You can reject whatever you like. I'm not a lawyer, but this is what one told me regarding a premarital house in my state:
Once you're married, your new income becomes joint property. If you use that joint income to pay a mortgage or make improvements on the premarital house, you've given them a monetary interest in the house in the case of a divorce. Which actually makes sense, since you used "shared" money on a personal asset.
Likewise, inheritances are considered a personal asset, but if you dump the funds in a joint account, you risk converting them into a joint asset. Google it if you don't believe me.
As I said, it's complicated and varies state to state. You rolling in here with your absolute statement and rude tone is just spreading bad advice and making you look the fool.
You rolling in here with your absolute statement and rude tone
And there is the truth: you got triggered by your perception of my tone, and so you lashed out at me like a jackass. Happens to me ALL the time. I couldn't care less that I triggered you.
If you use that joint income to pay a mortgage or make improvements on the premarital house, you've given them a monetary interest in the house in the case of a divorce.
HUGE climbdown from your stupid and wrong comment that "Premarital assets can turn into community property if you commingle them with marital assets." Owning 2% of a house is different from owning 100% of the house. Also, the community would just be reimbursed for any payments, as opposed to trying to figure out what some percentage it might have in separate property would be worth.
Also, the community would just be reimbursed for any payments, as opposed to trying to figure out what some percentage it might have in separate property would be worth.
And this is how I know it.
Where I live there are multi-page worksheets to determine things like this, before the lawyers even start arguing. Ultimately, the law here is that the division of property is whatever a judge deems to be "equitable".
Any asset that community money touched is subject to that equitable division, regardless of how much each party may have contributed.
I had a friend who got divorced last year who had 50% of his 401K taken, and the wife had zero taken from hers. The judge gave zero fucks how much he or she put in pre-marriage. It was a community asset and thus subject to equitable division. As was hers, but the judge's definition of "equitable" there doesn't match mine.
"We'll it looks like you put $100K into your mortgage after you got married. We don't care that the house has appreciated 300% in the intervening 25 years- $100K to the ex-wife!" Only exists in your fevered imagination.
Again, no one needs to take my word for it. Google it, consult an attorney, read the MGTOW board. Or get divorce-raped; your call.
Not a lawyer, but I did get divorced and I have been to court twice on criminal charges, and if you think anything in court is simple and can't be turned into a cluster fuck you've clearly never been to court.
You can reject whatever you like. I'm not a lawyer, but this is what one told me regarding a premarital house in my state:
Once you're married, your new income becomes joint property. If you use that joint income to pay a mortgage or make improvements on the premarital house, you've given them a monetary interest in the house in the case of a divorce. Which actually makes sense, since you used "shared" money on a personal asset.
Likewise, inheritances are considered a personal asset, but if you dump the funds in a joint account, you risk converting them into a joint asset. Google it if you don't believe me.
As I said, it's complicated and varies state to state. You rolling in here with your absolute statement and rude tone is just spreading bad advice and making you look the fool.
And there is the truth: you got triggered by your perception of my tone, and so you lashed out at me like a jackass. Happens to me ALL the time. I couldn't care less that I triggered you.
HUGE climbdown from your stupid and wrong comment that "Premarital assets can turn into community property if you commingle them with marital assets." Owning 2% of a house is different from owning 100% of the house. Also, the community would just be reimbursed for any payments, as opposed to trying to figure out what some percentage it might have in separate property would be worth.
Yeah, you're an idiot.
And this is how I know it.
Where I live there are multi-page worksheets to determine things like this, before the lawyers even start arguing. Ultimately, the law here is that the division of property is whatever a judge deems to be "equitable".
Any asset that community money touched is subject to that equitable division, regardless of how much each party may have contributed.
I had a friend who got divorced last year who had 50% of his 401K taken, and the wife had zero taken from hers. The judge gave zero fucks how much he or she put in pre-marriage. It was a community asset and thus subject to equitable division. As was hers, but the judge's definition of "equitable" there doesn't match mine.
"We'll it looks like you put $100K into your mortgage after you got married. We don't care that the house has appreciated 300% in the intervening 25 years- $100K to the ex-wife!" Only exists in your fevered imagination.
Again, no one needs to take my word for it. Google it, consult an attorney, read the MGTOW board. Or get divorce-raped; your call.
Not a lawyer, but I did get divorced and I have been to court twice on criminal charges, and if you think anything in court is simple and can't be turned into a cluster fuck you've clearly never been to court.