Lets say a man owns his own home, which he built literally with his own 2 hands and it is completely paid for. Well he meets and marries a woman who, after moving in with him, loses her mobile home by repossession and sells her land. The woman 2 children (12 and 16) from a previous marriage. After a year of marriage, the husband puts the wife’s name on the house along with his because all is going well. But, the next year there is trouble in paradise and they decide to divorce. Who is entitled to the home? The man who built it and had lived in it for more than 20 years, or the woman?
Pyar, I am just looking for different opinions. : )
K, this isn’t about me! I’m not married, lol.
And the house is in Georgia, USA.
Related posts:
I would think he should-after all, he built it and paid for it. Just because he put her name on the house doesn’t mean that she should take the house.
the man of course. if that money grubbing gold digging witch doesnt see that then she is a btch
the girl llllllllllllllllllllllllllllloooooooooooooooooollllllllllllllllllllllll
The man should
Fair is fair .. I think you already know the answer to this , Missy.
It depends on who left the relationship and moved out first. In other words, Say you guys decided on a divorce and the man moved out of the house. You would get the house.
What state do you live in ? Typically , if you had property that was just yours before marriage , you would keep it.
The man deserves the house, but unfortunately the courts don’t always see it that way. However a judge decides to split the assets is how it will be.
if he put her name on the property she gets half. but its not fair but life isn’t fair. she should move out and let him keep what was his.
If the man is dead the woman can have it.
The man can have it. If the woman works for more than ten years, she has some shares of it.
It should go to the man. If I were that guy and the wife was taking the house from me… I would honestly tear the house apart with my bare hands and tell her she could have it how it started.
The only opinion in this case that would matter is the judge’s – which would be based on state laws. In most states, marital property in both names is split evenly – so they would sell the house and divide the profits.
In a case like this, the man – who clearly had more to lose – should have insisted on a prenuptual agreement to keep his property where it belonged. If he allowed himself to be so “in love” that he didn’t realize that a single mother of two who had her trailer repossessed might be a bad partner – well, then he should just consider the loss of his house as a sort of “stupid tax.”
Whoever buys it gets it and because the dork put her name on the deed they each get half the proceeds of the sale.
Georgia is not a community property state; therefore, in theory any distribution of assets would be done on a equitable basis. An attorney will assist in protecting one’s rights and assets, especially those brought into a marriage.