Your Opinion - Another Divorce Situation

[Luvchefmic]

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.

I'm not reading the other posters so I can tell you my opinion without being influenced by anyone else..Mary knew all this going in...Jane & John paid off this house and putting their children first he lived in that home and assisted with her new place...their children will inherit it..end of story. John and Jane appear very mature and their children will end up having a happy life because of it.

Enter your cousin Mary who is getting more & more bitter as time goes on. Very sad, she keeps it up she will be divorced and her & John's child won't grow up as nicely as the first children because Mary will end up bad mouthing John and his other children. If Mary were my cousin I would tell her all of this and for good measure I would tell her she was acting like a brat. and if she's willing to leave a marriage over this she is proving she is one.
Just my humble opinion (now I will go back & see what others had to say)

 

[allison443]

If I were Mary, I would request 2 things:

1. John to stop paying 1/2 of Jane's rent and start putting that money into a trust fund for Mary and John's child. If John and Jane have been divorced for at least a number of years, and Jane is working, I would think she should be able to support herself at this point.

2. That John add to his will that whatever the split dollar value of the house is, that his child with Mary receive that amount in cash from his estate. So, to use simple numbers, if the house is worth $200, then John and Jane's kids get a value of $100 each if they are splitting the value of the house. So, John and Mary's child should get $100 from John's estate.

Did you really mean this (bolded part?) If the house is worth $200, the kids will receive $100 each, but only half of that is John's to give them. They are getting half of that from their mother Jane. So John's share to them is only $50 each. So should he give his third kid $100 or $50?

 

[RitaZ.]

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.

mte.

 

[Disney Doll]

In (2) you are asking John to give his equity in the house to his new family. Mary and her kids are not entitled to ANY of that. In addition, he made the agreement that the equity in the house is to be for his children with Jane. Maybe ... maybe ... you could make an argument that Mary's baby might have 1/6th of the house (Jane's half goes to her kids and John's half is split by 3) but even that's a stretch.

Actuallty, no I am asking that John provide for the same monetary value to his 3rd child as he has for his 1st two.

The house is split between the 1st two kids. The 3rd gets an amount of money equal to whatever the split value of the house is.

The house is worth $200.
Child #1's potential financial gain from that house if they should decide to sell it would be $100.
Child #2's potential financial gain from that house if they should decide to sell it would be $100.
Child #3 should receive a financial gain equivalent to $100 upon his father's death, so that eh receives an equivalent financial gain from his father's estate as his half-siblings would receive.

I will tell you that it's threads like these that make me glad I married the man I did, and also make me realize that if God forbid something ever happened to him, I'd never remarry a previously-married...the 2nd family really are the 2nd class citizens.

 

[Gigi22]

Reply to The Mystery Machine--yes! We're on the same page! Great!

Out of all this, I feel somewhat sorry for Mary. As of now, Jane has all her ducks in a row, Mary doesn't. It is unfortunate for John that he is stuck in the middle of a disagreement between Mary and Jane.

John, his second wife Mary, their child, and the two children of his marriage to Jane are all living in that house until until such time as John and Jane decide to make a change to the status quo. My guess would be that would occur when/if Jane remarries, or possibly when Jane's youngest child has graduated from university (or marries) and would no longer need the family home as a base, and not a moment before. Until that time, there is no benefit to Jane to change anything.

Mary should become more proactive, insure John, and get on with it. She should not waste any more time feeling sorry for herself--or trying to retroactively change/influence the terms of Jane and John's divorce. Time is passing, John's not getting any younger, and Mary needs to get a good life insurance policy on John at a reasonable rate. It will be the best thing she can do for herself.

 

[RitaZ.]

Again, playing the devil's advocate and seeing it from the ex wife's side, I would never agree to sell my half of the house if it meant my boys would be moving to a smaller home in a perhaps not so stellar school district.

I would never subject my children to a lesser quality of life just because the new wife doesn't like the arrangement she agreed to.

I wouldn't give a hoot how John was supposed to pay Mary. Courts have routinely upheld the child support of the first wife's kids and the second's wife's kid often gets significantly less due to the commitments already in place. But that is a moot point anyway as John has custody of the kids, so is probably not paying much if any child support.

Again, the new baby would not be my concern at all. My only concern would be that my children's quality of life, especially with regards to neighborhood and school district, be kept the same. And if that means not selling my share of the house to allow my Ex to live there, then so be it. And no, having my kids see him divorce his new wife would not be worse than them having to move to a different school system or neighbor that was of poorer quality.

And for the new wife's baby, why would I be concerned that it would be a child of divorce? Again, the new wife knew what our arrangement was, agreed to it. If she all of a sudden decides she doesn't like it, then she is making the decision to subject her child to divorce. Not my concern. My only concern, as a mama bear, would be my own children.

That's exactly how the new wife feels.

 

[dzorn]

Sorry, but I don't think either request makes sense.

In (1) I have no doubt that Jane can support herself and I think the arrangement they have is so both have the same housing expenses after the divorce. John is not paying anything for the house except regular upkeep (like lawn service) and utilities. If he stopped paying half of Jane's rent then he would be living in the house for FREE. No mortgage and no rent. No way would Jane go for that.

In (2) you are asking John to give his equity in the house to his new family. Mary and her kids are not entitled to ANY of that. In addition, he made the agreement that the equity in the house is to be for his children with Jane. Maybe ... maybe ... you could make an argument that Mary's baby might have 1/6th of the house (Jane's half goes to her kids and John's half is split by 3) but even that's a stretch.

I do feel for Mary but I think that she really needs to think long and hard about getting a divorce over a house. Honestly, John sounds like a really good father that looks out for his kids. I think they should take the money that are saving in paying for only half of the condo and invest it for their new family. John already did that with Jane for his other kids.

As for Mary's desire to own her own house ... that doesn't happen for everyone and there are plenty of people out there who are renting homes and apartments. They seem to make things work out for them .

Well I feel for all the parties but the house needs to be sold. They can split the equity and then decide how to leave it to their children. And each party should make a will that states how their own assets will be split. Just because a spouse wants you to leave all your assets to your kids doesn't mean you have to. People change wills all the time people also take out home equity from their home for many reasons. None of which should depend on the ex wifes concent.

Mary did get herself into a pickle with this situation. John does have a responsibility to all of his children, especially until they are adults. John needs to make sure if something happens to him all of his children are supported until adulthood and have a roof over their heads not just the ones from his first marriage.

How are they handeling major home repair? At some point the roof need replacing the baths and kitchens remodeled, cement cracks, furnaces need replacing. Is the ex also pay for 1/2 of them.

The path to hell is paved with good intentions. John need to re-evalate the path is new life is taking.

Denise in MI

 

[bunny]

I think it was foolish for John to make an arrangement that he had to stay in the same house for the rest of his life. So even after the children are grown, he can't move from this house? What kind of craziness is that? Does anyone live in the same house their whole lives?

 

[Praying Colonel]

Sorry, but I don't think either request makes sense.

In (1) I have no doubt that Jane can support herself and I think the arrangement they have is so both have the same housing expenses after the divorce. John is not paying anything for the house except regular upkeep (like lawn service) and utilities. If he stopped paying half of Jane's rent then he would be living in the house for FREE. No mortgage and no rent. No way would Jane go for that.

In (2) you are asking John to give his equity in the house to his new family. Mary and her kids are not entitled to ANY of that. In addition, he made the agreement that the equity in the house is to be for his children with Jane. Maybe ... maybe ... you could make an argument that Mary's baby might have 1/6th of the house (Jane's half goes to her kids and John's half is split by 3) but even that's a stretch.

I do feel for Mary but I think that she really needs to think long and hard about getting a divorce over a house. Honestly, John sounds like a really good father that looks out for his kids. I think they should take the money that are saving in paying for only half of the condo and invest it for their new family. John already did that with Jane for his other kids.

As for Mary's desire to own her own house ... that doesn't happen for everyone and there are plenty of people out there who are renting homes and apartments. They seem to make things work out for them .

Just wanted to add in response to the bolded part that John may not have the ability to will half of his equity in the house, anyway. As was pointed out in a previous post, if John and Jane own the house as tenants by the entirety (also known in some states as joint tenancy with right of survivorship), then John's interest in the house passes to Jane at the time of his death by operation of law--even if his will says something different. All depends on what the original deed says and what Canadian law is on this.

Regardless of who owns the house and who's paying for what, John should have sufficient life insurance to provide for his 2nd family in the event of his death. IMHO this should have been in place even if none of the other facts existed at all.

 

[dzorn]

Again, playing the devil's advocate and seeing it from the ex wife's side, I would never agree to sell my half of the house if it meant my boys would be moving to a smaller home in a perhaps not so stellar school district.

I would never subject my children to a lesser quality of life just because the new wife doesn't like the arrangement she agreed to.

I wouldn't give a hoot how John was supposed to pay Mary. Courts have routinely upheld the child support of the first wife's kids and the second's wife's kid often gets significantly less due to the commitments already in place. But that is a moot point anyway as John has custody of the kids, so is probably not paying much if any child support.

Again, the new baby would not be my concern at all. My only concern would be that my children's quality of life, especially with regards to neighborhood and school district, be kept the same. And if that means not selling my share of the house to allow my Ex to live there, then so be it. And no, having my kids see him divorce his new wife would not be worse than them having to move to a different school system or neighbor that was of poorer quality.

And for the new wife's baby, why would I be concerned that it would be a child of divorce? Again, the new wife knew what our arrangement was, agreed to it. If she all of a sudden decides she doesn't like it, then she is making the decision to subject her child to divorce. Not my concern. My only concern, as a mama bear, would be my own children.

Well just by getting divored your children will usually have a lesser (economic) quantity in life. There is just less money if you now need two households.

Denise in MI

 

[allison443]

I think it was foolish for John to make an arrangement that he had to stay in the same house for the rest of his life. So even after the children are grown, he can't move from this house? What kind of craziness is that? Does anyone live in the same house their whole lives?

I agree, I think it is very strange that both John and Jane basically agreed to own this house together until what? they both die?

Also I cannot believe that paying half of Jane's rent is a good deal for John. Is there a limit on how expensive an apartment she can rent? Is that supposed to be forever? At some point what if the rent paid equals more than Jane's half share of the value of the house? Are they splitting the tax payments, insurance costs, repair costs, etc. for the house? I cannot believe they got two lawyers to agree to this, no matter how amicable the divorce was, it really makes no sense.

Unless John's monthly payments aren't really rent, and he is buying Jane out on a monthly installment plan? But then she wouldn't have half the house to leave to the kids when she dies.

Maybe because I haven't been divorced, but I don't know anyone with young kids who is so overly concerned with leaving a particular house to their kids when they die. College funds, yes. Inheritances, no.

 

[Scurvy]

Did you really mean this (bolded part?) If the house is worth $200, the kids will receive $100 each, but only half of that is John's to give them. They are getting half of that from their mother Jane. So John's share to them is only $50 each. So should he give his third kid $100 or $50?

I was wondering that, as well. In my opinion, John and Jane's kids should get all of their mother's share, assuming she has no more children. They should also get all of John's share of the house as was stated in the agreement, and then each of John's children should get 1/3 of the rest of his estate. If John were to go back on his agreement with Jane and split his share of the house between his first children and his new child, then the new child should get at most 1/3 of the value of John's half of the house (or 1/6 of the total value of the house, as robinb said), and each of John's children should also get 1/3 of the rest of his estate (unless some is going to Mary). If Mary wants to make up for the value of the house, then she should leave anything in her estate to her child alone, or she should get insurance policies and name that child the beneficiary.

That's exactly how the new wife feels.

But then she should have considered that before choosing to marry and have a child with someone who already had this arrangement in place with his ex.

 

[allison443]

Well just by getting divored your children will usually have a lesser (economic) quantity in life. There is just less money if you now need two households.

Denise in MI

I believe you are correct, however, Mary doesn't seem concerned about that...she is ready to walk over this because she is so concerned about future inheritances being inequitable.

 

[RitaZ.]

I was wondering that, as well. In my opinion, John and Jane's kids should get all of their mother's share, assuming she has no more children. They should also get all of John's share of the house as was stated in the agreement, and then each of John's children should get 1/3 of the rest of his estate. If John were to go back on his agreement with Jane and split his share of the house between his first children and his new child, then the new child should get at most 1/3 of the value of John's half of the house (or 1/6 of the total value of the house, as robinb said), and each of John's children should also get 1/3 of the rest of his estate (unless some is going to Mary). If Mary wants to make up for the value of the house, then she should leave anything in her estate to her child alone, or she should get insurance policies and name that child the beneficiary.



But then she should have considered that before choosing to marry and have a child with someone who already had this arrangement in place with his ex.

I believe that I agreed with someone else's comments on that specific point. I wouldn't have agreed to such an arrangement, but not everyone sees things the way I do.

IMO, the problem here lies with the husband, not the ex-wife or the new wife. What would the ex-wife do if something happened to her children's father? She would be forced to come up with a new arrangement. Things happen. Life situations change. It's clearly causing a problem for the new wife, even if she knew what she was getting herself into. The husband has to consider all of his children.

 

[robinb]

Actuallty, no I am asking that John provide for the same monetary value to his 3rd child as he has for his 1st two.

The house is split between the 1st two kids. The 3rd gets an amount of money equal to whatever the split value of the house is.

The house is worth $200.
Child #1's potential financial gain from that house if they should decide to sell it would be $100.
Child #2's potential financial gain from that house if they should decide to sell it would be $100.
Child #3 should receive a financial gain equivalent to $100 upon his father's death, so that eh receives an equivalent financial gain from his father's estate as his half-siblings would receive.

I will tell you that it's threads like these that make me glad I married the man I did, and also make me realize that if God forbid something ever happened to him, I'd never remarry a previously-married...the 2nd family really are the 2nd class citizens.

Oh ... I get it now. Maybe John can afford to give Child #3 the equivalent and maybe he can't. In a perfect world he would but in a real world Mary and John's combined income may not be the same as Jane and John's combined income was. It was their income that purchased and paid for the house.

 

[Tink888]

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?

She's also helping to raise John's sons who live with him while their mother travels for work. So she's maintaining a home that she'll have no rights to along with raising children that aren't hers.


OP - I only read through page 2 of the thread so maybe it's already been said but,

Yes, Mary should thought of all this before she said I do but she didn't and she's here now as a wife with no rights. 1st wife, 2nd wife, 10th wife, shouldn't matter. I can't blame her for being unhappy with the way things are.

IMHO it was a lousy set up from the get go. John & Mary should've thought through and anticipated that one or both of them might meet someone else and find themselves in this very situation. They divorced, people move on, people find love again. Happens all the time. They wanted to end their marriage but essentially tied themselves together indefinitely through this house. Not a good way to sever a marriage, no matter how amicable it might seem at the time.

Inheritances, no matter who receives them are a gift, not an entitlement.

Can't John buy out Jane's share of the house less the rent payments he's already made for Jane? Jane would walk away with her half of the proceeds from the house they paid off together. John would now have a mortgage that he and Mary can payoff together thereby allowing Mary to "earn" her interest in the home. John & Mary can then leave the home to all three of John's children with both women.

If Jane isn't agreeable to that then allow her to buy out John. She can leave the home to her sons and John can use the proceeds to purchase a new home with Mary.

Or, do what a judge would recommend. Both parties sell the home and split the proceeds with each party using those proceeds as they see fit, inheritance or otherwise.

 

[Mickey's Minion]

I believe that I agreed with someone else's comments on that specific point. I wouldn't have agreed to such an arrangement, but not everyone sees things the way I do.

IMO, the problem here lies with the husband, not the ex-wife or the new wife. What would the ex-wife do if something happened to her children's father? She would be forced to come up with a new arrangement. Things happen. Life situations change. It's clearly causing a problem for the new wife, even if she knew what she was getting herself into. The husband has to consider all of his children.

Who is to say he is not providing for his new child. The OP never said he is not. There very well may be insurance policies, savings accounts in place for the new baby.

The only thing the OP said is that Mary is bothered by living in a house that is not in her name. It is the issue of ownership of the house that is bothering Mary.

As for the analogy that the baby should get an amount equivalent to half the value of the house, that is completely wrong.

IF the house would be sold today for $200.00, John would receive $100 and Jane would receive $100.

So, John would contribute $50.00 to each child. So, the two boys from the previous marriage would each get $100, $50 from Jane and $50 from John.

If John wanted to, he could then give the new baby an equivalent of what he put into the house, or $50.00. In no way is the baby entitled to the amount of the house that the ex wife invested.

I would still say that the house is a previous investment, made before the new baby existed. That asset belongs solely to the boys from the first marriage.

The baby is entitled to 1/3 of John's estate that has been accumulated post marriage. The baby has no claim to anything that was done before his mother married John.

I have to agree with another poster that it sounds like Jane and John have a mature, well thought out plan.

If Jane is working so many hours, she is putting her kids first by not contesting custody so that the boys have a parent around. Many times, jobs that require extensive travel are also the higher paid jobs. So, Jane was/is probably the main breadwinner of the three

By not demanding the sale of the house to get her share (which she could invest for the boys), it is obvious she is willing to delay the money in order to provide a roof over the heads of not only her Ex Husband and her boys, but also the new wife and her baby. They are only paying rent equivalent to half her condo fees.

With all the money they are saving on rent, it should not be a problem, if salaries are equitable between the three, to make some real estate investments for the new baby so he has a house too. In today's market, there is no better time to purchase an investment property. That way Mary has a house that her name is on the title and her child is ensured a house.

If they don't have the money to make investments for the new child while only paying 1/2 rent, then how in the world are they going to live on their own paying a full mortgage?

The way I read it, Jane is the one being mature, thinking of her kids and their relationship with their father by not contesting custody, delaying the investment income of her half of the house and allowing the new wife and baby to live there for a mere pittance of payment.

FWIW - I would never have agreed to an arrangement where I was living in the ex's house. That is just plain weird.

However, if I had agreed, I would not have tried to get them to change their arrangement.

Being the self-sufficient person that I am, I would just go about making sure myself that my child was taken care of. I would have insurance policies, I would have had a pre-nup that protected MY assets, I would be investing for our child. As everyone else says, it is just a house. I would be buying a beach house or a nice house elsewhere that we could rent out and would be in my name so that John's other boys would not have claim to it if he passed away.

 

[Mickey's Minion]

Oh ... I get it now. Maybe John can afford to give Child #3 the equivalent and maybe he can't. In a perfect world he would but in a real world Mary and John's combined income may not be the same as Jane and John's combined income was. It was their income that purchased and paid for the house.

No, it still does not make sense. Of that $100 each boy received from the sale of the house, $50 of it came from their mother. So, each boy received $50.00 from John, not $100 as the other $50 came from their mother.
So, John would give the third child $50.00, the equivalent of his contribution to each of the other boys' inheritance.

 

[bettymae1121]

Well, it was a stupid set up for John and Jane, they are tied to eachother not just through the kids (which can be tough enough) but through the house now as well. And while Mary went into this eyes wide open...later on having a child with John does change things, especially since the OP later stated that John really wanted a third child with Mary.

Now, at the end of the day, if Jane and John don't want to change the situation with the house, there isn't anything Mary can do about it. While I don't blame Mary from being upset about it, assuming the rest of the marriage is good I think she's a fool for considering divorce over this. What I would tell Mary to do is make sure there is a very large insurance policy to cover Mary and 3rd child should John die (so she can afford a place to live since my gut says Jane would kick her out as soon as the funeral was over...not becase Jane is a witchy ex-wife but because it seems like Jane is very business like and business-wise, that's the best move on her part).

With the inheritance/living question put asside by the insurance policy, the only other real issue is Mary feeling like she's living in another person's home. That's something that she'll have to work through on her own, but one thing I'd recommend, if they haven't done it already, is to redecorate. Maybe even remodel if they have the funds and the current fixtures are a bit dated. Sure, on a remodel she personally won't see any equity out of it, but she WOULD be able to have the home feel more like hers and enjoy it for all the years she does get to live there. Not a perfect solution, but if John and/or Jane won't give, she'd at least be making the most of the situation.

 

[livie1205]

He should NOT be paying any of his ex wifes rent...period.He is taking care of the home and him and his new wife are taking care of the kids.If she can not afford to pay her own rent then they need to sell the home and split the money...that is what they should have done already.When you divorce sometimes the kids have to live in a smaller home or not live in the same life style,thats life.He needs to sell,split the money and buy a home for him and his new wife so it can be split between the 3 kids (if he chooses) or he can leave it to a distant cousin...kids are not OWED a house .
He is remarried,he needs to provide for his wife and help her feel safe.I dont care how many first wives think otherwise...I have a ex and I dont expect anything from him but the CS he is ordered to pay...and thats not alot.