Connect with us

California

Should I put my fiancé’s name on the deed to my California home after we marry?

Published

on

Should I put my fiancé’s name on the deed to my California home after we marry?


I am writing to you after reading your article titled, “I met my wife in 2019 and we married in 2020. I put her name on the deed of my $998,000 California home. Now I want a divorce. What can I do?” You have deemed this situation a “cautionary tale” for other readers who commingle finances too quickly with the wrong person. 

I am happy to say that I am not in this situation as of yet. I am a 30-year-old female who has recently become a first-time homeowner with the help of my family. 

I have been engaged to a 30-year-old male for the past six and a half years. We have been living together for the past five years. I am the only one working right now making about $83,000 a year. My fiancé is a graduate student working toward his master’s degree in a special-education teaching credential. He will be guaranteed full-time work after a year from his program as a special-education teacher. 

Advertisement

‘Only my name and my father’s name is on the deed of the house because he provided the down payment for this house.’

Right now, my fiancé’s name is not on the deed of the house. We also keep separate bank accounts, and have no joint accounts. Only my name and my father’s name is on the deed of the house because he provided the down payment for this house. 

Advertisement

My fiancé is in complete agreement that his name will not go on any loans or deeds until he financially contributes to the mortgage payments (I am paying the full mortgage each month). When that time comes, I think it is fair that his name should go on the loan as well as the deed. 

I wanted to reach out to you for any advice you have to offer regarding my financial situation before we legally commingle our finances. We will not be married for at least another two years, and as we approach our wedding date (not yet set), we plan to do premarital counseling as well as draft prenuptial agreements to sign. If there is an option to do premarital financial counseling, I would be open to that as well. 

Covering my Bases in California 

Advertisement

“Don’t make any decisions under pressure.”


MarketWatch illustration

Dear Covering,

There’s a lot of positive signs about the future of your relationship in your letter. You’ve had a very long engagement, and you have been living together for five years, and you are supporting your fiancé while he is finishing his studies. It may be that you eventually decide to have a family together, and this home will be where you create all those memories that you will look back on in 30 years time. However, I also urge you to proceed slowly. 

First of all, it would not currently make financial sense to add your future husband’s name to the deed. You certainly don’t want to refinance your mortgage when the 30-year fixed rate is approaching 8%, assuming your rate is far lower. You will end up paying hundreds of dollars more per month to live in your home. You can love each other, fight, compromise, make sure your voice is heard far more easily if you both have your financial independence. 

As for putting his name on the deed and the mortgage, it’s not a good idea to add somebody’s name to the deed of a home and not to the mortgage. That makes very little sense. If you split up — which, although unthinkable, happens to roughly 40% of couples — you would be responsible for the mortgage, while your husband or ex-husband still owns 50% of your property. You cannot take somebody’s name off the deed of a home without their cooperation. 

Advertisement

You certainly don’t want to refinance your mortgage when the 30-year fixed rate is approaching 8%, assuming your rate is far lower.

Advertisement

There are arguments in favor of putting your future spouse’s name on the deed of the house. If you were to predecease your future husband, the house would not then have to go through probate. It also means that if you or your spouse got into debt, creditors would be unable to make a claim on your jointly owned property. 

California is a community-property state, so all assets and earnings acquired during the marriage are generally considered community/marital property, and typically split 50/50 in the event of a divorce. Assets acquired before the marriage — in this case, your home — are considered separate property, although your husband may still be entitled to 50% of the acquired value during your marriage.

Engage in premarital financial counseling, and seek your own advice from a family-law attorney, and your father. It may be that you start by signing a prenuptial agreement stating that — in the event of a divorce — you split the house in accordance with the amount of money you each invested in the property, adjusting that sum for the increase in value from the time your future husband’s name is put on the deed. Don’t make any decisions under pressure.

You have taken your time with your engagement, and you can take your time with this. Good luck with your wedding — and I wish you a lifetime of happy memories with your marriage. Take it one step, vow and contract signing at a time. Parents rarely do anything by accident. So remember — given that your father’s name is on the deed — whatever you decide you will need his permission too.

You can email The Moneyist with any financial and ethical questions at qfottrell@marketwatch.com, and follow Quentin Fottrell on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.

Advertisement

Check out the Moneyist private Facebook group, where we look for answers to life’s thorniest money issues. Post your questions, tell me what you want to know more about, or weigh in on the latest Moneyist columns.

The Moneyist regrets he cannot reply to questions individually.

Previous columns by Quentin Fottrell:

‘They do not trust her, nor do I’: My elderly parents fear my sister will empty their bank accounts and steal their possessions. What can we do?

‘It feels like a nightmare’: My siblings hid our father’s will, which would have left me $135,000. What can I do?

Advertisement

‘I am watching my inheritance evaporate’: My brother and sister constantly hit our parents up for money. What can I do to stop this?





Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

California

Millennial Democrat Ian Calderon announces bid for California governor

Published

on

Millennial Democrat Ian Calderon announces bid for California governor





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

California

2 bills meant to speed up California Delta Tunnel project die without vote

Published

on

2 bills meant to speed up California Delta Tunnel project die without vote


Last Tuesday, the California Legislature cast a vote on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s controversial water tunnel project in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta by not voting at all.

Advertisement

A couple of bills meant to speed up the process were allowed to die in committee before reaching the state Assembly. Opponents of the project consider it a victory in a fight to protect the water of the delta and the towns that live along its banks.

The delta town of Isleton sits frozen in time, a relic from its “Old West” past. It may be a little quiet these days, but it’s no ghost town — yet. It all depends on the river that runs alongside the town.

“Well, the history of Isleton is really deep in the river,” said Iva Walton. “Isleton used to be the main stop on the steamboat between Sacramento and San Francisco. So, it has a long history of depending on the traffic on the river.”

Walton owns the Mei Wah Beer Room, a former Chinese saloon and brothel in the 1800s. The whole town relies on people visiting the delta, and the proposal to bury a giant tunnel to siphon off billions of gallons of water farther up the Sacramento River to send to Southern California cities and Central Valley farms has drawn the ire of many people living along the delta.

“I think, in general, people are aware that it would be bad for the environment, for the property, the land, and the tourism that comes out here, if the tunnels were to drain a lot of the water from here,” Walton said. “It just seems ridiculous to take from something that is a fragile environment. There has to be other options.”

Advertisement

Still, Newsom has made it his key climate resilience initiative. In his May budget revision, he included a pair of bills that would make things go faster by exempting it from CEQA, simplifying permitting, allowing the state to acquire land, authorizing bonds to pay for the project, and limiting future legal challenges to the tunnel.

His office released a statement saying: “For too long, attempts to modernize our critical water infrastructure have stalled in endless red tape, burdened with unnecessary delay. We’re done with barriers — our state needs to complete this project as soon as possible, so that we can better store and manage water to prepare for a hotter, drier future. Let’s get this built.” 

“Barriers are put in its way,” said Jon Rosenfield. “Those barriers being the state’s laws that everyone else needs to comply with.  But the governor seems determined to try to circumvent those laws to get his tunnel built.”

Rosenfield is science director for SF Baykeeper, one of the groups opposing the tunnel for the damage they think it would inflict on already faltering fish populations downstream in the delta. But he thinks it is the project’s whopping price tag that caused legislators to let the bills die without a vote.

“I think it means there’s not a lot of support for the Delta Conveyance Project,” Rosenfield said. “I think the majority party, which is the governor’s own party in the legislature, is rightfully concerned about the cost of living. And taking on another $60-100 billion project that doesn’t really address our problems, that would still require more money to address, is not a winning proposition at this time, or ever.”

Advertisement

It’s also not a winning proposition in Isleton, where protecting the river is considered vital.

“It’s an amazing place and I would hate to see it go away,” said Walton.

If approved, the tunnel would run 45 miles from the Sacramento River to an existing reservoir near Livermore, before heading south via the California Aqueduct. Construction probably couldn’t begin until 2029 and would take at least 15 years to complete.

First, the project will have to undergo the normal regulatory process, at least for now.

Newsom said he would like to see the tunnel fully entitled by the time he leaves the governor’s seat. There are major political forces at work and no one seems to think this will be the end of it.

Advertisement



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

California

Lawyers fear 1,000 children from Central America, dozens in California, are at risk of being deported

Published

on

Lawyers fear 1,000 children from Central America, dozens in California, are at risk of being deported


Lawyers and advocates fear about 1,000 Central American children, including dozens in California, are at risk of being deported to dangerous situations in their home countries before finishing their immigration court proceedings.

They believe the U.S. government is now expanding their list of hundreds of children across the country, which started with children from Guatemala, to include those from Honduras and El Salvador. Lawyers for some children saw their scheduled hearings disappear from the immigration court calendars in recent weeks.

“It has been heartbreaking and infuriating these last two weeks to have to warn our child clients that our government seeks to violate their rights and return them to danger,” said Marion Donovan-Kaloust, director of legal services at the Los Angeles-based Immigrant Defenders Law Center, which represents unaccompanied minors. “The fact that the government is doubling down on this cruel scheme should shock everyone’s conscience.”

In the middle of the night over Labor Day weekend, the government removed 76 Guatemalan children from shelters in Arizona and Texas. Many of their cases had vanished from calendars before the Department of Homeland Security placed them on a plane set to return to Guatemala without telling their parents, according to court documents.

Advertisement

A transport van with migrants onboard departs the Valley International Airport, Sunday, Aug. 31, 2025, in Harlingen, Texas.

(Michael Gonzalez / Associated Press)

A federal judge blocked the flight in an emergency order as children sat aboard a plane on the tarmac. Many feared for their safety should they return to Guatemala, where attorneys say they face gang violence, physical abuse and neglect.

U.S. Department of Justice attorney Sara Welch said during a hearing this week there were “no immediate plans” to remove immigrant children from other countries. The Department of Homeland Security and the Refugee Resettlement office did not respond to requests for comment.

Advertisement

A legal aid worker with knowledge of the situation said Honduran counterparts are expecting 300 children to be returned to the country, which would account for nearly all Honduran children in Office of Refugee Resettlement custody nationwide. Another 100 unaccompanied children from El Salvador are in U.S. government custody, said the worker, who requested anonymity to share sensitive details.

Earlier this summer, Guatemalan officials said U.S. officials had sent them a list of 609 teenagers ages 14-17 to be returned to the country. At least 40 immigrant children living in California were on that list, the legal aid worker said.

In a Sept. 6 sworn declaration, Angie Salazar, acting director of the refugee resettlement office, said that 457 Guatemalan children were initially identified as “potentially appropriate for reunification with a parent or legal guardian,” but that after reviewing individual cases, 327 children were determined to be ultimately eligible for removal from the U.S.

During the hearing this week, Welch walked back earlier government assertions that the children’s parents had asked for them to be returned, after lawyers for the minors produced a memo from the Guatemalan Attorney General that showed officials had contacted about 115 families, nearly half of whom were upset at the prospect of their child being returned.

Another 50 families said they were willing to accept the children, but had not asked for their return. In one case, the memo noted the parents said they will “do everything possible” to get their daughter out of the country again, “because she had received death threats.”

Advertisement

Since the deportation attempt over the holiday weekend, attorneys for the children, who crossed the border without legal guardians and are now under the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, have been on high alert.

One attorney with the non profit Estrella del Paso in Texas said in sworn statements that on Sept. 5 she received an anonymous call from a shelter that the “government was planning to repatriate all children under the ORR custody without making any announcements.”

Another attorney, Roxana Avila-Cimpeanu, deputy director of the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project in Arizona similarly said the same day that “credible reports continued to stream in from the network regarding the imminent removal of Honduran children.”

The facilities that did not wake up the Guatemalan children in the middle of the night were sent a “DEMAND FOR COMPLIANCE” letter from the Office of Refugee Resettlement on Aug. 31.

“Negligent or intentional failure to comply with lawful requests from ORR regarding the care of the children in your care facility will result in prompt legal action and may result in civil and criminal penalties and charges, as well as suspension and termination of contractual relations with your facility,” states the letter, which was obtained by The Times.

Advertisement

The letter frightened shelters and foster families, said Shaina Aber, executive director of the Acacia Center for Justice.

“We have heard from shelters and foster families that they are very nervous and they don’t know whether to follow the law as they understand it from years of doing this work, or to go along with this novel extrajudicial process,” Aber said.

Lawyers in the case are asking Judge Timothy R. Kelly, a Trump appointee, to extend the emergency order, which expires Sunday, and halt the removal of children from other countries who don’t wish to be returned. They argue U.S. officials do not have authority to remove them without providing them an opportunity to have their cases for asylum heard before an immigration judge.

“I am certain that people there who hurt me and threatened to kill me before will once again hurt me and will carry out their threats to kill me,” said one 17-year-old identified as D.I.R. in court records.

Among those named is a 16-year-old Guatemalan boy in long term foster care in Fullerton. His immigration proceedings had been closed and not yet decided. Another is a 16-year-old Guatemalan girl living in foster care in Riverside. She’s in immigration proceedings and is scared of being sent back. Both are being represented by the Immigrant Defenders Law Center.

Advertisement

Some Guatemalan children in the U.S. were interviewed by officers with Homeland Security Investigations, a branch of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said Efrén C. Olivares, Vice President of Litigation and Legal Strategy for the National Immigration Law Center. Some family members in Guatemala also received calls from local government officials who said their children would be sent back.

Olivares, one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs in Washington, warned if the court sided with the Trump administration, “they can do this to all children in ORR custody of every nationality.”

“That’s the worst-case scenario,” he said.

Guatemalan officials have publicly acknowledged efforts to coordinate with the U.S. to receive hundreds of children currently held in U.S. facilities.

The Honduran government posted on X Sept. 1 that it had initiated efforts to coordinate the “safe return of minors deported from the United States.”

Advertisement

While the Salvadoran government has not released public communications about the repatriation of children from the U.S., Olivares pointed to the coordination between the two governments earlier this year, when hundreds of Venezuelan migrants in the U.S. were sent to a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador.

“It’s worrisome that they have a very close relationship,” Olivares said

Meanwhile, two localized cases are playing out in Illinois and Arizona.

On Thursday, a federal judge in Arizona temporarily blocked the Trump administration from removing dozens of Guatemalan and Honduran children living there in shelters or foster care. Similarly, a federal judge stopped the removal of Guatemalan children in Illinois, and a hearing is set for Tuesday.

“These are children who are literally here without without a parent, and very vulnerable,” said Laura Smith, executive director of the Children’s Legal Center in Chicago and an attorney on the Illinois case, who also got word from a facility shortly after Labor Day that immigration officials were readying to take custody of Honduran children. “So I am surprised by the administration’s attacks.”

Advertisement

The move to deport unaccompanied children comes amid broader efforts to strip away protections for young immigrants. For instance, the Administration has sought to end funding for lawyers who represent unaccompanied children. It is also seeking to end a decades-old agreement that requires minimum standards of care for children held in detention.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending