Still confused about dogs

[MB123]

What is the name of your state? TX

I am the one having issues concerning my share of the house with my husband, and one thing he is saying is that he may change his stance on the dogs if I continue with the house claim.

During the marriage, we bought 2 small dogs. The dogs were purchased by and put under the name of my husband and really were bought for his daughter. When I left the US to go back to Argentina 6 months ago, I took the dogs with me. I was planning at that time on coming back with them.

But while there we decided it's better to get divorced. He said he would let me keep the dogs under our original settlement. But now that I am trying to get more out of the divorce, he said he will fight for the dogs. He would either want them back, or some kind of visitation sharing of the dogs.

I would not want to be one minute without the dogs, so he knows this is a sore point and a way to get me from asking for 1/2 his house after only 2 years of marriage.

I have read to the effect that he would only be entitled to the 1/2 the value (both dogs cost $1000 total). But is there any way at all for him to get the dogs back fully or for periods of time.

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

Are you saying that you are in Argentina and the STBX is in the US? And he would like the dogs shipped back and forth like cargo?

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by Ginny J

Are you saying that you are in Argentina and the STBX is in the US? And he would like the dogs shipped back and forth like cargo?

Ginny...she married the man on a somewhat of a sham basis. They were dating, she was going to have to leave the US because her visa was expiring. They tried various methods, including a student visa, to keep her in the US. That didn't work. Therefore they got married to keep her there.

The INS/Homeland Security insisted that she be added to the deed/mortgage of his house to demonstrate that their marriage was real. He did so. The marriage lasted less than two years, and now she wants to take advantage of the fact that he put her on the deed/mortgage, to take 1/2 of the equity in the house that he owned for years before marrying her.

She is doing this because her new boyfriend, who is an attorney, is insisting that she get everything she possibly can get from her STBX.

You know that I normally avoid expressing a whole lot of personal opinion on people's situations, but this one I find personally repugnant.

[MB123]

Originally Posted by Ginny J

Are you saying that you are in Argentina and the STBX is in the US? And he would like the dogs shipped back and forth like cargo?

The dogs went from the US to Argentina as air cargo on a passenger flight. The airlines have a special cargo service just exactly for situations with animals like this one.

What I am saying is that my husband is trying to use anything he can to get me from doing what LdiJ is saying I am trying to do with the property.

My husband knows how much I want those dogs with me, so if he were able to get them from me full time or even part time, I would definitely have to reconsider my approach to going after the property that is in dispute. In other words, I would be more willing to settle.

So can he do anything at all related to the dogs to get them back full time or part time? Or is there only $500 at risk here for me?

[ShyCat]

Your husband is the registered owner of the dogs and he now wants them back. You decide.

[MB123]

Originally Posted by ShyCat

Your husband is the registered owner of the dogs and he now wants them back. You decide.

But aren't they just included in the community property, so they have be divided up some way, such as me giving him $500? Since they were bought during the marriage, are the dogs still not just community property of the 2 of us as opposed to being more his than mine?

[majomom1]

Originally Posted by LdiJ

Ginny...she married the man on a somewhat of a sham basis. They were dating, she was going to have to leave the US because her visa was expiring. They tried various methods, including a student visa, to keep her in the US. That didn't work. Therefore they got married to keep her there.

The INS/Homeland Security insisted that she be added to the deed/mortgage of his house to demonstrate that their marriage was real. He did so. The marriage lasted less than two years, and now she wants to take advantage of the fact that he put her on the deed/mortgage, to take 1/2 of the equity in the house that he owned for years before marrying her.

She is doing this because her new boyfriend, who is an attorney, is insisting that she get everything she possibly can get from her STBX.

You know that I normally avoid expressing a whole lot of personal opinion on people's situations, but this one I find personally repugnant.

Oh my GAWD!!! Ldi... I agree 100%. This is repugnant!

OP -- Give him HIS house and return the dogs TO HIS DAUGHTER!

I would love to be in the court room for this one... Lady, you are nuts! I cannot believe what this man did for you and you are so low that you cannot honor a vow, any agreement, and apparantly have NO morals! This is completely ridiculous!

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by LdiJ

Ginny...she married the man on a somewhat of a sham basis. They were dating, she was going to have to leave the US because her visa was expiring. They tried various methods, including a student visa, to keep her in the US. That didn't work. Therefore they got married to keep her there.

BS!! they were married and that met the criteria for her to stay in the US!!
Your laws by the way!!

The INS/Homeland Security insisted that she be added to the deed/mortgage of his house to demonstrate that their marriage was real.

I don't believe that for a NY minute!!! And if you do, you're stupid!!!

He did so. The marriage lasted less than two years, and now she wants to take advantage of the fact that he put her on the deed/mortgage, to take 1/2 of the equity in the house that he owned for years before marrying her.

That I agree with.

She is doing this because her new boyfriend, who is an attorney, is insisting that she get everything she possibly can get from her STBX.

Is that uncommon????

You know that I normally avoid expressing a whole lot of personal opinion on people's situations, but this one I find personally repugnant.

Well you played your hand. You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away, and know when to run.....

[Ohiogal]

OP why can't you do what you just KNOW is morally right? I told you the legal situation. However that does not excuse your selfishness and greed. He has a right to the dogs just like you do. You even said they were bought for HIS daughter. $500? You don't want to be without the dogs and you want half the house and everything else you can get from him AND you have a boyfriend in Argentina. You take the cake.

[MB123]

Originally Posted by Ohiogal

OP why can't you do what you just KNOW is morally right? I told you the legal situation. However that does not excuse your selfishness and greed. He has a right to the dogs just like you do. You even said they were bought for HIS daughter. $500? You don't want to be without the dogs and you want half the house and everything else you can get from him AND you have a boyfriend in Argentina. You take the cake.

Well, there are always 2 sides to any story. I can tell you that while my husband never physically touch me in a violent manner, he could be pretty cruel with his words. So that's why I am not so against hurting him financially.

I know it's not the best things, but I just want to know what the laws are.

So can he get the dogs back from me on a court order, or will the judge just let me keep them no matter what? The answers so far have not been so clear.

I do thank you for all your replies.

[garrula lingua]

HAH !

MB, it's a TEXAS court (not California).

It's a man's world in a Texas family law property dispute. (Heck, Texas has only statutorially allowed spousal support/maintenance/alimony since 1994 or 1995; and, it's only in dire circumstances & only for three years !)

MB, forget it. If this hits court in Texas, he'll get the dogs and the house & you'll be lucky if you aren't ordered to pay his legal fees.

There are many women married long-term (30 + yrs), who have raised +++ children, haven't worked o/s the home & get zero in alimony from well-incomed husbands in Texas. They will be as difficult in the property distribution.

Forget about it, MB. You won't get the house, or the dogs.

[MB123]

Originally Posted by Bali Hai

Well you played your hand. You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away, and know when to run.....

BS!! they were married and that met the criteria for her to stay in the US!!
Your laws by the way!!

The INS/Homeland Security insisted that she be added to the deed/mortgage of his house to demonstrate that their marriage was real.

I don't believe that for a NY minute!!! And if you do, you're stupid!!!


------

Hi argument won't be that the INS insisted on adding her to the mortgage, just that his research showed that was a very critical item. It may have been an immigration lawyer that suggested or an immigration forum.

[majomom1]

Originally Posted by MB123

Well, there are always 2 sides to any story. I can tell you that while my husband never physically touch me in a violent manner, he could be pretty cruel with his words. So that's why I am not so against hurting him financially.

I know it's not the best things, but I just want to know what the laws are.

So can he get the dogs back from me on a court order, or will the judge just let me keep them no matter what? The answers so far have not been so clear.

I do thank you for all your replies.

He fought for you to stay in the U.S. He married you, so you could stay AND he added you as an owner to his house, so you could stay.... Those are not the actions of a 'cruel' man.

Based on your posts here though-- I have a pretty good idea what type of person you are and can clearly understand why he might be angry and the cruel words may be very justifed -- they were only words. Grow up.

No one can tell you for sure what a judge will do. It depends on the case, both sides...what evidence there is etc. If it is proven that your motive for marrying him was in anyway a 'scam' on your part to stay in the country -which is how it is sounding to me -- then the judge could very well award him the house, the dogs and for you to pay ALL of his attorney fees.

He was willing to let you have the dogs and you agreed to leave the house out of it. In this scenario, that was more than reasonable IMO, especially when the dogs were for his daughter.

You changed your mind, and reniged on the deal, because your boyfriend told you to? To get your fair share? I can completely understand why he is angry. The fact that he has kept his temper in check and not touched you physically shows HIS character...

[peppier]

I can't speak for Texas but in New Mexico my brother-in-law won the dog in his divorce.

[wileybunch]

Originally Posted by MB123

BS!! they were married and that met the criteria for her to stay in the US!!

THEY? Who are YOU?

This situation really is disgusting. The woman involved here is an opportunist/con artist.