Interesting Arrangement

[sumdumguy]

So... A guy brings a new woman out to live with him at his ranch (he’s had 2 before her). Before he lets her move out there, he insisted she buy half the ranch so she sold the house in the city and “invested”.

[farmaholic]

Matrimonial property and common law property rights are so outdated it isn't even funny.

No one should be "entitled" to anything from simple "osmosis" or squatters "rights".

It gets especially retarded when it comes to post marriage family inheritance.....

[blackpowder]

Actually not a terrible idea.

[sumdumguy]

No risk there now 😎 If you know what I mean. In the seventies we thought it was cool to have marriage contracts, so my friend had an “open marriage” contract. They are still happily married almost 50 years. Another contract, “ The one who leaves this partnership, leaves with what they came”. No breaking up a lifetime of hard work. Also they are happily married for 48.7 years. Just interesting and saying.

[blackpowder]

Times sure change.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Just comparing the cost of a typical ranch, with the value of a typical house in town ( which likely has a substantial mortgage against it), forces me to two conclusions:

1) This being woman #3, so woman #1 and #2, already each took half of what was left of the ranch, so the value at this point is small enough that woman #3 can buy half of the remaining quarter since it is only 1/8 the original value. The rancher is obviously a fast learner, only took 3 times.

2) Woman #3 has been through this a time or two before, and using the proceeds from the previous ventures, can afford to buy half of a ranch, possibly from having earned half a ranch by similar means in past relationships.

[wmoebis]

Just comparing the cost of a typical ranch, with the value of a typical house in town ( which likely has a substantial mortgage against it), forces me to two conclusions:

1) This being woman #3, so woman #1 and #2, already each took half of what was left of the ranch, so the value at this point is small enough that woman #3 can buy half of the remaining quarter since it is only 1/8 the original value. The rancher is obviously a fast learner, only took 3 times.

2) Woman #3 has been through this a time or two before, and using the proceeds from the previous ventures, can afford to buy half of a ranch, possibly from having earned half a ranch by similar means in past relationships.

Yep I know a guy that is paying monthly mortgages on three houses and living in his car. He won't even date without proof she has her own furniture.

[sumdumguy]

He’s on his turd and her too.

[Maver]

Yup, 6 months of holding down your couch while hanging out on Facebook and Twitter and she is entitled to half of every thing you have. Including the land etc your parents, grandparents and great grandparents slaved and sacrificed for their entire lives. Truly sickening!

I had a neighbor get divorced, then every woman after that had to keep a place in town . And was only allowed to sleep over x number of nights per month. Not sure if it worked.

[farmaholic]

Why does this topic seem so taboo?

Sharing equally in growth of assets after marriage doesn't mean both parties contributed equally to that growth.

Also, "Homestead Rights" need to be redefined. To something like "Heritage Rights". Think about that for a while!

A home quarter should have no more value in a divorce where there is unequal contribution than an average house in town or the city.....