why certain decisions were made regarding their divorce.

it could be that he might be willing, but knows that either his ex absolutly is'nt or would only do so with another concession he's totaly unwilling to do (and to this end i'm thinking that his custodial parenting may be strongly tied to those kids being in the "family home", it may have been the leverage he used to keep his kids with him). he may be just saying "absolutly no" b/c he would prefer that he is the "bad guy" in the situation which prevents his current wife from creating a bad situation between him/her with the ex.

 

[Gigi22]

It is really a cautionary tale of modern marriage. Jane took the necessary steps to ensure that her children's interests were well taken care of before leaving the marriage. Mary, not so much--so Mary and her child are left playing catch up. Not fair perhaps, but it seems that Jane was the planner in her marriage and benefits accordingly.
There is nothing Mary can do about the house. John and Jane co-own it.

 

[luvmy3]

it's not just the dh's decision-it has to be mutualy agreed to by his ex. he likely knows his ex much better than his current wife does, and knows why certain decisions were made regarding their divorce.

it could be that he might be willing, but knows that either his ex absolutly is'nt or would only do so with another concession he's totaly unwilling to do (and to this end i'm thinking that his custodial parenting may be strongly tied to those kids being in the "family home", it may have been the leverage he used to keep his kids with him). he may be just saying "absolutly no" b/c he would prefer that he is the "bad guy" in the situation which prevents his current wife from creating a bad situation between him/her with the ex.

All the more reason to feel for the OP's cousin. He is willing to be the bad guy to not risk anything happening to one of his families, yet risk ruining his other. I would say it started as a bad situation and him bending over backwards for the ex (and their children) and not doing anything for the current wife (and theoir children) is only going to make it worse.

 

[Bren's Mom]

I am a '2nd wife' and my dh and I have a child together...and I say that the time for Mary to discuss these things and have a resolution to them was BEFORE she married John and BEFORE they had a child together. I would not have EVER moved into a home that was co-owned by my new dh and his ex-wife. EVER. And I certainly would not have had a child until that was resolved. What if the dh died and left the new wife and young child homeless? Terrible scenario. I think the only possible solution is for John and his ex to sell the home (or for John to buy out his ex wife's portion) and for John to stop paying his ex's rent. Be completely separate in their finances from this point on. John needs to change his will to reflect ALL of his children so they are all protected in the event of his death, and also be sure he leaves a proper life insurance amount for his current wife.

 

[kellyg403]

I think this is a hard call for me personally. While I agree that she knew in the beginning that this is the way things were before she married him, why did she not speak up and tell her hubby that they need to protect the child they have together as well in some way?

Personally, I think what went on in the divorce and the subsequent paperwork was not a secret. Mary understood. Now, since there is a new child she is expecting changes that can't or won't happen. At this point, I would personally let the dh know that they need to come up with a plan that protects her and the new child should something happen to them as there will obviously be no place to live. A larger life insurance policy, another house that is a rental that is in his/new wife's name etc. This house is paid for so it should not be an issue to getting a smaller home at some point that both she and dh pay into for her future. That makes all parties protected.

Just my humble opinion. Everyone is so caught up in the emotion that they are not realizing that there is a middle ground that covers everyone and still enforces the previous divorce conditions.

Kelly

 

[barkley]

All the more reason to feel for the OP's cousin. He is willing to be the bad guy to not risk anything happening to one of his families, yet risk ruining his other. I would say it started as a bad situation and him bending over backwards for the ex (and their children) and not doing anything for the current wife (and theoir children) is only going to make it worse.

i don't see it as him bending over backwards for his ex.

he's an adult who entered into an agreement and is honoring it.

he disclosed this prior to his new marriage, his current wife is an adult who knowing of this agreement chose to marry him, and then knowing the agreement chose to have a child with him.

this is'nt just an issue of having a separate home so that the new child can have an inheritance, the new wife is also resentful over the financial obligation the husband is paying each month. selling or renting out the home may not cease that obligation, and if it does'nt then she will likely be resentful that as a couple they are saddled with a mortgage in addition to the financial obligation.

yes it's a lousy situation, but the current wife bought into it.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

I think this is a hard call for me personally. While I agree that she knew in the beginning that this is the way things were before she married him, why did she not speak up and tell her hubby that they need to protect the child they have together as well in some way?

Personally, I think what went on in the divorce and the subsequent paperwork was not a secret. Mary understood. Now, since there is a new child she is expecting changes that can't or won't happen. At this point, I would personally let the dh know that they need to come up with a plan that protects her and the new child should something happen to them as there will obviously be no place to live. A larger life insurance policy, another house that is a rental that is in his/new wife's name etc. This house is paid for so it should not be an issue to getting a smaller home at some point that both she and dh pay into for her future. That makes all parties protected.

Just my humble opinion. Everyone is so caught up in the emotion that they are not realizing that there is a middle ground that covers everyone and still enforces the previous divorce conditions.

Kelly

Agree as well as trust funds.

I would make it based on the fact that if he dies, she needs to be taken care of. That is a legit argument since she would be kicked out of the house and have no role in the raising of the stepkids more than likely.

While she did agree to the terms, he also married her and had another baby. He doesn't need to change the divorce deal but he does had to provide adequate coverage for his current wife.

Middle ground needs to be found and it can be doable.

However sounds like the OP's cousin is not wanting middle ground here. I see divorce in her future.

 

[kellyg403]

i don't see it as him bending over backwards for his ex.

he's an adult who entered into an agreement and is honoring it.

he disclosed this prior to his new marriage, his current wife is an adult who knowing of this agreement chose to marry him, and then knowing the agreement chose to have a child with him.

this is'nt just an issue of having a separate home so that the new child can have an inheritance, the new wife is also resentful over the financial obligation the husband is paying each month. selling or renting out the home may not cease that obligation, and if it does'nt then she will likely be resentful that as a couple they are saddled with a mortgage in addition to the financial obligation.
yes it's a lousy situation, but the current wife bought into it.

In respect to the part of your post I have bolded..the new wife is not understanding IMHO that the previous wife helped pay for their current house in full. Therefore, she really has invested her money in that property. So, by them purchasing a new home, within their budget, would be a viable solution as the new wife would not have to share it with the ex in the event of a death. If the previous divorce decree states, they share and eventually pass on to the sons, there really, probably, no legal recourse for the new wife other than finding a new home she is happy with that they can move into. Ex can move back in to the marital home, and the obligation for the rent would cease as she would have no mortgage/rent. New wife and hubby can then use that cash for the 'new' family and their future.

I don't know, you are right it is a lousy situation, but new wife, I am assuming, knew ALL of this beforehand. She didn't plan well for her or the new child's future. This should have been discussed prior to marriage and at the very least BEFORE a new child was born!

Kelly