If you and your brother's buy a house (joint partnership) can your wife get anything?

FatViking

New Member
Thanks to all that respond
icon7.png
 
Thanks to all that respond

You're welcome, but...

"If you and your brother's buy a house (joint partnership) can your wife get anything?"

Your brother's what? Or was your use of an apostrophe in error and you really meant "you and your brothers" (i.e., you and two or more male siblings)?

"Can your wife get anything?" I'm sure she can, but you'll have to elaborate as to what you're talking about.

What does this have to do with Government & Administrative Law > Other Governmental Matters?
 
You're welcome, but...

"If you and your brother's buy a house (joint partnership) can your wife get anything?"

Your brother's what? Or was your use of an apostrophe in error and you really meant "you and your brothers" (i.e., you and two or more male siblings)?

"Can your wife get anything?" I'm sure she can, but you'll have to elaborate as to what you're talking about.

What does this have to do with Government & Administrative Law > Other Governmental Matters?
Can she claim anything of the property if it's not in her name?
 
Can she claim anything of the property if it's not in her name?

Yes, she can definitely claim it. Whether her claim would be successfully upheld is a different question, and one that we really can't answer without reviewing all of the pertinent facts. You should consult with an attorney about the matter.

EDIT: And what does this have to do with Governmental Matters?
 
Actually Blue sort of did say that.
No, blue said she has a legal claim. That is all.

The mistake blue made was speaking of the OP's "half", when she should have spoken of the OP's portion/share/percentage of ownership. I don't believe that the OP is getting half the property because the OP speaks his multiple siblings.
 
No, blue said she has a legal claim. That is all.

The mistake blue made was speaking of the OP's "half", when she should have spoken of the OP's portion/share/percentage of ownership. I don't believe that the OP is getting half the property because the OP speaks his multiple siblings.
Stop being quicker than me...it's getting tiring. :p
 
Well...I said it was marital property and she had a legal claim. I didn't say that a judge would hand it over to her. Fact is that the property in question WILL become part of the assets of the marriage ...whether or not fat vikings STBX get's a piece of it is up to the judge.

Your use of the word "half" in referring to the OP's percentage of ownership may have misled those who read it in to thinking that you stated that she has a legal claim to half of it.

Actually, if the partnership is formed correctly (with proper waivers signed, etc.), then the wife may have no claim.
 
Your use of the word "half" in referring to the OP's percentage of ownership may have misled those who read it in to thinking that you stated that she has a legal claim to half of it.

Actually, if the partnership is formed correctly (with proper waivers signed, etc.), then the wife may have no claim.
Thank you. That is all.
 
Can she claim anything of the property if it's not in her name?

Are you thinking death or divorce? Because there is a difference...

But assuming that you are thinking about divorce...

An asset purchased during the marriage with marital funds would be a marital asset. In the event of a divorce, New York expects that the marital assets be divided equitably. This does not necessarily mean equally. If her shoe collection would make Imelda Marcos green with envy, and the shows were purchased during the marriage with marital funds, then those would be marital assets too. But they probably wouldn't fit you, and you probably wouldn't want them. But the value of the collection is taken into account when determining what would be an equitable distribution. So, if her bag and shoe collection together, plus her car are worth more than everything "in your name" that's a marital asset, she might come out of it owing you. Or you might come to a division that's not strictly "equitable" but that you both can agree with.

Now, you might argue that marital funds weren't used. However, if money you earned during the marriage was used, that muddies the waters enough that it's usually not worth arguing.

When it's worth arguing: when the marriage is very short, and very little to no marital funds were used.

When it's not worth arguing: when the person you're arguing with is going to be unreasonable and unwaveringly stubborn, and it will cost you more in legal feels than the asset in dispute is worth.
 
Back
Top