His ex made it clear that she was going to fight for the house. She is quite selfish and the sort of person that feels entitled. So it was either go to court and pay a fortune in legal fees, or let her have the home. His 2 sons were also still at home then, albeit they were adults aged 18 and 21, so he felt it was the right thing to let her have it. I realise that its something that most cant understand, but it showed me what sort of principled man he is.
As I suggested earlier in this thread, @Diana7
which you just confirmed, your husband let her half the house because it "would have cost him a fortune to fight her in court"
. It has nothing to do with his integrity or principals or being a nice guy. It's about the money, and your husband is no exception.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the reasons you stated earlier:
He is a kind and good man, he CHOOSE to let her have the house rather than fight in court. He CHOOSE to let her have his share.
I realise that most people don't act well in a divorce and are out to hurt the other person, but he is an exception. That's why I have no worries about the future.
The other given reason he didn't sue for his half of the equity is because he didn't want to displace his ADULT sons, then aged 18 and 21.
At the time both of their sons were also living with her(aged 18 and 21). She wouldn't have been able to afford anywhere with half the profit so he let her have it. I thought he was mad but he felt that was the right thing to do, and I do admire and respect him for what he did.
, that's not a valid reason, as @EleGirl
pointed out, there's an easy way to handle the common situation where both parties have equity in the home, while children -usually MINOR children- are still living there. It was possible to protect himself AND his adult sons.
It would have been better had my now BIL kept the house in joint ownership with the provision that it be sold once the children were grown and out of the house. That would have prevented the new husband from throwing the kids out on the street and taking their home away from them.
I hate being right all the time. I wrote this 2 days ago:
Your current (second) husband gave his first wife the house because he didn't want to take her to court. Did you ever consider that he did the math and the equity in the house once the mortgage was factored in was not worth the legal expense involved in trying to keep his half of the equity? You already stated in the post quoted below this that your second husband doesn't have any money, so he probably couldn't afford an attorney.
it has nothing to do with your husband being a great guy.
It's ALWAYS about the money.