Your Opinion - Another Divorce Situation

[wdwfan16]

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

I can see why. They want their sons to grow up in their childhood home and not be moved around.

 

[wdwfan16]

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.

I agree with this:

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 would have never married him.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

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.

I do agree with you.

However is a life insurance policy the way to go? The DH could change the beneficiary status at any time probably without the consent of his wife, yes?

A trust fund would be a legally binding agreement with full protection, right? I know you can change a trust however if it needs to be change with dh/wife then she should be confident that the money is safe.

I have neither so I am not sure what would be the right protection for long term.

 

[Gigi22]

Well, it would certainly be in John's interest to reassure Mary that he wants to take care of her and their child. An insurance policy would be a way to do so.
A trust fund may have tax implications for Mary. In Ontario (the location of the OP), proceeds from an insurance policy with a designated beneficiary (not John's estate) do not pass through the estate, go directly to Mary as the beneficiary, and do not incur "probate" fees. So, fairly advantageous to Mary--and if Jane is angry (would this be likely?) at Mary, Jane cannot prevent the insurance from being paid out. Settling even a pretty simple estate can take approximately a year, especially to get the final tax release from Revenue Canada (our equivalent of the IRS).

 

[lillygator]

I would have never married a man who kept his e wife on the deed and paid for her half of rent in her new place. EVER! What is he holding on to her for?

they need to sell the house and split the money, if both want to leave the money to their boys that is fine.

 

[ols386]

I'm surprised that when they got divorced, if he stayed in the house, at that point in time (as part of the divorce settlement), he didn't just go ahead and pay the ex-wife her share of the equity in the house, and have her name removed.

When my ex and I divorced, that's the way it worked. He stayed in the house and paid me 1/2 of the equity value of the house. It wasn't until a couple years later that he had my named officially/legally removed from the deed/title. Not sure why he waited to have my name removed. I think we just procrastinated on that part of it.

 

[bunny]

As a second wife myself, I can completely understand Mary's change of heart. I moved into my husband's former martial home and hated living in another woman's house. After a lot of marriage counseling, my husband and I both agreed that the best thing for everyone involved was for us to have a fresh start as a new family. Fortunately he had already paid his ex for her 1/2 of the house, so we didn't have that to contend with.

Yes, Mary "knew" what his arrangement was, but until she actually lived there, she didn't "know" what that emotionally felt like. Situations change. Marriage is not a business arrangement. If her husband is putting his house before her and their new child, he is the one throwing the marriage away. He made a new family with her and their new family deserves its own place to live. The situation has already changed for her stepchildren. They are part of this new family too. They have a new stepmom and a new half sibling.

This whole arrangement is stupid. Nobody's worth should be wrapped up in a house they can never sell. They should sell the house and split the proceeds according to what they contributed. If they paid for it out of normal family income, then they both deserve half. If Mary paid more from an inheritance, she should get more back. Then if John has custody, he and Jane need to decide on child support and alimony. When John dies (which could be 50 years from now), his will can state how much of his estate goes to each of his children. In the end, he could hypothetically have been married to Jane for 10 years and Mary for 50. He needs to separate his finances from Jane right now.

 

[livie1205]

NO WAY would I have ever let this happen....my dh ex is NOT trustworthy at all and my dh even had to make sure whatever money he left for my dss was out of her reach, my dh would never put me in that kind of mess...that leaves her homeless if he dies.
when dh and I were dating we lived in a townhouse we both paid bills and mortgage on...my dh got it AFTER him and ex sold their house and split the money in their divorce but he got it 4 days before the divorce was final so it said ***** ********* a married man so when we decided to build our home she had to sign off on it...well she THOUGHT she was gonna pull a fast one and said " I want half of the money,its legally mine" oh nooooo my dh filed a emerg order to have a judge make her sign and she signed because she was not owed any of the money...she had never even stepped foot in it.
when dh signed papers for our home now it was before we got married so I was not on them but the next day he went and quit claimed it to both of us so I would feel secure in OUR home...I cant imagine she feels very secure, I get why she is upset.
we have some policies for dss and my ds that are sep from the other stuff but our dd will stay in our home because she will have no other parents to go to and since my parents will be gone and not a big family it will make sure she has somewhere to be...our other kids have their other parents familys and will have somewhere to live.

THAT IS A BIG MESS.....

 

[NHdisneylover]

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

I agree. SOUNDS like (possible we are missing key info) Mary is refusing to consider any middle ground that keeps the home in the names of both John and Jane and eventually going to the children. Since she knew this from the get go if she refuses to find a way to work with it that is her problem not John's and certainly not Jane's.


Yes, things change and emotions change. BUT for big items like this--especially when the involve parties not a part of the marriage, you HAVE to agree to those items not changing. I think it should have been obvious coming into the situation that this was not a "well if I change my mind about having kids we can work it out later" sort of thing. Gosh, I do not think you should get married thinking it is going to be possible to get your new spouse to drop a bad habit like tracking mud in the house (if you know he does it and you can't live with it, try to change it before the wedding, learn to live with it or don't get married) much less thinking it is okay to change their custody and housing agreements with their ex.

 

[livie1205]

As a second wife myself, I can completely understand Mary's change of heart. I moved into my husband's former martial home and hated living in another woman's house. After a lot of marriage counseling, my husband and I both agreed that the best thing for everyone involved was for us to have a fresh start as a new family. Fortunately he had already paid his ex for her 1/2 of the house, so we didn't have that to contend with.

Yes, Mary "knew" what his arrangement was, but until she actually lived there, she didn't "know" what that emotionally felt like. Situations change. Marriage is not a business arrangement. If her husband is putting his house before her and their new child, he is the one throwing the marriage away. He made a new family with her and their new family deserves its own place to live. The situation has already changed for her stepchildren. They are part of this new family too. They have a new stepmom and a new half sibling.

This whole arrangement is stupid. Nobody's worth should be wrapped up in a house they can never sell. They should sell the house and split the proceeds according to what they contributed. If they paid for it out of normal family income, then they both deserve half. If Mary paid more from an inheritance, she should get more back. Then if John has custody, he and Jane need to decide on child support and alimony. When John dies (which could be 50 years from now), his will can state how much of his estate goes to each of his children. In the end, he could hypothetically have been married to Jane for 10 years and Mary for 50. He needs to separate his finances from Jane right now.

 

[Disney Doll]

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.

I feel for Mary & agree that it seems like he is more concerned with his kids from his 1st marriage though. Would it be a deal-breaker? Well, that depends on how the rest of their marriage is. It might be....

As it stands now, John and Jane are setting up huge resentment between the half-siblings. It's going to be 2 against 1.

 

[Mickey's Minion]

I do agree with you.

However is a life insurance policy the way to go? The DH could change the beneficiary status at any time probably without the consent of his wife, yes?

A trust fund would be a legally binding agreement with full protection, right? I know you can change a trust however if it needs to be change with dh/wife then she should be confident that the money is safe.

I have neither so I am not sure what would be the right protection for long term.

If Mary took out the policy on John, according to our agent, neither John nor Jane could change the beneficiary.

My mother has a life insurance policy that she took out on my brother with herself and his children's trust (children from a previous marriage) as the beneficiaries. New wife (no kids) has the idea that a wife's claim on assets, even pre-marital assets, will take precedence over the will. And she believes she is entitled to control over the estate if something happens to my brother, regardless of what he has in his will. Nice lady, great step-mother, but just a bit confused

Consequently, to make sure the kids are taken care of in case the wife ties things up in court, my mother took out her own policy on my brother. According to the insurance agent, since she took out the policy and she is making the payments, and she determined the beneficiaries, there is nothing my brother or his wife can do about the payout.

He said that is why the wife or husband killers can take out policies on their spouses without them knowing about it so that they can profit from their deaths

 

[Mickey's Minion]

As a second wife myself, I can completely understand Mary's change of heart. I moved into my husband's former martial home and hated living in another woman's house. After a lot of marriage counseling, my husband and I both agreed that the best thing for everyone involved was for us to have a fresh start as a new family. Fortunately he had already paid his ex for her 1/2 of the house, so we didn't have that to contend with.

Yes, Mary "knew" what his arrangement was, but until she actually lived there, she didn't "know" what that emotionally felt like. Situations change. Marriage is not a business arrangement. If her husband is putting his house before her and their new child, he is the one throwing the marriage away. He made a new family with her and their new family deserves its own place to live. The situation has already changed for her stepchildren. They are part of this new family too. They have a new stepmom and a new half sibling.

This whole arrangement is stupid. Nobody's worth should be wrapped up in a house they can never sell. They should sell the house and split the proceeds according to what they contributed. If they paid for it out of normal family income, then they both deserve half. If Mary paid more from an inheritance, she should get more back. Then if John has custody, he and Jane need to decide on child support and alimony. When John dies (which could be 50 years from now), his will can state how much of his estate goes to each of his children. In the end, he could hypothetically have been married to Jane for 10 years and Mary for 50. He needs to separate his finances from Jane right now.

What if they sell the house, give Jane her significant share and then can only afford to move to a small apartment in a questionable area with a poor school system? Since we don't know the whole situation, this could be a possibility. That Mary and John just don't have the means to afford a house in the same area and same school district

You think John or Jane would want that for his children? It sounds like John and Mary are getting their cake and eating it too. Their only housing expense is rent equivalent to half of Jane's condo fees.

That means that even a condo of their own would be double what they are paying now.

Could they even afford to live elsewhere if they sold the house and still keep the boys in a similar situation?

If the answer is no, then what they are doing is making complete sense. If Mary stands to make more off of selling the house, then there must be a reason she is "allowing" John and Mary to live there pretty much rent free.

Marriage may not be a business deal, but divorce certainly is.

 

[bunny]

What if they sell the house, give Jane her significant share and then can only afford to move to a small apartment in a questionable area with a poor school system? Since we don't know the whole situation, this could be a possibility. That Mary and John just don't have the means to afford a house in the same area and same school district

You think John or Jane would want that for his children? It sounds like John and Mary are getting their cake and eating it too. Their only housing expense is rent equivalent to half of Jane's condo fees.

That means that even a condo of their own would be double what they are paying now.

Could they even afford to live elsewhere if they sold the house and still keep the boys in a similar situation?

If the answer is no, then what they are doing is making complete sense. If Mary stands to make more off of selling the house, then there must be a reason she is "allowing" John and Mary to live there pretty much rent free.

Marriage may not be a business deal, but divorce certainly is.

When John remarried, his and his children's situation totally changed anyway. Even if they have to move to a less expensive part of town, wouldn't that be better than putting his children through another divorce? What about his new child? Does he want him to be a child of divorce also?

A house is a place to live. My husband worried his children would hate moving from their "childhood" home. They cried for about two days and then moved on. Their home life was actually much better since their parents (dad and stepmom) were getting along.

How will John afford to pay Mary if he is that cash poor? He will definitely owe Mary child support and possibly alimony. He may not even be able to afford to pay Jane anymore and continue to live in this house.

 

[auntie]

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?

I agree. In most divorce situations I'm familiar with, the primary residence was sold. Didn't matter whether it was paid in full, or there was a mortgage on it. Any proceeds should have been split between John and Jane at that time..and they each should have moved into separate residences, each at their own expense. OR..one spouse buys the other out of the home, should one of the spouses choose to remain in the residence. Which if John wanted to do with the kids..he should have bought his first wife out at that time.

While..it did seem to work initially, as soon as one of them moved on..and started a family, there were bound to be complications. While your cousin should have seen it as an issue before the marriage..that ship has already sailed. I don't blame here for feeling that she's living in someone else's home. She is. It will never be hers, or something that belongs to her and her husband.
John, should buy his first wife out of the house. He can remain there with his children from his first marriage..and your cousin and their child. All three of the children would get a share of the house when the time comes.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Well, it would certainly be in John's interest to reassure Mary that he wants to take care of her and their child. An insurance policy would be a way to do so.
A trust fund may have tax implications for Mary. In Ontario (the location of the OP), proceeds from an insurance policy with a designated beneficiary (not John's estate) do not pass through the estate, go directly to Mary as the beneficiary, and do not incur "probate" fees. So, fairly advantageous to Mary--and if Jane is angry (would this be likely?) at Mary, Jane cannot prevent the insurance from being paid out. Settling even a pretty simple estate can take approximately a year, especially to get the final tax release from Revenue Canada (our equivalent of the IRS).

I get it. She needs to take out a policy on him. Absolutely should that no matter what.

 

[Mickey's Minion]

When John remarried, his and his children's situation totally changed anyway. Even if they have to move to a less expensive part of town, wouldn't that be better than putting his children through another divorce? What about his new child? Does he want him to be a child of divorce also?

A house is a place to live. My husband worried his children would hate moving from their "childhood" home. They cried for about two days and then moved on. Their home life was actually much better since their parents (dad and stepmom) were getting along.

How will John afford to pay Mary if he is that cash poor? He will definitely owe Mary child support and possibly alimony. He may not even be able to afford t.o pay Jane anymore and continue to live in this house.

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.

 

[robinb]

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.

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 .

 

[bunny]

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.

If her only concern were her children, she should have tried harder to make her marriage work. Secondly, she should have kept primary custody. She moved out of this house, works at a job which keeps her away from home a lot and is allowing John and Mary raise her kids. For some reason I don't think she is doing this only for her children.

Also divorce is hell on kids whether it is their parents or their stepparents. Moving not so much.

 

[dislaney]

I would hope if I was a second wife, my husband would want to take care of my child as well as any other children he may have. The whole house situation would have been a deal breaker for me right from the beginning, children or no children. That being said, they do now have a child and if my husband wouldn't or couldn't make me feel like my child and I were taken care of I wouldn't be married to him for long.