Rights to Ownership

[NeonMoon]

What is the name of your state? PA

Do I have any rights to ownership in the event of a divorce wrt the house I live in. The house belongs to my wife. She lived in it pre marriage.
I know the deed was re-done two years after we got married to reflect her new / married name (mine). My name is not on the deed. Also, mortgage was refinanced and I'm not on the mortgage so there's no proof I'm paying the bills.

 

[adjusterjack]

No, you will never have "ownership" rights.

Whether you have a right to a cash equivalent of the equity growth or an offset depends on a variety of factors.

Read the PA statute regarding equitable division of marital property.

Section 3502 - Title 23 - DOMESTIC RELATIONS (state.pa.us)

 

[Litigator22]

What is the name of your state? PA

Do I have any rights to ownership in the event of a divorce wrt the house I live in. The house belongs to my wife. She lived in it pre marriage.
I know the deed was re-done two years after we got married to reflect her new / married name (mine). My name is not on the deed. Also, mortgage was refinanced and I'm not on the mortgage so there's no proof I'm paying the bills.

The only means by which you could acquire a titled interest in the home is if the spouse were to formally convey/deed/record such an interest.

However, even though the home remains the wife's separate property does not mean that in the event of divorce that you are entirely without legal recourse in seeking compensation for marital funds (and/or you separate assets) used to pay expenses that are related to her separate property.

In some jurisdictions the non-titled spouse can be granted an equitable lien against the titled spouse's separate asset for a portion of the marital funds so contributed. Others permit the imposition of a constructive trust against the property. New York for an example can allow a credit in favor of the non-titled spouse when calculating an equitable distribution of marital assets.

If the costs of maintaining the home - mortgage payments, ad valorem taxes, upkeep, improvements, repairs, etc., impose a significant budget factor you might want to approach her with the thought of her gifting you a 50% interest.

Your situation reminds me of the plight of a former client. He put several thousand dollars of his own money upgrading and enlarging the home of his recently married wife only to have her promptly file for divorce within days after it was completed. Unfortunately, the trial judge ruled that his contributions constituted a gift to the wife. A settlement was reached pending our appeal.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state? PA

Do I have any rights to ownership in the event of a divorce wrt the house I live in. The house belongs to my wife. She lived in it pre marriage.
I know the deed was re-done two years after we got married to reflect her new / married name (mine). My name is not on the deed. Also, mortgage was refinanced and I'm not on the mortgage so there's no proof I'm paying the bills.

Why was the mortage refinanced and was there any equity payout? If so, what was the money used for?

 

[NeonMoon]

Why was the mortage refinanced and was there any equity payout? If so, what was the money used for?

Better mortgage rate and name change (Marital name)

 

[LdiJ]

Better mortgage rate and name change (Marital name)

Then there was no equity payout? Just FYI someone would never need to refinance to change their name on the mortgage. So the only reason was the better interest rate. If she used marital funds to pay the mortgage and maintain the house then you might have a claim to 1/2 of any increase in equity accrued during the marriage. That however, as previously mentioned, would not give you an ownership interest.

 

[Litigator22]

Then there was no equity payout? Just FYI someone would never need to refinance to change their name on the mortgage. So the only reason was the better interest rate. If she used marital funds to pay the mortgage and maintain the house then you might have a claim to 1/2 of any increase in equity accrued during the marriage. That however, as previously mentioned, would not give you an ownership interest.

Excuse me, but that is incorrect.

The non-titled spouse does not benefit from just any increase in equity of the titled spouse separate estate.

Only such enhanced market value that is attributed to marital effort. Namely active as opposed to passive enhancement. The latter of which plays no role in arriving at an equitable distribution of marital property.

 

[LdiJ]

Excuse me, but that is incorrect.

The non-titled spouse does not benefit from just any increase in equity of the titled spouse separate estate.

Only such enhanced market value that is attributed to marital effort. Namely active as opposed to passive enhancement. The latter of which plays no role in arriving at an equitable distribution of marital property.

That does not appear to be the way that it actually works in the real world. It would be great if it did, but it does not appear to be.

 

[NeonMoon]

The only means by which you could acquire a titled interest in the home is if the spouse were to formally convey/deed/record such an interest.

However, even though the home remains the wife's separate property does not mean that in the event of divorce that you are entirely without legal recourse in seeking compensation for marital funds (and/or you separate assets) used to pay expenses that are related to her separate property.

In some jurisdictions the non-titled spouse can be granted an equitable lien against the titled spouse's separate asset for a portion of the marital funds so contributed. Others permit the imposition of a constructive trust against the property. New York for an example can allow a credit in favor of the non-titled spouse when calculating an equitable distribution of marital assets.

If the costs of maintaining the home - mortgage payments, ad valorem taxes, upkeep, improvements, repairs, etc., impose a significant budget factor you might want to approach her with the thought of her gifting you a 50% interest.

Your situation reminds me of the plight of a former client. He put several thousand dollars of his own money upgrading and enlarging the home of his recently married wife only to have her promptly file for divorce within days after it was completed. Unfortunately, the trial judge ruled that his contributions constituted a gift to the wife. A settlement was reached pending our appeal.

When we first married, I made a good salary, she didn't. I wanted to build a garage on the property, finish the basement, and numerous other projects around the house. Since I made the money, I paid for it all. Foolishly, I have zero records to prove I funded the projects on her home.

 

[LdiJ]

When we first married, I made a good salary, she didn't. I wanted to build a garage on the property, finish the basement, and numerous other projects around the house. Since I made the money, I paid for it all. Foolishly, I have zero records to prove I funded the projects on her home.

That was a considerable amount of marital funds that were spent on her separate property. That can help you make an argument for equitable distribution of some of the equity in the property. However, it still does not give you ownership rights. However, you can also look at things from another perspective which while not legal, could make it easier for you to mentally deal with the situation. If you were not living in her home, then you would have had expenses (rent or mortgage payment) to live somewhere else during the period of time that you have been married/lived together. If the money you spent on her home made YOU more comfortable there (garage, finished basement etc) and didn't cost you more than what reasonable rent would have been for that same period of time, then you may have come out ahead or broken even on the whole thing on an overall basis.

 

[Litigator22]

That does not appear to be the way that it actually works in the real world. It would be great if it did, but it does not appear to be.

I don't deny that should unforetold events result in divorce and an equitable division of matrimonial property be decreed that the OP could be entitled to recoup an equitable portion (not necessarily 1/2) of marital funds used to reduce the mortgage lien covering the wife's separate property.

Where I disagreed was with describing his claim of recoupment as applying to ANY increased equity in the wife's separately owned real property.

My belief at the time being that the OP's home state of Pennsylvania follows many of her sister states (MD, NY, NC, AZ, NJ, e. g.) in holding that the separate property of a spouse shall be considered as marital property only to the extent that its increased value/equity can be attributed to efforts of the parties. And to the exclusion of appreciated value gained by virtue of economic, market, and other factors independent and aside of spousal efforts; to-wit: active as opposed to passive causes.

However, I have since learned that Pennsylvania is not in line with some of her sister states. Accordingly, I stand corrected.

If interested as where and why the rule of law in Pennsylvania uniquely differs, spend an hour or so reading and comprehending the scholarly and lengthy opinions found in Anthony v. Anthony Pa. Super. Ct., 514 A.2d 91.

 

[Litigator22]

When we first married, I made a good salary, she didn't. I wanted to build a garage on the property, finish the basement, and numerous other projects around the house. Since I made the money, I paid for it all. Foolishly, I have zero records to prove I funded the projects on her home.

Such an approach at recoupment would encounter an evidence problem of which you are unlikely aware. And it doesn't involve record keeping, per se.

Assume that circumstances were such that a divorce court was charged with finding a fair means of dividing marriage assets and it was giving consideration to the mentioned marital expenditures incurred in improving the wife's separately owned home.

The evidence problem that would be encountered lies in the fact that the adjustment crediting those expenses would not be calculated on the basis of actual dollars spent in making the improvements. Instead, it would be is based on the differential of fair market value of the property before and after the dollars were spent.

And for obvious reasons that could impose a difficult if not an insurmountable burden of proof. It is one thing to be able to produce expert testimony as to a property's present worth, but quite another to produce expert opinions as to fair market value months or years in the past.