Separate property in marriage?

[Kent]

I have not had success in the area of courting. I believe it is due to the fact that I own a house and have a few hundred thousand in equity in it and I insist on it staying "sole and separate property" if we get married. The relationship always goes sour shortly after I tell the women my intentions regarding that. They presume that it will become theirs (community property) but I want to keep it separate. This has happened to 3 women so far and I don't know what to do. I thought about letting women assume that it would become community property until we get married but that wouldn't be honest.

Any advice?

What exactly do you mean about it being 'sole and separate?' And what exactly do you tell your ladies 'sole and separate' means? If you just mean you aren't bringing them on to the deed and that the property is an investment (and you two will live together elsewhere) I neither see the problem nor do I see why they would have a problem (unless they're gold diggers). But if you're opaque about the matter, I can see a lady being put off. She will naturally wonder why her husband owns another house about which she has no information nor claim.

[james03]

Not sharing your castle with her is reducing her to a whore

You might want to reexamine your logic there.

[james03]

I have not had success in the area of courting. I believe it is due to the fact that I own a house and have a few hundred thousand in equity in it and I insist on it staying "sole and separate property" if we get married. The relationship always goes sour shortly after I tell the women my intentions regarding that. They presume that it will become theirs (community property) but I want to keep it separate. This has happened to 3 women so far and I don't know what to do. I thought about letting women assume that it would become community property until we get married but that wouldn't be honest.

How long did you date them, on average, how many dates did you go on before having these serious discussions?
Are you using the term"courting" to allow you to be a chicken and not ask them out, or have you actually dated any women?
Why in the heck are you talking finances with a woman?  Nothing good can come of that.
Were you engaged when you discussed finances?
Have you ever been engaged?

If you want to do the proper thing, don't talk to her about finances and put her in your will, with stipulations that she gets nothing if she files for "anullment". 
And yes, you need to have a family home together and she should be on the deed for that.

I suspect there is a lot more to fix here than this house issue.

[Daniel]

What exactly do you mean by "community property"? Sorry, but I'm not familiar with how property laws work in Spain or Latin America. But that phrase in English seems to carry with it implications that I don't think you're trying to imply.

It works the same as in California and Texas as it does in Mexico or Spain.

Maybe somebody else does, but I do not. It's just that this is how marriage has always been understood. "Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh." (Genesis 2:24) The husband and wife are no longer two separate autonomous individuals, but are a single family and must act as one family unit. To say that the family's head should be entitled to his own property is about as crazy as saying that a man's physical head should be entitled to its own separate blood supply.

That says nothing about finances. Care to explain why you think that separate property held by a married person is wrong but the Catholic Church in the USA, Latin America, and Iberia has been silent on it for over 1,000 years?

Again, if it's a legal thing then I am not familiar with those laws. Would you care to explain how it works? From your posts, the impression that I get is that when the husband and wife get married, all their property remains separate unless (and until) the owner agrees to make it "community property" (thereby surrendering ownership of half of it to the spouse)

I've already given my best guess as to why the Church has been silent: these laws (if I'm understanding them correctly) undermine the family structure, so the Church doesn't force us to play along. This doesn't mean the Church approves of separate property; it just means that the Church tolerates it since the government doesn't provide an alternative (the government gives only two options, both of which are bad. Separate property is bad insofar as it treats the married persons as autonomous individuals rather than as a single corporate unit (thereby depriving the family of what it's due); "community property" is also bad in that it denies the family's hierarchical structure (thereby robbing the head of what he's due)).

Only a guess.

But anyway, I don't see why finances would be any different than anything else. The point of marriage is to give yourself completely to your family. This includes every aspect of your life. You can't pick and choose what things to give to your family and what things to keep for yourself.

[christulsa]

Brandy: Hi GiftofGod

GiftofGod: Hi. I like the shirt you're wearing in your Catholic Match pic.  By the way, I own a castle in Spain.  Just to be up front, if you marry me, I would not put your name on the deed per the legal tradition of the Iberian peninsula.  Is that cool?

Brandy:  ugh, no.  That sounds weird.  Bye.


Tina: Hi GiftofGod

GiftofGod: Hi. I like the tree you're standing next to in your Catholic Match pic.  By the way, I own a castle in Spain.  Just to be up front, if you marry me, I would not put your name on the deed per the legal tradition of the Iberian peninsula.  Is that cool?

Tina: whoa.  That reminds me of that guy at the end of the movie Patch Adams who owns a big house, and invites the girl back to his house, and then, well you know the ending.  You sound like a real nice guy, but I have to go wash my hair.  Bye.


Teresa:  Hi GiftofGod

GiftofGod:  Before we make introductions, me lady, I must be forthcoming and tell you I own a castle in Spain.  if you marry me, I would not put your name on the deed per the legal tradition of the Iberian peninsula.  Is that agreeble?  Yes or No?

Teresa:  No.  Good by, GiftofGod.  God bless you.


Moral of the joke: work on your Game.  Every man must develop that Art until they die.  Buy The Book.   

And welcome to the forum! 

[james03]

LOL.  Sometimes showing them is the best way.

GiftofGod, maybe that was exaggerated (hopefully), but this way too serious of a discussion for a girl that wants to get to know you over say a year.

[christulsa]

I'd say it's a safe bet this was told early on for all 3 girls, before getting serious with them, hence the sarcastic joke to make that point.  Am I right GoG?

An alternative approach, once you do get serious with the girl, just let her know of the equity in the house and plan to rent it to help support your family, and ask casually if she thinks that the girl you marry should also have her name on the deed.  Not of the house you live in, but the rental.  If she is emphatic yes, and is already materialistic, that's a negative in deciding if she is marriage material.

[queen.saints]

Case #1:

A) Has independently established himself, possessing considerable property and money

B) Has enough basic understanding of the English language to know what "sole and separate property" means

C) Has spent very little time online



Case #2

A) Is not established enough to survive even a short lockdown

B) Does not have a basic understanding of the English language

C) Has spent a great deal of time on the internet



Yet, Case #2 believes they are in a position to lecture Case #1 on his life-skills and respectability.

[Kent]

I have not had success in the area of courting. I believe it is due to the fact that I own a house and have a few hundred thousand in equity in it and I insist on it staying "sole and separate property" if we get married. The relationship always goes sour shortly after I tell the women my intentions regarding that. They presume that it will become theirs (community property) but I want to keep it separate. This has happened to 3 women so far and I don't know what to do. I thought about letting women assume that it would become community property until we get married but that wouldn't be honest.

Any advice?

What exactly do you mean about it being 'sole and separate?' And what exactly do you tell your ladies 'sole and separate' means? If you just mean you aren't bringing them on to the deed and that the property is an investment (and you two will live together elsewhere) I neither see the problem nor do I see why they would have a problem (unless they're gold diggers). But if you're opaque about the matter, I can see a lady being put off. She will naturally wonder why her husband owns another house about which she has no information nor claim.

Marriage involves a sharing of goods, including material goods.  That does not mean you cannot own property in your name, and as head of household it does not mean that you cannot decide how the family's resources are organized and used.  But it does mean they are the family's, however legalese their actual ownership is or is not. 

[diaduit]

Case #1:

A) Has independently established himself, possessing considerable property and money

B) Has enough basic understanding of the English language to know what "sole and separate property" means

C) Has spent very little time online







Case #2

A) Is not established enough to survive even a short lockdown

B) Does not have a basic understanding of the English language

C) Has spent a great deal of time on the internet



Yet, Case #2 believes they are in a position to lecture Case #1 on his life-skills and respectability.

Who is case two?

[diaduit]

Not sharing your castle with her is reducing her to a whore

You might want to reexamine your logic there.

My logic is this, if the man marries his wife and he wants her in his bed, her body and her work but she isn't good enough to share what his assets (and I'm talking a nice trad girl and not a gold digger harlot) then he treats her no different to a harlot.  You want the goodies but she doesn't get to share in it.  IF you are this territorial over what is yours (and I get the apprehension and congratulate you that you have a secure home to provide) its a red flag for territorial over your time, your resources, your wants and needs and it would tell me that you put yourself first.  Sorry but that is what I would advise my daughter if she was in your situation.  And look, 3 girls already ran when they heard the deal....that will tell you something.  If they were secular gold diggers, good riddance but if not, its a lonely house with no one to share it with.

Daniel nails it best with this:


This is completely the wrong attitude. First off, you should be planning for marriage, not for divorce. Second, that's the chance you take when you get married, and is why you shouldn't marry somebody who is foreseeably going to turn against you and proceed to abuse the legal system in order to take what she's not entitled to. But marriage entails sacrifice, and it's not going to work if you're holding back (financially) out of fear that something might go wrong.

[diaduit]

I have not had success in the area of courting. I believe it is due to the fact that I own a house and have a few hundred thousand in equity in it and I insist on it staying "sole and separate property" if we get married. The relationship always goes sour shortly after I tell the women my intentions regarding that. They presume that it will become theirs (community property) but I want to keep it separate. This has happened to 3 women so far and I don't know what to do. I thought about letting women assume that it would become community property until we get married but that wouldn't be honest.

Any advice?

What exactly do you mean about it being 'sole and separate?' And what exactly do you tell your ladies 'sole and separate' means? If you just mean you aren't bringing them on to the deed and that the property is an investment (and you two will live together elsewhere) I neither see the problem nor do I see why they would have a problem (unless they're gold diggers). But if you're opaque about the matter, I can see a lady being put off. She will naturally wonder why her husband owns another house about which she has no information nor claim.

Marriage involves a sharing of goods, including material goods.  That does not mean you cannot own property in your name, and as head of household it does not mean that you cannot decide how the family's resources are organized and used. But it does mean they are the family's, however legalese their actual ownership is or is not.

I think this is important to stress

[GiftOfGod]

What exactly do you mean about it being 'sole and separate?' And what exactly do you tell your ladies 'sole and separate' means? If you just mean you aren't bringing them on to the deed and that the property is an investment (and you two will live together elsewhere) I neither see the problem nor do I see why they would have a problem (unless they're gold diggers). But if you're opaque about the matter, I can see a lady being put off. She will naturally wonder why her husband owns another house about which she has no information nor claim.

You are basically correct in your understanding. I agree that I shouldn't be opaque about it, which is why I let them know.

How long did you date them, on average, how many dates did you go on before having these serious discussions?
Are you using the term"courting" to allow you to be a chicken and not ask them out, or have you actually dated any women?
Why in the heck are you talking finances with a woman?  Nothing good can come of that.
Were you engaged when you discussed finances?
Have you ever been engaged?

5 to 10 dates.

About 3 dates in.

Dates as in asking and actually going on a date together. Of course there is communication in-between dates as well.
Because finances are the #1 reason for divorce in the USA. I want to make sure that she doesn't have any debts and that she realizes that I don't have any bad debts. For obvious reasons she should know that I own my own house, right? Well if she does then she also needs to realize that this house is mine but we will buy another house together, if married.

No.

No.

Again, if it's a legal thing then I am not familiar with those laws. Would you care to explain how it works? From your posts, the impression that I get is that when the husband and wife get married, all their property remains separate unless (and until) the owner agrees to make it "community property" (thereby surrendering ownership of half of it to the spouse)

Your impression and understanding is correct.

I've already given my best guess as to why the Church has been silent: these laws (if I'm understanding them correctly) undermine the family structure, so the Church doesn't force us to play along. This doesn't mean the Church approves of separate property; it just means that the Church tolerates it since the government doesn't provide an alternative (the government gives only two options, both of which are bad. Separate property is bad insofar as it treats the married persons as autonomous individuals rather than as a single corporate unit (thereby depriving the family of what it's due); "community property" is also bad in that it denies the family's hierarchical structure (thereby robbing the head of what he's due)).

Only a guess.

But anyway, I don't see why finances would be any different than anything else. The point of marriage is to give yourself completely to your family. This includes every aspect of your life. You can't pick and choose what things to give to your family and what things to keep for yourself.

If a legal structure undermined the family, don't you think there would be a record of someone, anyone, in the Catholic Church speaking out against it over 1,000 years and dozens of nations? Please provide a Catholic source for your last statement.

Brandy: Hi GiftofGod

GiftofGod: Hi. I like the shirt you're wearing in your Catholic Match pic.  By the way, I own a castle in Spain.  Just to be up front, if you marry me, I would not put your name on the deed per the legal tradition of the Iberian peninsula.  Is that cool?

Brandy:  ugh, no.  That sounds weird.  Bye.


Tina: Hi GiftofGod

GiftofGod: Hi. I like the tree you're standing next to in your Catholic Match pic.  By the way, I own a castle in Spain.  Just to be up front, if you marry me, I would not put your name on the deed per the legal tradition of the Iberian peninsula.  Is that cool?

Tina: whoa.  That reminds me of that guy at the end of the movie Patch Adams who owns a big house, and invites the girl back to his house, and then, well you know the ending.  You sound like a real nice guy, but I have to go wash my hair.  Bye.


Teresa:  Hi GiftofGod

GiftofGod:  Before we make introductions, me lady, I must be forthcoming and tell you I own a castle in Spain.  if you marry me, I would not put your name on the deed per the legal tradition of the Iberian peninsula.  Is that agreeble?  Yes or No?

Teresa:  No.  Good by, GiftofGod.  God bless you.


Moral of the joke: work on your Game.  Every man must develop that Art until they die.  Buy The Book.   

And welcome to the forum!

I'm not autistic, you idiot. I've never used online dating and these conversations occur a few dates in. I also don't get into legal history. I just say "This is my house and when I get married, I am going to rent it out." They ask why. I say "Because I would like to keep the house in my name." They usually reply disapprovingly with an "Oh really?" I respond "Of course, I would use the income on my family and it might even be able to help my wife and I make the mortgage payment on the house we buy together."

I'd say it's a safe bet this was told early on for all 3 girls, before getting serious with them, hence the sarcastic joke to make that point.  Am I right GoG?

You are correct and I didn't know that your previous post was sarcasm until reading this post. I will keep up my response to your previous post because it is an honest reaction.

An alternative approach, once you do get serious with the girl, just let her know of the equity in the house and plan to rent it to help support your family, and ask casually if she thinks that the girl you marry should also have her name on the deed.  Not of the house you live in, but the rental.  If she is emphatic yes, and is already materialistic, that's a negative in deciding if she is marriage material.

I agree with this. Maybe this was my subconscious strategy the whole time that I should refine better.

LOL.  Sometimes showing them is the best way.

GiftofGod, maybe that was exaggerated (hopefully), but this way too serious of a discussion for a girl that wants to get to know you over say a year.

Well if women are getting pissed off weeks into it, why should I hide it from them for a year? To hope that they will love me enough by that time to not care? Sounds dishonest and a recipe for disaster. I am with Kent on this one: I shouldn't be opaque about this.

Who is case two?

If you have to ask...

Not sharing your castle with her is reducing her to a whore

You might want to reexamine your logic there.

My logic is this, if the man marries his wife and he wants her in his bed, her body and her work but she isn't good enough to share what his assets (and I'm talking a nice trad girl and not a gold digger harlot) then he treats her no different to a harlot.  You want the goodies but she doesn't get to share in it.  IF you are this territorial over what is yours (and I get the apprehension and congratulate you that you have a secure home to provide) its a red flag for territorial over your time, your resources, your wants and needs and it would tell me that you put yourself first. 

This is completely the wrong attitude. First off, you should be planning for marriage, not for divorce. Second, that's the chance you take when you get married, and is why you shouldn't marry somebody who is foreseeably going to turn against you and proceed to abuse the legal system in order to take what she's not entitled to. But marriage entails sacrifice, and it's not going to work if you're holding back (financially) out of fear that something might go wrong.

Do you have any Catholic sources for this or are you just going to continue blowing hot air?

Marriage involves a sharing of goods, including material goods.  That does not mean you cannot own property in your name, and as head of household it does not mean that you cannot decide how the family's resources are organized and used. But it does mean they are the family's, however legalese their actual ownership is or is not.

I think this is important to stress

You are assuming that I will not use it for the family's benefit. This is a traditional Catholic forum, so you should be assuming that a traditional Catholic husband would use it for his family's benefit.

[queen.saints]

My logic is this, if the man marries his wife and he wants her in his bed, her body and her work but she isn't good enough to share what his assets (and I'm talking a nice trad girl and not a gold digger harlot) then he treats her no different to a harlot.  You want the goodies but she doesn't get to share in it.  IF you are this territorial over what is yours (and I get the apprehension and congratulate you that you have a secure home to provide) its a red flag for territorial over your time, your resources, your wants and needs and it would tell me that you put yourself first.  Sorry but that is what I would advise my daughter if she was in your situation.  And look, 3 girls already ran when they heard the deal....that will tell you something.  If they were secular gold diggers, good riddance but if not, its a lonely house with no one to share it with.

Daniel nails it best with this:


This is completely the wrong attitude. First off, you should be planning for marriage, not for divorce. Second, that's the chance you take when you get married, and is why you shouldn't marry somebody who is foreseeably going to turn against you and proceed to abuse the legal system in order to take what she's not entitled to. But marriage entails sacrifice, and it's not going to work if you're holding back (financially) out of fear that something might go wrong.

If you reverse the husband and wife positions in this argument, you are looking at almost all civilizations before the late 1800's. A husband born before the past two hundred years would have had complete control over all the joint marriage property without any say from his wife, let alone one house, yet he wouldn't have been accused of being territorial. When the man had the upper hand in the legal system, the woman was entitled to reserve "sole and separate" property for herself, in the event that her husband left her.

This wasn't planning for divorce or being materialistic or treating your husband poorly; it was simply acknowledging the reality of the legal system and human nature, even when men very rarely left their wives. Why shouldn't a man be entitled to some security now that the legal system puts almost all the power in the woman's hands and we have rampant cases of women leaving their husband and impoverishing him?

(And I wasn't referring to you in the earlier post.)

[christulsa]

I want to keep my house as a rental and in my name so that the future income and appreciation is mine. My future wife and I will buy another house together for us to live in. "Sole and separate property" is an old concept from Spain and is does not go against Catholicism, as prenuptial agreements do.

This is the part that stuck out to me, see bold.  Your future income would also be your wife's.  Not just yours.  Apart from legal ownership, she has a moral right to your income once married. 

Who is case two?

LOL.  I wondered the same thing.  Daniel, maybe?  That or could be me.     I don't think 03, because my guess is he's makin' the big bucks.