<p>The husband is suffering from depression. He wants to change his life from a workaholic who makes money to doing something more relaxing and what he feels is more rewarding. Whatever that is. He wants out of the rat race. Right now the husband is not working and doesn’t ever need to work.</p>
<p>The wife likes to spend money. She asked him, “Wouldn’t it be fun to work hard and make money?”</p>
<p>They are not on the same page.</p>
<p>Which gets me to the following…</p>
<p>The wife has 15 percent of the assets in her name. She wants the house transferred to her name. 50 percent of their assets would then be in her name. The rest would be owned as community property. They live in a community property state.</p>
<p>Why would the wife do this? Is she planning a divorce? Why does the wife want 50 percent of the assets in her name?</p>
<p>I’m a little unclear-you say HE doesn’t ever need to work-do you mean THEY have enough money so that HE doesn’t need to work to support them BOTH, or that HE is financially set but she has to rely on his largess? Did they marry late and bring their own assets into the marriage-and why only 15% are in her name, or did he just put most everything in his name because he was the one working?</p>
<p>Could it be that she’s concerned that his depression (sounds untreated) and disinterest in work will leave her struggling for the next X number of years since HE’s financially set but SHE is not?</p>
<p>I’m getting a vibe of “he works, it should be his money” in the OP, but some people look at marriage as a partnership even if both spouses are not actually out there in the working world.</p>
<p>I have no idea whether she plans to leave him, but I have a dear friend with chronic depression, and there’s a reason she’s single. She never knows how long she’ll be well enough to hold a job, much less support someone. If I were depending on her for an income, I’d have a backup plan too.</p>
<p>dstark, I’m certainly not a lawyer, but my understanding of community property is that anything acquired during the marriage belongs to both spouses, regardless of whose name it’s in. I’m not sure that she can take the house out of the joint “pool” merely by taking his name off the title. (Attorneys out there, check me.)</p>
<p>Of course, the house situation is symptomatic of bigger problems. Whether she’s actually plotting a divorce settlement at this point, or wanting more separation within the marriage, it ain’t good. :(</p>
<p>^^^
I believe this is accurate.
However, even when there is a conflict, that can provide the impetus for growth & an opportunity to get closer.
I’d suggest perhaps a counselor though.</p>
If this is about your marriage, why are you seeking opinions from random people on a message board about something as important as your family’s future? Surely there are better resources. How about a therapist to address the depression and a marriage counselor to address what appears to be a total lack of effective communication between spouses?</p>
<p>2, If this isn’t about your marriage, how can this possibly be any of your business?</p>
<p>Could be heading for a divorce, but also could be that the wife is concerned about the husband’s spending or behavior, or wants freedom to spend as she pleases. I am supposedly free to spend as I please, but the reality is that everything is shared, and if the time ever should come that I don’t want to share the infor due to commentary or discussion, I can see wanting my own accounts where the info is truly private. </p>
<p>Though our laws in NY are that just about everything is community property, actually getting the money or the items can be difficult, take years an simply not happen in actuality if things are not actually in someone’s name alone. The reality is that whoever makes the asset grab first has considerable advantage. So, there is a security in having things totally in ones name and sequestered out of reach.</p>
<p>Are you saying that the wife only had 15% of the assets I her name? In this marriage, all of the major assets are held jointly. I’m not sure how everything is worded, but fact is both my name and my husbands is on every major account and asset. If he dies, these pass directly to me, and if I die to him.</p>
<p>“Though our laws in NY are that just about everything is community property, actually getting the money or the items can be difficult, take years an simply not happen in actuality if things are not actually in someone’s name alone.”</p>
<p>New York isn’t a community property state. It’s an equitable distribution state.</p>
<p>If this is a long marriage, I don’t understand why only 15 percent of the asset’s are in one partner’s name. If this is a shorter marriage and/or there was an understanding going in that assets would be kept separate, I don’t understand why there wasn’t a pre-nup.</p>
<p>I don’t think there’s anything so odd about one partner deciding that he/she should own more than 15 percent of the couple’s assets, and I don’t think it necessarily means that person is planning a divorce. If a divorce is in the future, though, I think the wife here is smart not to depend on the state to divide their assets evenly.</p>
<p>We’ve been married a long time, came into the marriage with nothing, and everything we own is in both names. So I don’t understand why the husband here feels uneasy. If what’s keeping them married is that she has only 15 percent of their assets - well, that’s not a good thing either.</p>
<p>Maybe the wife wants to be protected in the event that the hub’s depression takes him to the company of another woman or such behavior as she couldn’t tolerate.</p>
<p>I love my husband madly, but I often think about taking back my name because I loathe his and my kids have never forgiven me for giving it to them!</p>
<p>My husband will retire long before I can and the finances are an issue in that the pension, medical benefits and annuity will be in his name. If we were to divorce, I would certainly get some, but I don’t think we would ever divorce. However, psychologically, I wouldn’t retire with him (and particularly wouldn’t move away) unless there is some protection for me. And I don’t mean legally, that’s there, I mean with a sense of control of my own ability to be financially supported if I were to quit working and rely on my husband for support in that interim period after he could retire and before I could tap my 401-k. We’ve discussed that if we do move (and I don’t think I would ever do it), then the new house would have to be in my name alone.</p>
<p>She may be getting nervous about some of the ideas he is getting that may mean spending a lot of money. I often have to bring my DH down to earth when he brings up some things that others are doing that he thinks we might want to look into, like a second home somewhere or a trip around the world. Yeah, we make enough but we sank it into some things that make it unafffordable. I could see how a wife could get jumpy if hubby quits work and is looking to spend some serious bucks, Maybe she just want so make sure that at least half the assets are protected and in her direct control. Most everything we own is in both of our names, by the way. I only have a pittance in my own name which is just a slush account I opened for accounting reasons and he has a pretty much negligible amount in a business account from when he was running a business. We’re joint everywhere else. I think that if only 15% of the assets were in my name at all, the rest in his, we might address this in getting our financial things in order. That’s not the usual way things work unless one person came into the marriage with substantial assets that were agreed to be kept his/her own, at least not the way most of us who have been married a while have done things. </p>
<p>I wouldn’t mind having a nice little fund of my own that I could spend any way I want to without feeling obligated to let DH know. That the money is in both of our names is a tacit agreement that we share how we spend it though neither of us are that interested in monitoring the others spending and only the big ticket items are brought up. Though in our case, at this time in our lives, it all a moot point, since ALL of the sizeable expenditures are necessities or things we have agreed to support. And come to think of it, if I buy some big thing with any money that 's my own, he’s going to notice it. Anything that isn’t run of the mill and is big ticket would stand out here. Maybe get some work on my face and bod on the sly.</p>
This has recently begun to drive me crazy. In our division of labor, my husband handles the money because I absolutely do not want to, but now he gets texts of every purchase from our joint accounts, so he sees everything. Not that he cares, he doesn’t, but it bothers me. Who knows why all of a sudden? We’ve been married for 27 years and it never bothered me before, but in my late 40s, a lot of things have started to feel constricting.</p>
<p>Possibly they are worried the husband is going to get sued, either professionally or personally. Having most of the money in only the spouse’s name, keeps it out of the settlement figures, but you have to really trust the spouse ;)</p>
<p>I live in a community property state, so putting something in my name alone doesn’t make it mine in event of a divorce. However, you mention the h is suffering from depression. I assume you mean he has be diagnosed by a professional. Is he responding well to treatment? Or is he thinking he’ll just make this change and be all better? Should he become suicidal, would having certain assets in the wife’s name only protect those assets in the event of his death? It is a terrible question to ask, but sometimes, when a loved one has a mental illness, you have to. Could she be trying to protect herself?</p>
<p>My friend is under treatment. It is not going that well.
I am suspicious of the motive of the changing of ownership. </p>
<p>This is a community property state so I don’t know how this prevents sharing of assets at a divorce. I have been told this can change the sharing of assets in a divorce. I could have been given incorrect info though. I don’t know.</p>
<p>This may be a way to protect the wife without a divorce. She does not ever want to sell the house and the husband does. I guess it would be hard to sell a house without title.</p>