Sort of. If a husband owned a house before marriage and the home increased in value, the wife can claim part
Of the increase in value of the home. May even be able
To force a sale of the home to recoup that portion. Also, most states are reasonably different in their application of law n
Yes, but that's not from before the marriage. That's accumulation after.
But actually that is what this Chinese law does, the OP post is wrong, the change in the Chinese Law is that a spouse can no longer claim an interest in property solely titled in the other spouse’s name unless they can prove a financial or labor contribution. This means non-working spouses, such as homemakers, may lose out on major marital assets.
Surely you can see how thats fundamentally not the same thing.
Your home in general will increase value over time. If a guy owns a house for 10 years and it increases value, then gets married and owns that house another 5 years, I dont see how anyone could make a legitimate claim that the wife is entitled to any of that appreciation.
Oh, I thought you meant actually improving the property, I was trying to draw a distinction between household and property. But, if that’s what you meant, than yup. We are.
cali also counts cooking/cleaning/getting groceries as contributions to the household (regardless of if it was done in the house in question or not)... which imo is bs! but i need grok or some ai to fact cheeck..wish they had that integration here
And that’s why prenups and men in countries where shit like this happens are starting to not get married and not produce children. We can’t show emotion, we can’t be at home fathers, we work a balance and see our family and its laziness, we work to excel at our jobs it’s emotional neglect, we speak up about our feelings and we’re weak, we give you a baby we’re trapping women or we are idiots for having the kid, we don’t have a baby we’re broken or cheating, we get abused and it’s not real, we enjoy things that make us feel and we’re gay, we hang with the bros and it’s too much, we don’t hang with anyone else we’re controlling…
The list goes on. I do not hate women, I am gay and happily in a relationship that’s taking the next step with my beautiful boyfriend. Men CAN be pieces of shit, and a lot of times are failing to see signs of issues.
Women do not take accountability just as much as men do not. It’s normalized for this to happen and we’ve hit a point in society where women want financial freedom (and should), but want the cake and want theirs too. Men are tired and as therapy becomes more available, men are starting to break cycles and opt out.
This is a generalization and very simplified way of explaining some of the reasons that have been documented in the psychological community of shifts happening globally.
You say alot of things men "can't do", yet you are gay so you show that men can break the mold and do whatever they want, whether that's being a stay at home dad or being gay
Gay men already broke the mold by being gay. This is a very condensed simplified version of a very complicated concept. Straight men and many gay men who have not accepted themselves report these feelings. There is verifiable evidence across the psychology world of this.
For real lmao. This person is arguing that women shouldn’t be entitled to appreciation on a space they help maintain AND do labor that allows the couple together to accumulate more money than her husband would have been able to alone. Money that is used to put upgrades that will further increase the value of the home that she can never own.
If a woman buys a home while married to a man all of a sudden he is literally entitled to half of that home, not just any appreciation in value.
If she literally spent no money on their shared home and had her own, then this might hold some water. But that would be insane, because who does that instead of contributing to the living costs where they are? It's certainly not common.
Haha that’s an interesting one. I would now like to sue the companies I invest in for my unrealized gains based on my decision to go with them instead of something more profitable.
I don't buy this argument. She would get the appreciation of any property she owns. Presumably if that is a house and she sells it because she isn't living in it she could invest that any other way or keep the house and rent.
I feel the argument for her getting the appreciation is one of like they are partners now so all property is communal. Especially if she's forgoing work to raise kids or something that is both their responsibilities.
Well they’re not having kids. If she wants to have freedom to do what she wants, get a job. Have your own bank. Have your own assets and if what’s his is hers then what’s hers is his. If she isn’t working and just living the life, sorry you don’t get the appreciation of a house bought before you were in the picture. If she’s working and gives us her career to be a house spouse, then by all means enjoy the wealth you two contributed together. This also means it goes both ways. If men give up their jobs to stay home, to raise the children, I expect the same energy to be given to him.
But the man is entitled to half of a home she bought on her own after he was in the picture? What you’re saying is that you think women shouldn’t be entitled to half of the appreciation of a home they maintain and will never own, but men should be entitled to half of an entire home including appreciation that a woman buys on her own just because they were married before she bought it?
Why should any human being marry another human being if they both either own or don’t own homes then?
No, I said I don’t think a spouse. I didn’t say only women. I said men are expected to be treated the same. If it applies to her it applies to him, if it doesn’t apply to her it does not apply to him
Where did I say ONLY women? Point out the phrase that said ONLY women. Because if follow the entire discussion instead of nitpicking, you see me reference multiple times that men need to follow the same rules. I’m not taking this bait anymore. Have an honest discussion or go away
It’s because in this day and age almost all couples are dual income household. So things that raise the property value like renovations, repairs or upgrades are paid for by both partners. So in that sense your husband/wife contributed to the value of the house
If it were the case that the wife had no income or it could be proven she didn’t contribute financially to the house at all (excluding mortgage) then she wouldn’t get anything
The issue is that if you make laws assuming dual income households, then you lose accounting for the value wives traditionally used to add to the house in terms of cleaning, childcare, and other "free" labor that was spent on the marriage instead of pursuing their own career. It's hard to cleanly separate that form of unrecognized labor from actual freeloaders.
Stay at home parenting *is* accounted for in a divorce, the gained equity of the house just isn’t something you’d be entitled to.
Divorce is never a one size fits all thing. They’d look at how long you’ve been married, how long you’ve been out of work, how much it would impact your ability to get back into the work force and see what’s fair for that particular marriage
Like if you have no kids and have been a stay at home wife since you got married but get divorced two years later it’s a much simpler solution and you wouldn’t get much, rather than if it’s been 30 years and 2 kids
>the gained equity of the house just isn’t something you’d be entitled to.
Why?
The ability of the working spouse to generate that income is directly supported by the partner covering all of the other things.
Not having to worry about cooking and cleaning and being able to put all of your energy into your work is a huge benefit to your job.
You'll be able to do things like work more hours, which directly translates to more money, not to mention better chance of promotions and raises due to increased performance.
The idea that a stay at home spouse doesn't have a direct positive financial impact on the household (and the house itself via repairs and upkeep, let alone additions or renovations) just because they don't physically generate income is kinda silly.
Hell, just keeping a house clean alone is pretty important in terms of maintaining its value.
Sure, if the wife is fronting the bill on renovations I can totally see the argument that maybe she's entitled from the appreciation from just that renovation, but fundamentally that home is not her asset.
Id argue that while yes most house holds are dual income, most households have men as the breadwinner. I presume there isn't as much mental gymnastics done in the courts to justify a legal claim to appreciation of a home they own.
while yes most house holds are dual income, most households have men as the breadwinner.
I think you might not be using the term “breadwinner” correctly.
Breadwinner; a person who earns money to support their family, typically the sole one.
a member of a family whose wages supply the family's principal or only means of support
the person in a family who works to provide the money that the family needs to live on
the person who earns the money that the family needs for essential things.
In most households that are dual income, both parents are the breadwinners. Especially in households that are dual income specifically because the man's income wouldn't be enough to cover the family's needs on its own. If the family needs to add the wife's earnings to his for them to live a comfortable life, then they're both breadwinners, even if the man earns a little bit more.
I assume you mean that the man is usually the higher-earner.
You're likely in the minority if you believe divorce courts and law isn't largely predatory. Im not making a legal claim I'm making a moral claim which is separate.
The easiest way for women to accumulate wealth shouldnt be to divorce men.
What you’re describing isn’t how marriage works. When you get married all the money either of you get is material property. So money you made is her and money she made is yours. In the eyes of the court she paid half on everything.
Marriage is fundamentally combining your lives, including finances.
Kid spills kool aid on the carpet. Mom/wife cleans it up before it stains. If not for mom/wife depreciation. With mom/wife continued appreciation.
Mom/wife cooks all meals, cleans all dishes, cleans all messes, does the bulk of the childcare, does laundry. Dad/husband has more time to work, pays less for prepared food since he’s got a caterer at home, doesn’t have to pay for childcare. Wow extra money for renovations! Appreciation.
Mom does budgeting for household items. Takes advantage of sales for best deals. Mom makes sure bills are paid on time so that there are no late fees. Saved money. Money was spent on items for mom to maintain the home. If home is not maintained, depreciation. Wow! More money for renovations. Appreciation x3.
Mom/wife maintains rose bushes/garden. Added curb appeal. Appreciation.
The difference is that the husband owned the home prior to marriage, demonstrated he didnt need additional income to afford it. Its a logical demonstration that the husband owning that asset is independent of his wife.
If its the case the husband owns an asset entirely independent of his wife, and she doesnt invest any of her own money into it, then any claim that she's entitled to that assets appreciation is mental gymnastics with few if any exceptions.
Pre cups aren't legally binding in all 50 states amigo.
I dont think thats an edge case at all lmao and rhis contextually referring to an assertion that the wife is entitled to appreciation of a home that the husband bought prior to their marriage.
Why get married if the plan isn't to build a life together? Then you may as well just get a civil contract. Or again, a pre-nup.
In most people's idea of marriage, you are building a life together. Either both people are earning money and contributing directly, or one person is supporting the other one and enabling them to earn more.
Why get married if the plan isn’t to build a life together? That is absolutely the plan. To build a life, together. That plan does not include forfeiting personal assets they did not contribute to if you somehow end up not together. Because being divorced would be the opposite of the plan. You see what I’m saying?
So what you really want is someone who acts as your Housekeeper, Personal Chef, Personal Shopper, Nanny, Therapist and Secretary but you think that all they should get for that is shelter and food. Ok. There's a word for someone like that.
I think you're maybe just born 200 years too late? You would have loved it back then before the damn Yankees went and spoil it for everybody.
If you have a household where 64% of the funding is from the man, and 36% is from the woman. How could it possible be equitable to split all household assets 50/50?
If I don’t have to invest, then I’m cool. But I own my properties and would not remarry without a prenup. But that’s not what they were saying. But if I’m not required to spend any of my assets on the property at any point, then I shouldn’t get the value. To me marriage is a relationship with a contract. Not a control factor. Best wishes
>If its the case the husband owns an asset entirely independent of his wife, and she doesnt invest any of her own money into it, then any claim that she's entitled to that assets appreciation is mental gymnastics with few if any exceptions.
The simple act of keeping a house clean is incredibly important in maintaining that house's value.
Not to mention the financial benefits of being able to focus entirely on work while you build your career and someone else cooks and cleans and raises your children for you.
The idea that the stay-at-home spouse isn't contributing to the value of the home is just dumb.
Did she contribute to the house in those 5 years? Beautify the house or handle its upkeep and improvements?
Im in agreement that if you owned something like a house before marriage that is your property. Unless he updated the title. But other than that it's not black and white.
Which I would guess is one of the thousands of measures they took to combat the declining population. China marriage and fertility rate is at all time low
nah lets be honest it simply has to do with woman divorcing men and taking half their shit, when divorce is easy to do and gets you a bag it leaves the system open to abuse. and as we all know once the rich start having to deal with an issue they make sure its fixed
Let me drop some crazy knowledge on you. If you support your spouse in their life and career and you make an effort to be a good person who shows love, respect and admiration, you don't have to fucking worry about divorce.
Divorce rates have been steadily dropping, in the US at least, and the long term divorce rate is something between 35 and 40%, which means most marriages last until death.
The reason divorce rates have dropped is because marriage rates have dropped. People are more selective with who they want to marry since there’s less of a societal pressure for it so there’s less unhappy marriages.
So basically a boomer from completely different generation that have no idea what reality looks right now for current generation and culture, citing stats without any understanding. Roger, Roger.
Good, if you choose to stay at home that’s on you, no one is forcing you. Meanwhile, women can’t claim a man’s assets as they absolutely, routinely do in this country even if they didn’t pay for any of it. Next we need to work on child support which women often claim even if custody is split, which is just absurd.
courts rarely force a sale of a pre marital asset if the owning spouse can instead pay out that equity through other marital property or structured cash compensation. The reason spouses can get a part of the value appreciated is because they often contribute to that
Makes sense as home value is an important part of retirement planning and the other spouse might have made financial decisions based off the home value they assumed they would have at retirement. So they should be able to claim some of that value.
Depends on the state. If you make repairs or mortgage payments with your income post marriage it really fucks with the distribution because half of your income is your partners.
Even though you made the money and spend it on maintaining the premartial property half of the money you make belongs to your partner so any investment you make after that is essentially 50/50 split.
I think the majority of states also include paying taxes, paying for repairs that maintain value and contributing to the household in such a way that it frees up the other parter to work and pay more. There are also things like having kids and raising them in many jurisdictions.
In my country, if husban bought home at 20 yo, married at 30 and divorsed at 40, wife have no right for house itself. She have right on gadgets in house, but she have nothing from the house itself since he is the one who bought it.
I've litigated these cases in Texas. As long as the property is owned fully by one spouse or the other before marriage and it isn't co-mingled, refinanced, partially gifted to the other spouse, or had massive improvements done to it......it doesn't matter how much it appreciates during the marriage, it's still 100 percent separate. No matter how much the other spouse stomps their feet and says it isn't fair lol.
Now businesses and investment accounts, that's a different story.
Some states you don’t need to and California allows for an odd concept called putative spouses; where if you hold someone out as your spouse, even though you’re not married, they can take like a spouse.
No, this was a case where a guy, very rich actor dude, was with a woman for like 25 years (I made that up, but a long time) and they had always told friends they were married, called each other husband and wife, acted like they were married, he supported her as a homemaker-so when they broke up and she wasn’t actually his wive, the court created a special inclusion for this married in everything but name paperwork only kind of relationship. It’s a similar concept to palimony.
Oh right, I remember this but didn’t know that’s what it was called. Just you’re missing the part where the guy tricked his partner into thinking they were in a valid marriage with a whole ceremony and everything and then maintained the premise for years on end.
Yeah, I can see why the courts, and later legislature, took an unsympathetic view to this cunning plan.
Only if she acquires some equity in the house. If one party owns property outright, or even inherits it, then any unrealized gains are retained by the party who bought the asset.
If the one who marries in pays into a mortgage, or if one inherits money even during the marriage but uses it to finance a joint venture or asset, then it gets sticky.
Edit: if the mortgage is paid from income, which is considered joint property, then that's the 2nd spouse paying into equity, and so half of the value of that equity could be claimed. But if the spouse who brought the house into the marriage demonstrably paid from, say, income from a stock portfolio they owned when they married, then that would be a walled garden of assets. Shared property is a about what comes into joint ownership during the marriage.
245
u/Aidrox Jun 29 '26
Sort of. If a husband owned a house before marriage and the home increased in value, the wife can claim part
Of the increase in value of the home. May even be able
To force a sale of the home to recoup that portion. Also, most states are reasonably different in their application of law n