Quote:
Originally Posted by AGDee
Because he could still walk away and buy a house with his cash. You act like he's not working and doesn't have a 401K. He'll be paying half what he's paying now for housing. I just put 50% down on a house that he'll end up inheriting when we get married. Why would I give him all of that without being married? Seriously??
|
This is exactly the problem though. You’re talking about him inheriting a house you already control, like he’s your kid waiting on the will to be read. A fiancé shouldn’t be paying rent to prove himself worthy of a deed.
You keep saying he’s fine because he’s got a 401k, equity, and cash. But you notice how all his assets are liquid and shrinking while yours are tied up in a house that’s growing? You’re secure no matter what. He’s gambling everything on you. That’s not balance, it’s leverage.
And the whole “why would I give him that without marriage” line? Flip it. Why should he give up his house, his equity, and his independence for a camper and a rent receipt? See, that’s the part you never answer. Because deep down you know, it’s lopsided. Sounds like your playing landlord, not partner.
Call it whatever you want, but at the end of the day he’s your fiancé on paper and your tenant in practice.
And let me ask you this, if he’s all in, ready to marry you tomorrow, why aren’t you? Why is he risking everything while you’re still holding back?
Quote:
Originally Posted by agzg
You're coming at this from the view of a single guy with no kids. Two adults made a plan together about their assets and are carrying out that plan. Considering they both have adult children to consider, this plan protects both sets of kids in the event one of them passes away before they get married.
FWIW my dad paid rent to his now wife while they lived together briefly after he sold his house and before they were legally married. When they got married he used the proceeds from the sale of my childhood home to "purchase" half his wife's house, refinance the remainder of the mortgage and put himself on it, and put himself on the deed to create a "stake" for me and my brother if he passed. They did a bunch of estate planning as well to protect both sets of kids, including what's to be done with any remaining inheritance he got when my mom died.
Just because someone does something differently than you would doesn't mean they haven't put a lot of thought into the way they approach financial decision-making like this.
|
No argument there. But let’s separate two things here. Estate planning and current ownership. Those aren’t the same.
Right now, dude is fine, because I don’t think he’s sold his house yet. That asset is still in his name, which means he’s protected if this ended tomorrow. But the second he sells, the balance flips. His equity becomes cash, and cash bleeds fast when rent, bills, and a depreciating camper are eating at it. On the other end, AGDee keeps her name on a house that’s gaining value. She’s secured, he’s exposed.
You brought up your dad’s situation. The difference there is critical because he eventually bought into the house, got on the deed, refinanced, and created legal rights. That’s when it became balanced. Before that, he was just a renter too. Same principle here. Until dude’s name is on the deed, this arrangement is one sided.
Estate planning for kids is important, but that’s not what this is. Protecting inheritances can be done with trusts, wills, and prenuptial agreements. None of those require charging your fiancé rent or keeping ownership lopsided.
Two adults can make whatever plan they want, but legally, this is off balance. Today, he’s still safe because his house is his. Tomorrow, once it’s sold, he’s giving up ownership and independence for a rental arrangement while she holds the asset. Love can be equal, but deeds don’t lie, and right now, only one name’s on it.