# What's fair for goose and gander????



## gooseand gander (May 30, 2014)

We married 11 years ago, a second for both of us, and decided at that time to leave our finances separate. About 4 years ago, D thought that it would be nice to have some financial interests in common thereby giving them something to plan and work together toward and thus good for the marriage.

Since G. didn’t have any funds available at the time, D offered to “loan” G his/her share of the investments. G agreed so D researched and found some properties that they decided to purchase.

About a year later, G then had enough funds available to purchase another property and did so. However, no offer was made to D to share in the investment, instead stating that it was a way to shore up his/her own child’s future. Not wanting to make waves in the marriage, D said no more.

Then, 3 years later, after having shared 1/2 of the net income (which was a very good return) for 4 years from the initially shared purchase and G paying D interest on the “loan”, G found another property to buy for his/her self and child. D questioned the fairness of being left out again and strongly requested G to reconsider his/her stance. A few days after that, G, with child present, offered D not 1/2 but 1/3 of the investment. D said it would be thought over.

When almost time to close on the new property, D explained to G that the ½ offer on the purchases made 4 years ago was given as a way to have common interests, strengthen marriage, etc., thereby putting their marriage first, rather than putting his/her OWN child before the marriage and again asked G to reconsider the fairness of the offer.

A few days later, G kept the 1/3 offer to D standing. D had to accept it; 1/3 was better than nothing.

Question: Which of the following options is the fair and right thing to do?

1) Leave all as is?

2) G agree to give D ½ interest in properties that were purchased for his/her self and child’s future, thereby each owning ½ of all properties (with funds being adjusted appropriately )? OR

3) G agree to give D 1/3 interest in properties purchased by G for self and child and accept 1/3 of the interest in properties initially purchased by D & G (with the loan, funds, etc. being adjusted)?

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR HELP!


----------



## PBear (Nov 16, 2010)

Well, to me, it seems that D wants to ride the coattails of G's work at finding and investing in opportunities, and therefore D should be glad for whatever they're given. Maybe if D came up with some opportunities, they could offer G a cut if they wanted to merge together. 

But I hope they BOTH have talked to a lawyer in their jurisdiction. Just because properties have one spouse's name on them doesn't mean they're not considered marital properties, and subject to being split 50/50...

C
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EnjoliWoman (Jul 2, 2012)

I'd say you're spending a lot of time thinking about who gets what and how fair it is.

Instead of worrying who gets what, keeping the separate accounts, etc - you're married and it's still marital property.

Draw up a will. Figure what your net worth was at the date of marriage, draft a post-nup and leave that amount to whoever you want. The other person does the same. It can all go to the other spouse, the child - whoever. If mother wants to leave her assets to kid instead of spouse, oh well - those were HERS. The remainder of the joint marital property should be divided and again, leave to whoever each party wants. 

Meanwhile, if the child's father isn't particularly involved financially (and it sounds like not since mother wants to provide) then open up a savings plan for college or choose an investment together. After all if you two can afford to buy properties and make money, why not just agree all marital property is divided and invest for the child as well? 

I understand that a person wants to protect their assets and not get taken to the cleaners and a post-nup is the way to go. However, spending all of this energy on deciding what is fair or right is only going to give more reason for the marriage to fail. 

Instead of placing emphasis on the funds (which are joint by law anyway), how about placing emphasis on the marriage. You'll be a lot less likely to NEED to worry about the fairness of financial distribution of the marriage is strong.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

gooseand gander said:


> Question: Which of the following options is the fair and right thing to do?


Divorce.

Or else stop dealing with G on financial issues and invest in your own.


----------



## firebelly1 (Jul 9, 2013)

I wasn't able to follow...but sounds like somebody is resentful about something. Seems like you need to deal with that.


----------



## Happyfamily (Apr 15, 2014)

firebelly1 said:


> I wasn't able to follow...


Me either. D has 47.2% of B's initial 17% of asset B, which asset A is half covered by the 1/3 of the blah blah blah...

*EnjoliWoman* has cut to the quick: Marital assets are 50-50 by law. That is how simple it is.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

The problem is that G has now started including his/her daughter on the investments, so D's investments are being shrunk to 1/3, or 1/2 or 2/3. Without his/her consent.


----------

