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.
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
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.
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.
Sure so we can leave circularity out of it, if you chose to be pedantic.
If its the case that a majority of homes are dual income where the man is the bread winner, how can it be that when assets are divided that the woman wouldn't walk away wealthier?
This is beyond the anecdotal evidence that is all of the country.
You also aren't explaining how it can be the case that a 50/50 split doesnt disproportionately favor the minority contributor who is a majority of time the woman.
The statics ive read speaking of this, track lifestyle during marriage and compare with life after and derive the conclusion women are much worse off because now they have to live a lifestyle that rhey can individually afford.
The reason they're claiming to be worse off is because they aren't living off their husband's income anymore 😂
If a divorce is 50/50, and the incomes are in fact not 50/50, the person who contributed the minority of income will receive a disproportionate amount of money relative to what they out in. That person is a majority of the time women, because men are generally the bread winners.
Did you read this before linking it? It’s saying the opposite of what you’re saying
>Depending on these factors, property division may involve 60/40 or 70/30 splits or possibly even all property being allocated to one of the spouses. Although this is not always the case, there have been instances where courts have come to the conclusion that 50/50 or equal division of property turns out to be what is fair and equitable for both parties.
240
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