California
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.
“‘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.
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
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.
“You certainly don’t want to refinance your mortgage when the 30-year fixed rate is approaching 8%, assuming your rate is far lower.”
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.
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?
‘I am watching my inheritance evaporate’: My brother and sister constantly hit our parents up for money. What can I do to stop this?
California
2 dead, 3 injured in shooting in Louisville’s California neighborhood
USA epidemic of gun violence and mass killings
Find out about the growing problem of gun violence and mass killings in the USA and learn how the Gun Violence Archive (GVA) categorizes different types of gun violence.
Two men are dead and three others injured in a mass shooting in the California neighborhood Saturday night, Louisville Metro Police said.
Second Division officers initially found four men with gunshot wounds in the 2200 block of Garland Avenue when they arrived at 7:30 p.m., LMPD spokesperson John Bradley said in a statement.
Two men were pronounced dead at the scene, while the other two were taken to the University of Louisville Hospital for treatment. As of Sunday, one man was in “critical but stable condition,” while the other was in stable condition, Bradley said.
A fifth man was later found in the area, Bradley said Sunday. He was also taken to UofL Hospital, but his condition was unknown.
Police had not located a suspect Saturday night. LMPD’s homicide unit is investigating, Bradley said. Anyone with information about the shooting could call LMPD’s anonymous tip line at 502-574-5673.
The two men who died have not yet been identified.
Reach reporter Leo Bertucci at lbertucci@gannett.com or @leober2chee on X, formerly known as Twitter
This story has been updated to add video.
California
California man beheaded his 1-year-old son with a knife, authorities say
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A man has been arrested on suspicion of beheading his 1-year-old son, Northern California authorities said.
The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement Friday that deputies responding to an early morning family disturbance call found a woman outside a home who told deputies that her husband Andrey Demskiy, 28, assaulted her and her mother.
Deputies forced their way into the house in northern Sacramento County when they learned Demskiy was inside with the boy. As they took him into custody, they found a “severed child’s head” in the bedroom where Demskiy was detained.
Detectives said Demskiy used a knife to behead his son after his wife and mother-in-law left the house, according to the statement. He was in custody and ineligible for bail, and was scheduled to appear in court Tuesday.
The sheriff’s department and the county public defenders office did not respond to emails seeking information on whether Demskiy had an attorney who could speak on his behalf.
California
Protests Swept California Campuses Last Year. Schools Are Now Blocking Them | KQED
At UC Santa Cruz, police arrested one student who was using a megaphone during a demonstration on Oct. 7, according to an eyewitness who spoke to LookOut Santa Cruz. Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office public arrest reports show one person was arrested on the Santa Cruz campus for obstruction of a public officer and battery without injury that day.
While no arrests were made, Pomona College has suspended 12 students for the remainder of the 2024–25 academic year following an Oct. 7 demonstration in which they entered, damaged and vandalized a restricted building, according to the student newspaper. The college also banned dozens of students from the four other campuses of the Claremont Colleges, a consortium that includes Pomona.
Private colleges have implemented their own policy changes. Pomona College now requires students and faculty to swipe their ID cards to enter academic buildings. Since last semester, students and visitors entering USC are also required to show a school or photo ID.
Some students are still facing charges from last year’s protests
Few charges have been filed after UCLA’s encampment made headlines in April when counterprotesters led an attack on encampment protesters while law enforcement did not intervene for several hours. The following day, 254 people were arrested on charges related to the protest encampment. In October, two additional people were also arrested for participating in the counter-protester violence.
The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office is pursuing three felony cases against individuals arrested at UCLA in relation to violence during last spring’s protests.
Meanwhile, the city attorney’s office is reviewing 93 misdemeanor cases from USC and 210 from UCLA, according to information it provided to CalMatters last month.
Lilyan Zwirzina, a junior at Cal Poly Humboldt, was among the students arrested in the early morning of April 30 following protesters occupying a campus building and ignoring orders to disperse from the university. Law enforcement took her to Humboldt County Correctional Facility, where she faced four misdemeanor charges, including resisting arrest. Zwirzina thought she’d have to cancel her study abroad semester, which conflicted with the court date she was given.
“I was pretty frustrated and kind of freaked out,” Zwirzina said. Authorities dropped the charges against her in July.
The Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office didn’t pursue charges against 27 of the 39 people arrested, citing insufficient evidence. The 12 remaining cases were referred to the Cal Poly Humboldt Police Department for investigation. Those cases remain under investigation, according to the university.
For 13 people, including students, arrested at Stanford University in June, the Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen has not pressed charges as of Nov. 20, according to information his office provided CalMatters.
Elsewhere across the state, some district attorneys are pursuing misdemeanor and felony charges against student protesters. Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer is pursuing misdemeanor charges against 50 people, including two UCI professors, a teaching assistant, and 26 students, stemming from a protest at UC Irvine on Oct. 22, 2023. Charges include failure to disperse, resisting arrest and vandalism.
At Pomona College, 19 students were arrested on April 5 on charges of trespassing after some protesters entered and refused to leave an administrative building. Students arrested either had their cases dismissed or have accepted community service in lieu of further legal action. James Gutierrez, the attorney representing the arrested students, said he asked that the college drop charges against its students, citing their right to protest the use of paid tuition dollars.
“They are righteously demanding that their colleges, the ones they pay tuition to and housing fees and pour a lot of money into, that that university or college stop investing in companies that are directly supporting this genocide and indirectly supporting it,” he said.
Students fight back against campus protest policies
As administrators face the challenge of applying protest policies more uniformly and swiftly, the truer test of California public higher education institutions’ protest rules will be playing out in court.
In one already resolved case, UC leadership agreed in August to comply with a court order requiring the campus to end programs or events that exclude Jewish students. A federal judge ruled some Jewish students in support of Israel who were blocked from entering the encampment had their religious liberties violated — though some Jewish students did participate in UCLA’s protest encampment.
Now, students have filed at least two lawsuits against their campuses and the UC system for violating their rights while ending student encampments last spring. In September, ACLU NorCal filed suits against the UC and UC Santa Cruz for not providing students due process when they immediately barred arrested students from returning to campus.
“Those students should have gotten a hearing, an opportunity to defend themselves or to explain themselves, and the school would have shown evidence of why they created a risk of disturbance on campus,” Chessie Thacher, senior staff attorney at ACLU of Northern California, said.
UC Santa Cruz spokesperson Scott Hernandez-Jason said the university “appreciates the court’s careful deliberation” and that the university “is committed to upholding the right to free expression while also protecting the safety of its campus community.”
In October, ACLU SoCal filed lawsuits on behalf of two students and two faculty members against the UC and UCLA, alleging the actions the university took to break down the encampment violated their free speech rights.
UCLA spokesperson Ricardo Vazquez told CalMatters via email that the university would respond in court and that UCLA “fully supports community members expressing their First Amendment rights in ways that do not violate the law, our policies, jeopardize community safety, or disrupt the functioning of the university.”
“The encampment that arose on campus this spring became a focal point for violence, a disruption to campus, and was in violation of the law,” Vazquez said in the email statement. “These conditions necessitated its removal.”
-
Politics1 week ago
Canadian premier threatens to cut off energy imports to US if Trump imposes tariff on country
-
Technology1 week ago
OpenAI cofounder Ilya Sutskever says the way AI is built is about to change
-
Politics1 week ago
U.S. Supreme Court will decide if oil industry may sue to block California's zero-emissions goal
-
Technology1 week ago
Meta asks the US government to block OpenAI’s switch to a for-profit
-
Politics1 week ago
Conservative group debuts major ad buy in key senators' states as 'soft appeal' for Hegseth, Gabbard, Patel
-
Business7 days ago
Freddie Freeman's World Series walk-off grand slam baseball sells at auction for $1.56 million
-
Technology7 days ago
Meta’s Instagram boss: who posted something matters more in the AI age
-
News1 week ago
East’s wintry mix could make travel dicey. And yes, that was a tornado in Calif.