Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
VeraCaUSA

Texas

12 posts in this topic

If a married individual purchases a house,  yet the spouse is not named on the deed, does he have the right to transfer the property to his son without the consent of his spouse while still married?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very annoying to see you in two threads where the other one suggests you are in Ca and now you indicate Texas.

 

Well, anyway, the Texas Power of Attorney statute is probably similar so hustle yourself down to an attorney's office and see if you can afford to do anything about the likely violations of the Power of Attorney statute.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, pg1067 said:

This post seems very clearly to relate to the same subject matter as this post:

 

 

So why two separate threads?

This post is specifically regarding the question whether the house acquired by purchase is the property of the husband or the marriage.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, VeraCaUSA said:

This post is specifically regarding the question whether the house acquired by purchase is the property of the husband or the marriage.  

 

Now you have to understand the difference between ownership and marital interest. A person who owns the home in his own name will always own the home in his own name. Nothing changes that unless he makes the change voluntarily or the mortgage company takes it if he defaults.

 

The spouse, on the other hand accrues a financial interest in the equity of the property that builds up during the marriage when marital funds are used to support the property. Marital funds include the home owner's earnings.

 

In the event of divorce the non-owning spouse is entitled to half the equity that accrued during the marriage. If he has the money he can pay her and keep the house. If he doesn't have the money to pay her, he may have to sell the house or borrow against it to pay her.

 

So, yes, it's the property of the husband but it's not that simple. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, VeraCaUSA said:
1 hour ago, adjusterjack said:

 

Now you have to understand the difference between ownership and marital interest. A person who owns the home in his own name will always own the home in his own name. Nothing changes that unless he makes the change voluntarily or the mortgage company takes it if he defaults.

 

The spouse, on the other hand accrues a financial interest in the equity of the property that builds up during the marriage when marital funds are used to support the property. Marital funds include the home owner's earnings.

 

In the event of divorce the non-owning spouse is entitled to half the equity that accrued during the marriage. If he has the money he can pay her and keep the house. If he doesn't have the money to pay her, he may have to sell the house or borrow against it to pay her.

 

So, yes, it's the property of the husband but it's not that simple. 

So property acquired during a marriage is not considered community property but separate property if it wasn't acquired by gift, devise, or descent but by good and valuable consideration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is considered community property, the result of which is what Jack described, except if it was acquired with community funds, she is entitled to 1/2 the entire equity in the event of a divorce.  If it was sold without her consent, she needs to speak with a Texas property attorney to learn her rights and how to enforce them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, VeraCaUSA said:

This post is specifically regarding the question whether the house acquired by purchase is the property of the husband or the marriage.

 

Which is one of the subjects of the other thread.

 

Hopefully a moderator (if there are any here still) will consolidate the two threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, VeraCaUSA said:

So property acquired during a marriage is not considered community property but separate property if it wasn't acquired by gift, devise, or descent but by good and valuable consideration?

 

Yes, no, maybe.

 

Community property is a statutory construct that has nothing to do with "ownership."

 

A property acquired by one spouse during a marriage is property that he owns. It is likely to be community property though it might not be under certain very narrow exceptions.

 

Maybe I can explain it by telling you a story. (Lawyers, forgive me if I miss some of the nuances.)

 

John and Jane get married. They both work. Their incomes are community property even if they keep separate accounts (which they probably won't). They use their incomes to pay rent, utilities, car payments, buy groceries, support their lifestyles, etc. Their contributions to the marriage may not be equal because one makes more money than the other but their community property interest is 50/50 (as are any debts they might accrue).

 

One day John gets a letter that makes him sad. Jane says: "John, what happened?" John says: "I have good news and bad news." Jane: "Well, better give me the bad news and get it over with." John: "Uncle Fred died." Jane: "That's awful, he was always so nice. What's the good news?" John: "He left me $50,000."

 

At that moment the $50,000 is John's sole and separate property and not subject to community property division as long as he keeps that money in a separate account in his own name and never comingles it with marital funds.

 

However, Jane says: "Could we use that as a down payment for a house." John: "Of course." A short time later, John and Jane find a house and apply for a mortgage with their local banker. So, now it turns out that Jane has extremely poor credit because of unpaid credit cards and judgments from her misspent youth and the banker says: "Sorry, we can't have Jane on the loan or on the deed but, John, your income and your $50,000 qualifies you to buy the home on your own."

 

John and Jane talk this over and agree because they really want the house. The house gets bought and John and Jane settle in and now they are using their incomes to pay the mortgage, utilities, car payments, buy groceries, support their lifestyles, etc.

 

Guess what. John has effectively made a gift of $50,000 to the marital community because he comingled that money with marital finances. Jane now has a 50% interest in the instant equity, and future equity, even though John "owns" the house.

 

Ownership and community property are two different things.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, adjusterjack said:

 

Yes, no, maybe.

 

Community property is a statutory construct that has nothing to do with "ownership."

 

A property acquired by one spouse during a marriage is property that he owns. It is likely to be community property though it might not be under certain very narrow exceptions.

 

Maybe I can explain it by telling you a story. (Lawyers, forgive me if I miss some of the nuances.)

 

John and Jane get married. They both work. Their incomes are community property even if they keep separate accounts (which they probably won't). They use their incomes to pay rent, utilities, car payments, buy groceries, support their lifestyles, etc. Their contributions to the marriage may not be equal because one makes more money than the other but their community property interest is 50/50 (as are any debts they might accrue).

 

One day John gets a letter that makes him sad. Jane says: "John, what happened?" John says: "I have good news and bad news." Jane: "Well, better give me the bad news and get it over with." John: "Uncle Fred died." Jane: "That's awful, he was always so nice. What's the good news?" John: "He left me $50,000."

 

At that moment the $50,000 is John's sole and separate property and not subject to community property division as long as he keeps that money in a separate account in his own name and never comingles it with marital funds.

 

However, Jane says: "Could we use that as a down payment for a house." John: "Of course." A short time later, John and Jane find a house and apply for a mortgage with their local banker. So, now it turns out that Jane has extremely poor credit because of unpaid credit cards and judgments from her misspent youth and the banker says: "Sorry, we can't have Jane on the loan or on the deed but, John, your income and your $50,000 qualifies you to buy the home on your own."

 

John and Jane talk this over and agree because they really want the house. The house gets bought and John and Jane settle in and now they are using their incomes to pay the mortgage, utilities, car payments, buy groceries, support their lifestyles, etc.

 

Guess what. John has effectively made a gift of $50,000 to the marital community because he comingled that money with marital finances. Jane now has a 50% interest in the instant equity, and future equity, even though John "owns" the house.

 

Ownership and community property are two different things.

 

 

Excellent illustration of separate and community property in opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I was asking the questions that I believed that the lady involved was asking, I thank you for your responses on her behalf.  However the responses have convinced her that all is not lost and to consult a lawyer to determine her rights in this situation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×