house ownership/parrot

[Sokols]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)CA:

Husband and his parents purchased house in 1984 together. We were married that same year and occupied the house as husband and wife, and I paid the taxes and morgage on the house out of our joint account from 1984 to the current year.
I was not on title till 1990 when we refinanced the home and his parents quit claimed their share to me. My husband claims he has full equity with his parents as separate property till 1990. I say that It has been joint tenants with myself from 1984.

 

[Silverplum]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)CA:

Husband and his parents purchased house in 1984 together. We were married that same year and occupied the house as husband and wife, and I paid the taxes and morgage on the house out of our joint account from 1984 to the current year.
I was not on title till 1990 when we refinanced the home and his parents quit claimed their share to me. My husband claims he has full equity with his parents as separate property till 1990. I say that It has been joint tenants with myself from 1984.

Where's the parrot?

 

[mistoffolees]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)CA:

Husband and his parents purchased house in 1984 together. We were married that same year and occupied the house as husband and wife, and I paid the taxes and morgage on the house out of our joint account from 1984 to the current year.
I was not on title till 1990 when we refinanced the home and his parents quit claimed their share to me. My husband claims he has full equity with his parents as separate property till 1990. I say that It has been joint tenants with myself from 1984.

When did your name go on the deed? Any payments you made before your name was on the lease would be considered to be rent. Your ownership starts when your name went on the deed.

 

[Sokols]

my name went on the deed in 1990. Would my husband than have the total value of the house up until 1990 and then I would have legal rights to 1/2 the value difference from 1990 to present time. Even if the payments were made with co-mingled accounts and we were married.? Would the courts actually go for that? That's crazy. The house was purchased because we were getting married. I wasn't there when the paperwork was done.
I forgot about the bird. My husband put the value on the bird at $1400.00. I didn't pay for the bird, it was a trade from a previous (before marriage) owned bird. I traded outright. No monies exchanged hands.

 

[Silverplum]

my name went on the deed in 1990. Would my husband than have the total value of the house up until 1990 and then I would have legal rights to 1/2 the value difference from 1990 to present time. Even if the payments were made with co-mingled accounts and we were married.? Would the courts actually go for that? That's crazy. The house was purchased because we were getting married. I wasn't there when the paperwork was done.
I forgot about the bird. My husband put the value on the bird at $1400.00. I didn't pay for the bird, it was a trade from a previous (before marriage) owned bird. I traded outright. No monies exchanged hands.

Oh, good. I thought I'd finally gone over the edge.

 

[GotSmart]

The payments in the first six years would have been mostly interest.

You were /are married so the house should be part of the marriage property. (20 years)

What about the parrot?

Is there a divorce going on?

Who owned the original bird?

It their a custody battle over the bird?

 

[LdiJ]

When did your name go on the deed? Any payments you made before your name was on the lease would be considered to be rent. Your ownership starts when your name went on the deed.

Misto, CA is a community property state. They married in 1984, the same year the house was purchased. Any equity that accrued since the marriage is marital, if paid by marital funds, and it clearly was.

How could her paying a share of the mortgage payments for the marital home, EVER be considered to be rent?

 

[LdiJ]

my name went on the deed in 1990. Would my husband than have the total value of the house up until 1990 and then I would have legal rights to 1/2 the value difference from 1990 to present time. Even if the payments were made with co-mingled accounts and we were married.? Would the courts actually go for that? That's crazy. The house was purchased because we were getting married. I wasn't there when the paperwork was done.
I forgot about the bird. My husband put the value on the bird at $1400.00. I didn't pay for the bird, it was a trade from a previous (before marriage) owned bird. I traded outright. No monies exchanged hands.

You owned a bird before marriage (premarital, separate property). You traded that premarital/separate property for another bird. I think that the bird is still separate property.

 

[mlane58]

Oh, good. I thought I'd finally gone over the edge.

You did Silver, it is just nobody has the guts to tell you.

 

[Silverplum]

You did Silver, it is just nobody has the guts to tell you.

(I read and read post 1, searching for the parrot!)

 

[mistoffolees]

Misto, CA is a community property state. They married in 1984, the same year the house was purchased. Any equity that accrued since the marriage is marital, if paid by marital funds, and it clearly was.

How could her paying a share of the mortgage payments for the marital home, EVER be considered to be rent?

Because from the original post, it sounded like the home was in the parent's name until 1990. If that is true, then only the increase in equity from 1990 to today would be marital.

If, OTOH, either name was on the deed in 1984, then the increase in value from 1984 to present would be marital.

 

[Sokols]

Thank you very much for all your imput.
To Clarify - I owned a similar bird prior to marriage that I brought into the marriage. I than traded the bird for the current parrot that I've owned for 22 years. My husband wants 1/2 the value of the bird. pricing it way to high at $1400.00. I didn't pay a dime but maybe he's thinking about what the bird could be worth. He hates the bird.
The house original deed was jointly owned by my husbands parents and him. Although it was our home throughout the marriage and we paid all monies in regard to the house. In 1990 the parents signed over quit claim there share of the house to me. Husband and I from 1990 are the joint tenents.

 

[GotSmart]

Then you have equal interest in the house. (My opinion)

It sounds like the bird is yours, the house and contents are joint.

Now for a lawyer to get involved.

Good luck.

 

[mistoffolees]

Then you have equal interest in the house. (My opinion)

It sounds like the bird is yours, the house and contents are joint.

Now for a lawyer to get involved.

Good luck.

I agree on the house. I'm not going to get involved with the bird. Pets can sometimes lead to funny results.

 

[LdiJ]

Because from the original post, it sounded like the home was in the parent's name until 1990. If that is true, then only the increase in equity from 1990 to today would be marital.

If, OTOH, either name was on the deed in 1984, then the increase in value from 1984 to present would be marital.

She stated:

[/quote]Husband and his parents purchased house in 1984 together[/quote]

That is no indication that only the parents were on the deed.

She also stated:

I was not on title till 1990 when we refinanced the home and his parents quit claimed their share to me.

Which indicates that the parents gifted their interest in the home to HER.

I can see nothing here to indicate that the home was separate property to the husband prior to 1990...on the contrary, in fact.

Either the husband was not on the deed, which indicates that the parents quit claimed their interest to both of them in the refi, or the husband was on the deed (far more likely based on the scenario) and she had a marital interest from the date of marriage in 1984.

In fact, if husband was on the deed since the date of purchase, then she had a 50% marital interest in his half (or 1/3) of the property from the date of marriage (since marital funds paid the mortgage) and if his parents actually quit claimed their interest in the property to HER...which would be a separate gift, then she could actually argue that she has a separate interest in either 1/2 or 2/3rds of the property prior to 1990 under community property rules, since gifts are separate property.

I would not recommend that she argue that unless her stbx gets stupid, but in NO way, shape or form could her contribution to the mortgage be considered "rent"...and there is no combo of facts here that could even remotely make the equity prior to 1990, the separate property of the husband.