Husband gave me money towards my car purchase

[nalnk]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NJ....

In 2012, I purchased a new vehicle. I traded in my SUV and the remainder due was paid for in cash. My husband gave me $7,000 towards the purchase.

Every time there's an argument between us and he says... "we're going our own way soon", blah blah blah.... he says that he's getting his $7K back and if i don't give him back the $7K he'll have the judge make me do it..... Is this so?

We have real estate between us and other items which we know will get split 50/50!

 

[not2cleverRed]

The SUV is a marital asset. Even if the $7,000 were not a marital asset, the SUV itself is a marital asset. Was the $7,000 money he earned during the marriage, or is it from an inheritance/gift or savings prior to marriage?

If he acquired his vehicle during the marriage it is also likely a marital asset.

Can he ask a judge for it? Sure. Will he get it? Don't know. But he could easily spend more than $7,000 trying.

 

[nalnk]

The SUV is a marital asset. Even if the $7,000 were not a marital asset, the SUV itself is a marital asset. Was the $7,000 money he earned during the marriage, or is it from an inheritance/gift or savings prior to marriage?

If he acquired his vehicle during the marriage it is also likely a marital asset.

Can he ask a judge for it? Sure. Will he get it? Don't know. But he could easily spend more than $7,000 trying.

My trade - in SUV was not a "marital" asset. I purchased it prior to our marriage. The $7K that he gave me came from marital assets. He acquired his current vehicle during the marriage. (He takes $ out of an account that has pre marital $ in it as well as his marital money - which is a problem in itself).

I got 12,000 for my suv so that is likely considered non marital
his $7K (marital funds)
and the remaining $10K cash was mine... marital $

 

[Zigner]

My trade - in SUV was not a "marital" asset. I purchased it prior to our marriage. The $7K that he gave me came from marital assets. He acquired his current vehicle during the marriage. (He takes $ out of an account that has pre marital $ in it as well as his marital money - which is a problem in itself).

I got 12,000 for my suv so that is likely considered non marital
his $7K (marital funds)
and the remaining $10K cash was mine... marital $

Once you put that $12k in to the new truck, it became a marital asset. Same goes for the $10k.

 

[nalnk]

So, in summary, he will probably have to spend alot of $ trying to get his $7K back and besides, this car has already depreciated so his $7K isn't worth that anymore when it comes to the car.
He also plans on buying a used boat for around $10K. Isn't that technically "our" boat.. I sure won't be going after that! LOL Sorry if i offend any boaters/fishers.

 

[single317dad]

So far, it sounds like everything you've described is marital property that will be distributed equitably in the case of a divorce. If you decide to divorce soon, it may be in both your interests to ask for a temporary order so that neither party can make purchases such as boats that won't be worth nearly their price tag.

 

[Ohiogal]

My trade - in SUV was not a "marital" asset. I purchased it prior to our marriage. The $7K that he gave me came from marital assets. He acquired his current vehicle during the marriage. (He takes $ out of an account that has pre marital $ in it as well as his marital money - which is a problem in itself).

I got 12,000 for my suv so that is likely considered non marital
his $7K (marital funds)
and the remaining $10K cash was mine... marital $

So the SUV was completely paid for prior to marriage?

 

[nalnk]

So the SUV was completely paid for prior to marriage?

Yes, i purchased it outright.

 

[not2cleverRed]

So the SUV was completely paid for prior to marriage?

Yes, i purchased it outright.

Clarification:
Your PREVIOUS SUV that you traded in was completely paid for prior to marriage. That SUV was not a marital asset; if you had it today it still would not be a marital asset.

The SUV you have now was purchased during the marriage, using marital ($7,000) and non-marital assets. It is a marital asset. It does not matter that some of the assets used to purchase the SUV were not marital: once you muddy the waters (my divorce lawyer used some phrase like "poison the pot") it becomes a marital asset.

Frankly, pettiness is going to cost you in legal fees in a divorce. Look up the definition of "pyrrhic victory".

 

[not2cleverRed]

So, in summary, he will probably have to spend alot of $ trying to get his $7K back and besides, this car has already depreciated so his $7K isn't worth that anymore when it comes to the car.
He also plans on buying a used boat for around $10K. Isn't that technically "our" boat.. I sure won't be going after that! LOL Sorry if i offend any boaters/fishers.

Yes, that boat would be a marital asset.

Hopefully he is planning on purchasing it outright, and not have you cosign for a loan.

If you do not agree with the wisdom of this purchase, you could technically argue that it's a wasteful dissipation of marital assets. However, for a boat this inexpensive, that would be a hollow argument, useful solely to counter his claim to the $7,000 in an effort to convince him, thick as his skull may be, that pursuing the $7,000 may be more bother than it's worth.

 

[Zigner]

...you could technically argue that it's a wasteful dissipation of marital assets.

That's an argument that would need to be made AFTER a case has been filed. As of now, its simply spending.

 

[Ohiogal]

Yes, that boat would be a marital asset.

Hopefully he is planning on purchasing it outright, and not have you cosign for a loan.

If you do not agree with the wisdom of this purchase, you could technically argue that it's a wasteful dissipation of marital assets. However, for a boat this inexpensive, that would be a hollow argument, useful solely to counter his claim to the $7,000 in an effort to convince him, thick as his skull may be, that pursuing the $7,000 may be more bother than it's worth.

WRONG. She can only argue that if they are in the MIDST of a divorce. As in, the divorce has already been filed.

 

[latigo]

Once you put that $12k in to the new truck, it became a marital asset. Same goes for the $10k.

Z, allow me to pose a hypothetical:

If a fiancé signs an installment contract with a jeweler to purchase an engagement ring for his soon to be bride, presents it to her, and after they tie they knot marital income is used to pay the installment payments . . .

Is the character of the ring thereby transmuted from separate to marital property?

The question is rhetorical of course as you and I both know that such a transmutation would not occur.

And the only plausible argument to claim that the ring was converted from separate to marital would be on the mistaken belief that one spouse cannot affect a gift to the other by the use of a marital asset.

The difficulty here would be in the wife proving donative intent by clear and convincing evidence. But the fact that the trade-in was sole and separate can't be ignored. Because doing so would also need to ignore the principle that separate property used to acquire other property retains the same characteristic.

[SUP](Just musing away here, Z. Golf match called due to rain.)[/SUP]

 

[not2cleverRed]

That's an argument that would need to be made AFTER a case has been filed. As of now, its simply spending.

WRONG. She can only argue that if they are in the MIDST of a divorce. As in, the divorce has already been filed.

That's what I meant, since the argument about the $7,000 is in the hypothetical case of there being an actual divorce filed.

And after all, it's a hypothetical boat.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Situations like this are the reason you should only marry a woman that has a nice boat w/motor.