Inherited Property settlement

[amh0003]

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

My wife and I are getting a divorce after 3 years of marriage. My wife inherited our house after we were married and the deed is in both of our names. I've spoken to a lawyer (not retained one yet) and he said that 5% of the equity of the house each year becomes maritial property to be split. So say the house is worth $300K, that would be $15K per year for 3 years or $45K of maritial property that should be divided.

Apparantely my wife's lawyer had told her that I was not entitled to any of the inherited property. We are trying to work this out amicably and this is the only sticking point. I'd prefer not to retain a lawyer, because I'm not looking to get a large amount of money and would hate to spend a big portion of that amount an legal fees.

Any input would be appreciated.

 

[LillianX]

Inherited property isn't always divisible in a divorce, but in this case, your wife allowed it to become joint property by putting your name on the deed. I think you're probably entitled to half of the equity.

You're probably going to need an attorney, if she is going to fight it. Also, never, EVER take advice from your ex or her attorney. Just automatically assume anything either of them say in regards to the divorce is a lie, even if it isn't. There's nothing good that can come from you listening to them. They do NOT have your interests at heart.

 

[tranquility]

I think most would agree the appreciation of the property is marital property. Here, I don't think there will be any appreciation but don't know the facts.

Others will have to supply the law on if the marital unit gains any rights for any marital property used to support the house.

 

[mistoffolees]

Inherited property isn't always divisible in a divorce, but in this case, your wife allowed it to become joint property by putting your name on the deed. I think you're probably entitled to half of the equity.

Not really. PA is an equitable division state - and the court has broad discretion in division of property on the basis of what is fair. While it is common to start with 50%, in a case like this one, I wouldn't be surprised to see the court deviate greatly.

Let's say that the couple filed for divorce one week after one spouse inherited the property. Is it fair that the other spouse gets 50%? Probably not. What OP's attorney is suggesting seems reasonable (and may be the way that the local court tends to handle similar cases - which is why I would generally go with what a local attorney says).

You're probably going to need an attorney, if she is going to fight it. Also, never, EVER take advice from your ex or her attorney. Just automatically assume anything either of them say in regards to the divorce is a lie, even if it isn't. There's nothing good that can come from you listening to them. They do NOT have your interests at heart.

Absolutely true.

 

[tranquility]

Not really. PA is an equitable division state - and the court has broad discretion in division of property on the basis of what is fair

However, the court only has the power to equitably divide marital property by statute.

The first step is to determine if the inherited house has gained the status of marital property in whole or part.

That does not mean the judge cannot order *other* property to the spouse who did not inherit under 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 3502(a) to make it fair.

 

[mistoffolees]

However, the court only has the power to equitably divide marital property by statute.

The first step is to determine if the inherited house has gained the status of marital property in whole or part.

That does not mean the judge cannot order *other* property to the spouse who did not inherit under 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 3502(a) to make it fair.

Since both names are on the deed, then the house is marital property and subject to division.

 

[nextwife]

I agree with Misto. He now OWNS 50% of the house, the source of funds is no longer an issue.

 

[Bali Hai]

Not really. PA is an equitable division state - and the court has broad discretion in division of property on the basis of what is fair. While it is common to start with 50%, in a case like this one, I wouldn't be surprised to see the court deviate greatly.

Let's say that the couple filed for divorce one week after one spouse inherited the property. Is it fair that the other spouse gets 50%? Probably not. What OP's attorney is suggesting seems reasonable (and may be the way that the local court tends to handle similar cases - which is why I would generally go with what a local attorney says).



Absolutely true.

The deed is a legal document describing ownership. The judge may have broad discretionary power, but the judge cannot deny that OP is the co-owner of the property.

If the wife didn't want OP to be part owner, she would not have relinquished part of her interest in the property to OP.

Married, divorced or not married, when someone has legal title to property (in this case 50%) a judge cannot disturb that.

The loophole in this case is of course the broad discretionary power of the judge to divide "marital" property.

If OP were not married and had legal title to the property, no judge could legally take that away from him.

 

[mistoffolees]

The deed is a legal document describing ownership. The judge may have broad discretionary power, but the judge cannot deny that OP is the co-owner of the property.

If the wife didn't want OP to be part owner, she would not have relinquished part of her interest in the property to OP.

Married, divorced or not married, when someone has legal title to property (in this case 50%) a judge cannot disturb that.

The loophole in this case is of course the broad discretionary power of the judge to divide "marital" property.

If OP were not married and had legal title to the property, no judge could legally take that away from him.

Obviously. That's exactly what I said.

Under applicable laws in PA, the judge can divide the property in whatever way he sees as most fair. OP has consulted an attorney who said that it will mean that 5% of the home equity becomes marital each year. Whether you like it or not, that's perfectly legal.

 

[LdiJ]

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

My wife and I are getting a divorce after 3 years of marriage. My wife inherited our house after we were married and the deed is in both of our names. I've spoken to a lawyer (not retained one yet) and he said that 5% of the equity of the house each year becomes maritial property to be split. So say the house is worth $300K, that would be $15K per year for 3 years or $45K of maritial property that should be divided.

Apparantely my wife's lawyer had told her that I was not entitled to any of the inherited property. We are trying to work this out amicably and this is the only sticking point. I'd prefer not to retain a lawyer, because I'm not looking to get a large amount of money and would hate to spend a big portion of that amount an legal fees.

Any input would be appreciated.

How did your name get on the deed to the home she inherited? Normally an inheritance is completely separate property. I have never heard of a law that states that 5% of an inheritance becomes marital property for every year married.

 

[tranquility]

Partition lawsuits are all about allocating ownership rights. Saying both parties are on the deed does not make the property marital. Title is presumptive and can overcome facts, but title is not determinative.

One question to those who feel differently, why would a practicing attorney (actually, two) come to a substantially different conclusion(s)? Even a potential advocate for the OP had no claim to half.

To make a gift, there has to be an intent to give. Did the wife intend to give or did she put his name on for planning purposes?

Of course, with the name on title an argument could be made to compare this situation with personal property where the presumption would be joint ownership by the entrieties because the property was used and intended for both and the title presumption will not help to change that. (Assuming the OP and spouse lived in the house.)

 

[Bali Hai]

How did your name get on the deed to the home she inherited? Normally an inheritance is completely separate property. I have never heard of a law that states that 5% of an inheritance becomes marital property for every year married.

Well now you have, and Misto says it's perfectly legal if the judge thinks it's fair.

 

[mistoffolees]

How did your name get on the deed to the home she inherited? Normally an inheritance is completely separate property. I have never heard of a law that states that 5% of an inheritance becomes marital property for every year married.

I don't think there's any such law. The house became marital property the minute that stbx put OP's name on the deed. At that point, it is 100 marital.

It sounds like OP's attorney is telling him how a judge might rule on equitable distribution of this particular marital asset. By law, the judge can decide that anything between 0% and 100% is equitable, but this may be the guideline that they use in PA-or at least in OP's county.

 

[amh0003]

Thanks for all of the input. Some additional detail that may help, based on what the attorney told me:

1. Just because the deed is in both of our names does not make it a 50/50 split (similar to an earlier post, if my wife inherited the house, we had the deed transferred to both of our names, lived there a week, and I wanted a divorce, then no judge would rule that the property inherited should be split 50/50).

2. The 5% of the equity becoming maritial property each year, seems to be a way to acknowledge the time/money/effort that I put into the house over the 3 years. I think this is also to protect longer term marriage settlements when there is inherited propertly. For example, if we inherited the house and were married for 20 years, then it would absolutely be considered maritial property. At that point it's my house just as much mine as hers. But after only 3 years living there, that's not the case.

3. My real issue is convincing my wife that the reality is that I'm not going to walk away with absolutely nothing, which was her lawyers opinion (however, at the time, I don't think her lawyer thought I was going to get my own lawyer, so he probably thought he could steamroll me).

Regardless, I've asked my wife to get her lawyers opinion on the 5% equity so I'll see what he comes back with. In the end, I know I should suck it up and get an attorney, but I just hate spending $3-5K on an attorney that could be money that my wife and I split.

Very frustrating.

 

[tranquility]

Would anyone care to give a cite to a case, statute or any resource which points it out? I know we should just trust people who write things on the internet and everything, but I like to know more.