Your Opinion - Another Divorce Situation

[Mickey's Minion]

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.

Another question would be what the terms were for adding another child to the family. Was it a joint decision, or was John still leaning towards staying childless with Mary but wanted Mary to have the child she desired, so acquiesced.

Did John remind her that the house was his boys? Did she agree to the terms? If he reminded her and she remained silent, that is the same as agreeing.

I think there is way more behind the scenes than the OP could possibly share.

 

[Skywalker]

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.
.

Just snipping this part of your post...it may be a sweet deal, but it is a deal she does not want. She would rather be paying a mortgage on something that is hers and an asset for her son in the future. It is looking more and more like the only way to do that is leaving and doing it on her own. She doesn't want to, he doesn't want her to...she's willing to find middle ground and they are not though.

 

[Skywalker]

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.
Kelly

But that is exactly what my cousin wants to do! They will not!

Another question would be what the terms were for adding another child to the family. Was it a joint decision, or was John still leaning towards staying childless with Mary but wanted Mary to have the child she desired, so acquiesced.

Not at all. If anything it was the other way around.

 

[luvmy3]

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.

I guess we will just have to disagree because I don't believe that automatically means she can never expect things to change. When she married him, it was just her, now she has her own child to consider, a child who is essentially homeless god forbid something should happen to the dh. Sorry, but that gives her the right to want some kind of compromise, or an all out change in the current situation.

 

[allison443]

Just snipping this part of your post...it may be a sweet deal, but it is a deal she does not want. She would rather be paying a mortgage on something that is hers and an asset for her son in the future. It is looking more and more like the only way to do that is leaving and doing it on her own. She doesn't want to, he doesn't want her to...she's willing to find middle ground and they are not though.

Given this apparently overwhleming concern for what she is going to leave her son when she dies, what is stopping her from taking out life insurance policies on herself and John with son as the beneficiary, or investing money in a liquid asset or even another piece of real estate?

 

[allison443]

I guess we will just have to disagree because I don't believe that automatically means she can never expect things to change. When she married him, it was just her, now she has her own child to consider, a child who is essentially homeless god forbid something should happen to the dh. Sorry, but that gives her the right to want some kind of compromise, or an all out change in the current situation.

I agree with you that things can change...I mean, they weren't going to have kids, and that situation sure changed.

However, I wouldn't say if John dies that his son is essentially homeless. Why can't Mary provide a home for her son? Yes it wouldn't be the same house but things change!

 

[Tigger&Belle]

What a tough situation all around. I hope they can come to some sort of compromise. At the very least, if I were your cousin I would have a bank acct and be saving the money that they would be spending if they had their own mortgage (perhaps minus their current rent expenses for the wife and their utilities).

Does your cousin have a job?

 

[luvmy3]

I agree with you that things can change...I mean, they weren't going to have kids, and that situation sure changed.

However, I wouldn't say if John dies that his son is essentially homeless. Why can't Mary provide a home for her son? Yes it wouldn't be the same house but things change!

She can, but wouldn't you want to know that is something you don't have to worry about during a time like that?

ETA. if the ex wife wants her boys to stay in the house they grew up in, why would it be wrong for the OP's cousin to do the same if something should happen?

 

[allison443]

She can, but wouldn't you want to know that is something you don't have to worry about during a time like that?

A large life insurance policy on John will help with that

 

[Mickey's Minion]

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.

There is no mortgage. John and his first wife paid the house off completely before OP's cousin came into the picture.

I am looking at it from Jane's side.

If I busted butt to pay off a house long before a traditional mortgage, there is no way I would allow my ex's new wife and her new kid have a part of it.

That was something I had worked hard on with my then DH for our boys. Something we planned for and worked for to give to our boys.

The boys can't help it if Daddy went and got remarried and had another kid. The house should still remain theirs. Daddy can make other arrangements for his new kid.

There is absolutely NO WAY that I would allow something that I had worked for and sacrificed so that my 2 boys would each have half now be split so my boys would only get a third of the house.

The other question in the equation is how much each partner contributed to the house. It is highly unusual for a couple with young children to have a completely paid off house.

Was there inheritance money of Jane's used to pay off the house? Since Jane travels so extensively that John has custody, was her salary the major breadwinner during the marriage? If so, did she make the significant portion of the payments before it was paid off? Is she just honoring John as the father of the children by keeping his name on the title?

I would agree that the house belongs to the first two boys since their parents had made that a priority during their marriage. It is not fair to the boys to have to split that with a new child.

John and Mary should be making arrangements for the new baby so that he has an inheritance as well. A life insurance policy, a rental home if they can afford it, a vacation home, etc. However, it should be appropriate to the income level of John and Mary and does not have to be "fair" or the same as what the boys from John and Jane are getting. It should be based on what the new baby's Dad and Mom can put aside for him and have no basis on what Dad and Ex put aside for the their kids.

I don't get the idea that the new baby has to have the same inheritance, ie: equal to half the value of the house. That house was paid for by Jane and John. Mary made no contributions to it. The baby's inheritance should reflect what John and Mary can afford to set aside for the new child.

If Jane makes more money than Mary, it would make sense that their boys would have a larger inheritance since both parents are making/made a contribution to it.

 

[JesB]

Yes Mary knew the situation going in, but things do change especially after having a child. I suspect she's concerned not only about her DS inheritance, but also of losing her home that she has invested her time and I'm sure money into, even if it is paid for. If her DH dies than she and her children have no legal recourse, their out on the streets. That's just how I take it, she wants a home that she knows is hers if something should happen. There should be a compromise here I would think. Could they not buy out Jane's part of the house and make a stipulation that upon John's or Mary's death all children should inherit? This would prevent the upheaval of the children, and Jane would still have money for her condo.

 

[barkley]

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

that's if the money is truely "rent".

i've known divorce agreements to be set up where alimony, child support or a pay-off for waiving one's rights to a retirement fund or other assett was worded as something entirely different in order to mutualy benefit (tax/eligibility to certain income or programs for kids wise) both parties.

it may or may not be rent. it may be that if the house sold he would still be paying.

while i admire the idea that the dh is voluntarily paying, out of the kindness of his heart, half of his ex wife's rent, it realy is not the norm even in the most amicable of divorces.

 

[luvmy3]

There is no mortgage. John and his first wife paid the house off completely before OP's cousin came into the picture.

I am looking at it from Jane's side.

If I busted butt to pay off a house long before a traditional mortgage, there is no way I would allow my ex's new wife and her new kid have a part of it.

That was something I had worked hard on with my then DH for our boys. Something we planned for and worked for to give to our boys.

The boys can't help it if Daddy went and got remarried and had another kid. The house should still remain theirs. Daddy can make other arrangements for his new kid.

There is absolutely NO WAY that I would allow something that I had worked for and sacrificed so that my 2 boys would each have half now be split so my boys would only get a third of the house.

The other question in the equation is how much each partner contributed to the house. It is highly unusual for a couple with young children to have a completely paid off house.

Was there inheritance money of Jane's used to pay off the house? Since Jane travels so extensively that John has custody, was her salary the major breadwinner during the marriage? If so, did she make the significant portion of the payments before it was paid off? Is she just honoring John as the father of the children by keeping his name on the title?

I would agree that the house belongs to the first two boys since their parents had made that a priority during their marriage. It is not fair to the boys to have to split that with a new child.

John and Mary should be making arrangements for the new baby so that he has an inheritance as well. However, it should be appropriate to the income level of John and Mary and does not have to be "fair" or the same as what the boys from John and Jane are getting. It should be based on what the new baby's Dad and Mom can put aside for him and have no basis on what Dad and Ex put aside for the their kids.

If Jane makes more money than Mary, it would make sense that their boys would have a larger inheritance since both parents are making/made a contribution to it.

According to the mortgage papers, she owns the house, that is what I meant. ANd I agree that she has every right to protect her investment, and her children's inheritence, however they are divorced and there are other ways to do it. Why wouldn't they agree to have her move back in the house and the dh and the OP's cousin move into a home of their own? Something just doesn't smell right, IMHO the ex-wife wants to remain in control of the dh, and this is how she's doing it. Like you said you wouldn't want another to have any part of that, and teh OP's wife isn't asking for any part of that, she wants something of her own, and the dh and teh ex-wife said no they aren't willing to change things so now she comes off as looking like the bad guy trying to take somethiing away from her stepson's inheritence. Something in this whole situation just isn't right.

 

[kellyg403]

that's if the money is truely "rent".

i've known divorce agreements to be set up where alimony, child support or a pay-off for waiving one's rights to a retirement fund or other assett was worded as something entirely different in order to mutualy benefit (tax/eligibility to certain income or programs for kids wise) both parties.

it may or may not be rent. it may be that if the house sold he would still be paying.

while i admire the idea that the dh is voluntarily paying, out of the kindness of his heart, half of his ex wife's rent, it realy is not the norm even in the most amicable of divorces.

I agree. Totally difficult to know unless we know what is exactly stated in the decree. They may have decided, since he would be raising the children and would remain in the house, she would not push selling it even though it is paid off. The 1/2 of rent, even the amount could possible be alimony in some verbiage in the decree. Or it could be a dollar amount that just happens to be 1/2 of her rent?

Kelly

 

[Mickey's Minion]

According to the mortgage papers, she owns the house, that is what I meant. ANd I agree that she has every right to protect her investment, and her children's inheritence, however they are divorced and there are other ways to do it. Why wouldn't they agree to have her move back in the house and the dh and the OP's cousin move into a home of their own? Something just doesn't smell right, IMHO the ex-wife wants to remain in control of the dh, and this is how she's doing it. Like you said you wouldn't want another to have any part of that, and teh OP's wife isn't asking for any part of that, she wants something of her own, and the dh and teh ex-wife said no they aren't willing to change things so now she comes off as looking like the bad guy trying to take somethiing away from her stepson's inheritence. Something in this whole situation just isn't right.

Again, not knowing John and Mary's financial situation, one cannot make that judgment.

How big is the house? What kind of neighborhood and school district is it in?

Right now, the 'rent' John and Mary are paying is equivalent to half of Jane's condo fees. Even the OP agrees that John and Mary have a "sweet deal" regarding housing payments.

If John and Mary moved out of the John and Jane's house, would they be able to afford a property that is an equivalent size and in an equivalent school district?

If not, then as the mother of the boys, I would be insisting that Dad stay true to our agreement and keep the boys in the house and the better school district. As the mother of the boys, my first and foremost concern would be my boys and I wouldn't give a hoot what Mary wanted. There would be no way I would allow the dad to move my kids into a smaller house and a not so good school district just because the new wife wants something of her own. New wife would be of no concern to me. That would be between John and Mary to work out. I wouldn't hate Mary as she was living with my boys, but my primary concern would be to protect what my boys were accustomed to and to provide the best for them.

Another question would be regarding custody. If John breaks the custody deal, ie moves the boys out of their house, does he lose custody of the boys? That would be a huge driving force in keeping the situation as is.

There are way too many variable to just jump to the Ex being controlling.

 

[barkley]

I agree. Totally difficult to know unless we know what is exactly stated in the decree. They may have decided, since he would be raising the children and would remain in the house, she would not push selling it even though it is paid off. The 1/2 of rent, even the amount could possible be alimony in some verbiage in the decree. Or it could be a dollar amount that just happens to be 1/2 of her rent?

Kelly

could also be a loan repayment.

it was'nt learned until after mil's death that the house all her kids assumed had been paid off decades earlier had been subjected to repetative loans over the years that drasticly reduced the net gains on the sale.

things like camp for the kids, private school tuition, financial hand-outs (to some of the kids), and a taste for credit cards and nice vacations have a way of adding up over the years. while the "mortgage" had been long paid off, there were personal loans technicaly secured by the home.

 

[wdwfan16]

Mary knew the deal before she got married or made a child. That was the time to accept ore reject the deal.

She would want to be a single parent and move over the fact that he kid does not get part of the house that was paid for befor his mom was even married? He still won't get any money from the house and will live at a lower standard of living.

The 1/2 the rent is just part of his support he owns.

Mary needs to suck it up and accept the situation she made and not try to make the DH, EX, two SSs and her son pay the price for her decision.

 

[luvmy3]

Again, not knowing John and Mary's financial situation, one cannot make that judgment.

How big is the house? What kind of neighborhood and school district is it in?

Right now, the 'rent' John and Mary are paying is equivalent to half of Jane's condo fees. Even the OP agrees that John and Mary have a "sweet deal" regarding housing payments.

If John and Mary moved out of the John and Jane's house, would they be able to afford a property that is an equivalent size and in an equivalent school district?

If not, then as the mother of the boys, I would be insisting that Dad stay true to our agreement and keep the boys in the house and the better school district. As the mother of the boys, my first and foremost concern would be my boys and I wouldn't give a hoot what Mary wanted. There would be no way I would allow the dad to move my kids into a smaller house and a not so good school district just because the new wife wants something of her own. New wife would be of no concern to me. That would be between John and Mary to work out. I wouldn't hate Mary as she was living with my boys, but my primary concern would be to protect what my boys were accustomed to and to provide the best for them.

Another question would be regarding custody. If John breaks the custody deal, ie moves the boys out of their house, does he lose custody of the boys? That would be a huge driving force in keeping the situation as is.

There are way too many variable to just jump to the Ex being controlling.

Maybe, but when you take into account that there are other options that could be worked out to benefit everyone, and the ex and teh dh aren't willing to even consider any, it makes one wonder.
And I never said that the ex hated Mary, controlling the dh has nothing to do with her.

 

[Scurvy]

I guess we will just have to disagree because I don't believe that automatically means she can never expect things to change. When she married him, it was just her, now she has her own child to consider, a child who is essentially homeless god forbid something should happen to the dh. Sorry, but that gives her the right to want some kind of compromise, or an all out change in the current situation.

I can understand why Mary is unhappy. I would be, too. But I wouldn't have married someone who had that sort of an agreement with an ex. And if somehow I had, I certainly would have made sure the agreement was a major factor in my decision of whether to have a child with the man or not. She knew all of this before she married him and before she had a child with him. She chose to put herself and her child into this situation.

Sure, she has the right to want some kind of compromise or an all out change in the current situation, but she has no right to expect that. Just because she has now had a change of heart doesn't mean that John and Jane have also, and their opinions are the only ones that matter when it comes to their agreement. When John and Mary married, she agreed to this arrangement. The fact that she has now changed her mind doesn't mean that anyone else in the scenerio should change theirs. Presumably John made clear to her before they married that this situation was non-negotiable, and apparently he still feels that way. She doesn't have the right to now insist that he change the situation.

There is no mortgage. John and his first wife paid the house off completely before OP's cousin came into the picture.

I am looking at it from Jane's side.

If I busted butt to pay off a house long before a traditional mortgage, there is no way I would allow my ex's new wife and her new kid have a part of it.

That was something I had worked hard on with my then DH for our boys. Something we planned for and worked for to give to our boys.

The boys can't help it if Daddy went and got remarried and had another kid. The house should still remain theirs. Daddy can make other arrangements for his new kid.

There is absolutely NO WAY that I would allow something that I had worked for and sacrificed so that my 2 boys would each have half now be split so my boys would only get a third of the house.

The other question in the equation is how much each partner contributed to the house. It is highly unusual for a couple with young children to have a completely paid off house.

Was there inheritance money of Jane's used to pay off the house? Since Jane travels so extensively that John has custody, was her salary the major breadwinner during the marriage? If so, did she make the significant portion of the payments before it was paid off? Is she just honoring John as the father of the children by keeping his name on the title?

I would agree that the house belongs to the first two boys since their parents had made that a priority during their marriage. It is not fair to the boys to have to split that with a new child.

John and Mary should be making arrangements for the new baby so that he has an inheritance as well. A life insurance policy, a rental home if they can afford it, a vacation home, etc. However, it should be appropriate to the income level of John and Mary and does not have to be "fair" or the same as what the boys from John and Jane are getting. It should be based on what the new baby's Dad and Mom can put aside for him and have no basis on what Dad and Ex put aside for the their kids.

I don't get the idea that the new baby has to have the same inheritance, ie: equal to half the value of the house. That house was paid for by Jane and John. Mary made no contributions to it. The baby's inheritance should reflect what John and Mary can afford to set aside for the new child.

If Jane makes more money than Mary, it would make sense that their boys would have a larger inheritance since both parents are making/made a contribution to it.

I was going to quote the parts of this post I agreed with, but I couldn't find any part I could cut out! I do especially agree with the bolded, though. The fact is, this agreement has nothing to do with Mary or her child with John. She and John need to work together to be sure that their child will also be taken care of, but she can not expect to alter the agreement that was in place between John and Jane regarding their children. If she couldn't live with it, she shouldn't have married him or had a child with him. If her opinion has changed so much now that she is no longer willing to live with it, then she should leave the marriage. But if she does so, she needs to realize that it is her choice, because she is the only one who changed her mind about the agreement that was in place when she chose to say her vows. Her husband and his ex have done nothing wrong - they have stayed consisent since before Mary and John were even together, and presumably have never given Jane the impression that anything about the situation would ever change.

 

[Gigi22]

I can't see any incentive for Jane to agree to change the current situation. She has what she wants--her children continue to grow up in the family home that she co-owns with her exH. Should Jane remarry, the situation will most likely change.

The ball is completely in Mary's court, and she needs to understand that she is not going to affect the ownership of house she now occupies as her husband's second wife. In the event of John's death, it is entirely possible that Jane may wish Mary and Mary's son to leave the house, so that Jane can resume living there with her children.

The house is a marital asset of the first marriage. Living there doesn't give Mary any right to it.

Her best bet is a life insurance policy with Mary as the beneficiary (not John's estate), or purchase of a second property that she can contribute to. John and Mary can rent out the second property, and Mary will have it as a home for herself and her child should John pre-decease her.