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Matrimonial property and common law property rights are so outdated it isn't even funny.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

[sumdumguy]

I once attended a lawyer presentation on succession. She gave us an example of an older couple with an adopted son. They owned land very near the city where they spent all their time. When the son got married, they turned the title over to the son. Well, his new wife grew bored of him very soon, chased the parents out, accused him of assault and sued for divorce. He was so despondent that he gave her the farm and left and the parents could never set foot on the farm again. Though that session was about 40 years ago, I never forgot the point of that example.

[blackpowder]

And sometimes it works fairly. Yes it can.

Second hand stories have less value.
Often the people in the most trouble at one point did more talking than listening.
And I've seen the wife get shafted too. Yup. Many scenarios. But if you are combative it will cost you more.
And then the guideline income for support can leave you breathless.
And then there's the lawyers who are just real SOBs.

Point is, I think today farmers in general are more informed.
If you're creating a new legal entity ( marriage), and share title on the old homestead, you're uneducated.

[farmaholic]

Is what you're saying, see a lawyer prenuptual before you see a marriage counsellor post-nuptual to try to save the farm....lol.

What you brought into it is yours and visa versa("home"stead I assume usually exempt unless stipulated(???---explain blackpowder) and then might need to be expensively defended in court), what comes after that magic date is always in question. Uneven contribution, family inheritance, using prenuptial assets to accumulate more wealth post-nuptual.....seems courts may not care and decide it's easier to cut it down the middle than determine the value of each party's contribution......even if it was grossly unfair!

[farmaholic]

Adult child inherits 4 quarters of land in 1985 worth about $200k from parents, after 35 years of marriage spouse goes splits-ville....land worth 1.6 million, now what? Doesn't matter if child is farming or not..... In this case it also doesn't matter much if the land was inherited pre or post marriage.....$200K difference, who has $700K to buy out the spouse.

[macdon02]

Adult child inherits 4 quarters of land in 1985 worth about $200k from parents, after 35 years of marriage spouse goes splits-ville....land worth 1.6 million, now what? Doesn't matter if child is farming or not..... In this case it also doesn't matter much if the land was inherited pre or post marriage.....$200K difference, who has $700K to buy out the spouse.

The only thing that would wreck it, is the entire gig blows up, meaning dollars buy more then it did 20 years ago. So if you can see 25 cent Big Macs coming back, it won't work. It's possible but today im gonna say no. Assets win, is the trend, why the poor stay poor and the rich get richer. A govt check will never lead you to riches.