@Gemini101
"FORCE an old man from his home?"
No, I was suggesting she consider forcing an old man to move from THEIR home.
"An old guy with Dementia....that already agreed to GIVE up HIS SS check"
If he remembers that he made such an agreement, and personally I doubt a court would agree to such a thing in his current mental state.
"based on his service"
As a veteran I fail to see what my veteran status has to do with my marital status. I would argue the same holds true for him. However his veteran status does have bearing on his eligibility of entry into certain facilities that would allow for better care than he is able to provide himself based on his medical condition and the current state of his home which was attributed by the OP to his actions.
"He barely has a pot to piss in and to suggest squeezing his old dementia filled head for even more is just OUTRAGEOUS and to suggest to he be THROWN into the street is more than I can handle."
I don't recall making such a suggestion, he would likely share in the proceeds of the home sale as well (even if she sought over 50%) and there are homes for veterans that provide medical care and basic needs. I understand that you might think this is cruel, but similarly what I find to be cruel is leaving a stubborn old veteran with dementia to fend for themselves without the ability to do so.
The OP said they mutually agreed to divorce, she didn't claim the guy was terrorizing her or beating the crap outta her....just that he wouldn't or couldn't ( he is 70) fix up the little old shack of a property that who knows whom bought at what time with who's 💰... I'm sorry but the mere SUGGESTION that a SOLUTION 'might' be to THROW in the streets really ticks me off....
Again, I never made such a suggestion. It is not his home, it is their home, and she is entitled to her fair share. The home likely did (before he allowed it to fall into disarray) and though it's unlikely to sell probably still does hold more value than she will recoup from his SS. So what about her (the OP). Where is she suppose to live, what about the tiny homes, should she just forfeit those as well if they are not movable? Should she just accept a verbal agreement to receive his SS check and leave him with everything and hope that a man with dementia remembers to send it to her? Again, imo it is unlikely a court would agree to such an agreement if they even can as SS is often not an income that can be easily obtained by a third-party.
[Edit: after reading up on an additional post by the OP, it does not sound like the husband's dementia is so advanced he wouldn't remember the SS agreement, but what happens when it does get that advanced.]
"God Bless the OP....but SHE wants better and MORE outta life, which is FINE but WHY does that mean HE is supposed to be HOMELESS with LESS THAN 50% of social security and retirement that he EARNED?"
I didn't suggest anything regarding his SS or retirement. Personally I dislike her current agreement which is why I offered 3 separate options, none of which suggested leaving the man homeless or taking his SS or retirement specifically.
"The man-hate in this 🌎 is beyond imaginable....I can't help but to feel for them, BOTH...he doesn't have to a write post for me to have compassion for the mucked up situation HE is in, as well as her."
I hold no hate for either party regardless of sex, and for what it is worth, I am male. She asked for advice, I provided the limited options that I saw that she can consider and pursue or not pursue as she chooses.
"He's old with dementia, limited income with a mate that doesn't WANT him or to be around him....that automatically makes him, not worthy of the same human decency afforded her?"
I feel like you are reading a whole lot into this post. I am in no way suggesting she deserves or should be afforded more human decency than him. In fact, I am only suggesting she consider 1 of the 3 options listed rather than relying on an old man with dementia to remember he agreed to forfeit his SS when I feel it is unlikely to be ratified by a court, and personally do not find it wise or equitable for either party. [Edit: If anything the current arrangement favors him imo.]
I am a 70% disabled veteran with 17 years of service. Something I can tell you first hand is vets tend not to like to admit when they need help, add dementia to the mix and gets even more complicated. Veterans with brain issues like TBI and dementia and the sort not tend to be less likely to be able to (or admit they can't) take care of themselves but also tend to be targeted for all sorts of scams etc...
"I would ask...what's WRONG with ppl but I already know...men don't count and are less valued no matter what.
Guys better take heed, because push come to shove, you will always get SHOVED in front of a 🚌😒"
Hmm, probably the first time I as a man have ever been accused of being a man hater twice in one post no less. This really doesn't warrant further response.
Let me elaborate on the 3 options just slightly.
1.) Getting an Atty and having him move out of the home isn't wrong. Why should he automatically be entitled to it, it's their home. Having him move out allows the home to be demoed or repaired, which ever yields the OP (and him) more profit. This doesn't mean he is automatically homeless any more or less than it means she would be. There are other options as well that do not necessarily require him moving into a home. He could live in one of the tiny homes or with a family member etc... I hate to elaborate on this further because that's really up to the OP and her spouse, and shouldn't be limited to any suggestions I make being as I know so little about the actual situation. Nor does this mean that she should or would still keep his offer of the SS.
2.) Seek more than 50%. If he is keeping the home, and she opts not to pursue option 1, this puts her in a spot. The two tiny homes are on his property and not likely rentable (due to lack of desirability of the location). Even if they were, couple new tenants with his dementia and this could be (might not be as well) a recipe for disaster. Additionally, her cost of living goes up as a renter offsetting his offer of SS to some degree. Why should he keep 3 homes and her keep nothing else. I don't know what total assets are available, but it is entirely possible that there are other assets that could be split or given directly to her to make the split more equitable.
Why should he get 3 homes and split everything else 50/50 on the promise of sharing his SS especially when that is not likely imo to be upheld by a court and even if it were, she would need to pay rent which could chew up the SS making their incomes basically the same with the only difference being he retains the largest assets. Especially if for example they had 3 running vehicles and an RV; wouldn't it be slightly more fair for her to keep 2 of the vehicles and the RV giving her assets and him assets and then renegotiating the SS part?
3.) Can the tiny homes be moved. If this were the case he might even be able to keep the house. Who knows, she might be able to sell one of the tiny homes, use the money for a down payment on new property and move the other tiny home. The SS might cover her land payment leaving them both in a more amicable position and more fair division of assets.
There are a lot of ways this could go, and it's purely speculation on our part, because of this, the OP who has the information we are lacking, needs to make the decision appropriate to the actual scenario. Given the OP's posts, I have faith she can do that.
Now I do understand that my original post did not provide an abundance of explanation, intentionally so, as their vagueness was designed to be thought provoking for the OP who has expressed no desire to hurt her spouse.
What I do not understand is where all of the "info" you used to fill in the blanks came from. I am sorry you feel that I was attacking or suggesting an attack on a fellow veteran who happens to be suffering from dementia, or on men in general, but that is simply not the case.
"FORCE an old man from his home?"
No, I was suggesting she consider forcing an old man to move from THEIR home.
"An old guy with Dementia....that already agreed to GIVE up HIS SS check"
If he remembers that he made such an agreement, and personally I doubt a court would agree to such a thing in his current mental state.
"based on his service"
As a veteran I fail to see what my veteran status has to do with my marital status. I would argue the same holds true for him. However his veteran status does have bearing on his eligibility of entry into certain facilities that would allow for better care than he is able to provide himself based on his medical condition and the current state of his home which was attributed by the OP to his actions.
"He barely has a pot to piss in and to suggest squeezing his old dementia filled head for even more is just OUTRAGEOUS and to suggest to he be THROWN into the street is more than I can handle."
I don't recall making such a suggestion, he would likely share in the proceeds of the home sale as well (even if she sought over 50%) and there are homes for veterans that provide medical care and basic needs. I understand that you might think this is cruel, but similarly what I find to be cruel is leaving a stubborn old veteran with dementia to fend for themselves without the ability to do so.
The OP said they mutually agreed to divorce, she didn't claim the guy was terrorizing her or beating the crap outta her....just that he wouldn't or couldn't ( he is 70) fix up the little old shack of a property that who knows whom bought at what time with who's 💰... I'm sorry but the mere SUGGESTION that a SOLUTION 'might' be to THROW in the streets really ticks me off....
Again, I never made such a suggestion. It is not his home, it is their home, and she is entitled to her fair share. The home likely did (before he allowed it to fall into disarray) and though it's unlikely to sell probably still does hold more value than she will recoup from his SS. So what about her (the OP). Where is she suppose to live, what about the tiny homes, should she just forfeit those as well if they are not movable? Should she just accept a verbal agreement to receive his SS check and leave him with everything and hope that a man with dementia remembers to send it to her? Again, imo it is unlikely a court would agree to such an agreement if they even can as SS is often not an income that can be easily obtained by a third-party.
[Edit: after reading up on an additional post by the OP, it does not sound like the husband's dementia is so advanced he wouldn't remember the SS agreement, but what happens when it does get that advanced.]
"God Bless the OP....but SHE wants better and MORE outta life, which is FINE but WHY does that mean HE is supposed to be HOMELESS with LESS THAN 50% of social security and retirement that he EARNED?"
I didn't suggest anything regarding his SS or retirement. Personally I dislike her current agreement which is why I offered 3 separate options, none of which suggested leaving the man homeless or taking his SS or retirement specifically.
"The man-hate in this 🌎 is beyond imaginable....I can't help but to feel for them, BOTH...he doesn't have to a write post for me to have compassion for the mucked up situation HE is in, as well as her."
I hold no hate for either party regardless of sex, and for what it is worth, I am male. She asked for advice, I provided the limited options that I saw that she can consider and pursue or not pursue as she chooses.
"He's old with dementia, limited income with a mate that doesn't WANT him or to be around him....that automatically makes him, not worthy of the same human decency afforded her?"
I feel like you are reading a whole lot into this post. I am in no way suggesting she deserves or should be afforded more human decency than him. In fact, I am only suggesting she consider 1 of the 3 options listed rather than relying on an old man with dementia to remember he agreed to forfeit his SS when I feel it is unlikely to be ratified by a court, and personally do not find it wise or equitable for either party. [Edit: If anything the current arrangement favors him imo.]
I am a 70% disabled veteran with 17 years of service. Something I can tell you first hand is vets tend not to like to admit when they need help, add dementia to the mix and gets even more complicated. Veterans with brain issues like TBI and dementia and the sort not tend to be less likely to be able to (or admit they can't) take care of themselves but also tend to be targeted for all sorts of scams etc...
"I would ask...what's WRONG with ppl but I already know...men don't count and are less valued no matter what.
Guys better take heed, because push come to shove, you will always get SHOVED in front of a 🚌😒"
Hmm, probably the first time I as a man have ever been accused of being a man hater twice in one post no less. This really doesn't warrant further response.
Let me elaborate on the 3 options just slightly.
1.) Getting an Atty and having him move out of the home isn't wrong. Why should he automatically be entitled to it, it's their home. Having him move out allows the home to be demoed or repaired, which ever yields the OP (and him) more profit. This doesn't mean he is automatically homeless any more or less than it means she would be. There are other options as well that do not necessarily require him moving into a home. He could live in one of the tiny homes or with a family member etc... I hate to elaborate on this further because that's really up to the OP and her spouse, and shouldn't be limited to any suggestions I make being as I know so little about the actual situation. Nor does this mean that she should or would still keep his offer of the SS.
2.) Seek more than 50%. If he is keeping the home, and she opts not to pursue option 1, this puts her in a spot. The two tiny homes are on his property and not likely rentable (due to lack of desirability of the location). Even if they were, couple new tenants with his dementia and this could be (might not be as well) a recipe for disaster. Additionally, her cost of living goes up as a renter offsetting his offer of SS to some degree. Why should he keep 3 homes and her keep nothing else. I don't know what total assets are available, but it is entirely possible that there are other assets that could be split or given directly to her to make the split more equitable.
Why should he get 3 homes and split everything else 50/50 on the promise of sharing his SS especially when that is not likely imo to be upheld by a court and even if it were, she would need to pay rent which could chew up the SS making their incomes basically the same with the only difference being he retains the largest assets. Especially if for example they had 3 running vehicles and an RV; wouldn't it be slightly more fair for her to keep 2 of the vehicles and the RV giving her assets and him assets and then renegotiating the SS part?
3.) Can the tiny homes be moved. If this were the case he might even be able to keep the house. Who knows, she might be able to sell one of the tiny homes, use the money for a down payment on new property and move the other tiny home. The SS might cover her land payment leaving them both in a more amicable position and more fair division of assets.
There are a lot of ways this could go, and it's purely speculation on our part, because of this, the OP who has the information we are lacking, needs to make the decision appropriate to the actual scenario. Given the OP's posts, I have faith she can do that.
Now I do understand that my original post did not provide an abundance of explanation, intentionally so, as their vagueness was designed to be thought provoking for the OP who has expressed no desire to hurt her spouse.
What I do not understand is where all of the "info" you used to fill in the blanks came from. I am sorry you feel that I was attacking or suggesting an attack on a fellow veteran who happens to be suffering from dementia, or on men in general, but that is simply not the case.
Starting Score: EQ:791 | TU:785 | EX:781
@Gemini101
No offense taken. However to clarify a couple of things.
1.) I realize that men can be conditioned to hate men and women women, minorities minorities etc.... However it is not something that should be concluded upon or assumed without evidence, and I feel like much of what you got from my post came from your being rubbed raw by others who may have felt or acted this way, but not from the content of my original post. Yes I pointed out the fact I am male in my response, but I also pointed out that my intent and the content of my post was not for her to take everything and stick it to him. The fact that I am male doesn't prove I have not been conditioned to hate men or accept man hating in general but coupled with the fact that such conditioning is rare enough that I would argue it does not make up the majority of males (I.e. less than 50% of all males are successfully conditioned to hate males) and the fact that my original post does not support that I am a man hater, leaves no reason to assume that I am. I understand and accept your explanation of being rubbed raw by this and am in no way responding to this now to argue further against you but rather to clarify for others and for peace of mind that I was not writing out of some preconceived notion that all men victimize women or that men are some way entitled to less humanity than women or anything of the sort.
This is kind of an important topic to me personally because I do feel that often (certain numbers of) people of all types play the victim card against prejudices of varying types which are often exasperated to such acceptance that they are believed by far to be broad range truths, and in reality become truths only in some number of cases but stereotypically applied as all encompassing truths. However, I also do not believe the best response is to declare or suggest such a case where no evidence exists, disparity begets disparity. When we think in terms of man/women, black/white, red/yellow etc... Without cause of relevance, we just widen the divide. When I wrote my post I wasn't considering male/female or husband/wife as a relevant factor. I was thinking in terms of spouse/spouse. Your example of us being in agreement that it is their house but HE let it fall into disarray is contextually inaccurate. Yes I did say this, however it had nothing to do with him being male, but everything to do with the fact that the OP stated he was living in the house and she was living in the tiny home and He did not take care of the home. Did I assume the OP represented this accurately, yes. I have no cause to think otherwise. Now please do not take this to be too personal, but the reason I felt the need to clarify is that your latest response leaves it open to be interpreted that I placed the blame on him solely because he is male and thus automatically responsible for the upkeep of their home. I stand by my earlier statement, this is simply not the case, to suggest otherwise is errant. I was simply responding to the OP based on the information provided by the OP.
Now getting back on track.
2.) If we assume their are no other real assets, and only the house. Why is it fair for him to keep the home and take up an offer that may be hard to enforce legally, of 1/2 his SS check? He still keeps his pension and the other half of his SS check, which yes he earned. However, he also keeps 100% of the home, the 2 tiny homes, and has no rent obligation. She on the other hand receives no real assets other than the SS, but she also inherits a liability that he is protected from, rent. I see no reason he should automatically be entitled to the home over her, since we agree it is their home. This means that if she were to retain 100% of the home, and he kept his SS check than he would receive a liability that he was otherwise protected from. In this case he would probably retain 100% of his SS, but as you pointed out, he earned this income, so now it would be unfair for him. I am not saying that you are suggesting such a thing, but rather that said scenario is unfair in both cases. Probably more so if she kept the home than if he did, since her SS income would not offset as much. However, the fact that it would be more unfair the other way around is not reason for him to keep the only asset. Less unfair, is not the same as equitable, and not necessarily the same as close to fair. That why I offered as a suggestion that they demo the home or repair it and sell it. Yes, it's not what he wants, but it is more fair since the assets could be split more appropriately.
3.) Who paid for the home is not relevant, they both lived their and most of not all state laws will look at these types of assets as joint, in part because it is presumed that, as often is the case, other joint liabilities that do not generate assets would have been covered by the other party. I.e. I pay the mortgage, you pay the groceries and utilities. In such a case would it be fair for me to keep the home and you get nothing? Yes this isn't always the case, but it is imo why courts generally treat all major assets as joint regardless of who paid for it. You can argue this is unfair, but without more specific details of their marital fiscal relationship it's impossible to tell and best left up to the spouses to act on or against any advice given based on what they know is right.
4.) How much exactly are NFCU benefits worth. The fiscal value of such benefits is largely indeterminable and vary from individual to individual. I don't think it's fair to argue that such benefits should warrant a defense against her at least considering the pursuit of what we are considering/assuming the only real joint asset. I think she should make that decision on her own.
5.) On the dimensions, if she mentioned in the OP that he was mentally capable I missed that. She did mention it later for sure. But that's now. I am admittedly not a Dr. And any advice I offer on this is based only on my experience with close friends and family members, but dimensia can deteriorate (and as far as I know eventually does in all or almost all cases). For this reason, and others, I think the SS agreement (though a decent gesture) is potentially setting yourself up for failure.
5.) In regards to he being a stay at home mom. Yes nobody knows for sure, but an indicator that she may have been (compare SS amounts).
Immaterial though to presenting ideas. Like the NFCU issue, it's something she should consider in deciding to act or not act on any ideas. We don't have the intimate details of who's decision and who ultimately benefited from it etc... So I don't consider these things in recommending decisions especially if I don't get the impression one part is trying to hose the other party over. Example of why it's immaterial, she may have joined NFCU to up his credit. It may have made fiscal sense at the time for her to be a stay at home mom (assuming she was) and thus been mutually beneficial, or it may have been done at his request.
No offense taken. However to clarify a couple of things.
1.) I realize that men can be conditioned to hate men and women women, minorities minorities etc.... However it is not something that should be concluded upon or assumed without evidence, and I feel like much of what you got from my post came from your being rubbed raw by others who may have felt or acted this way, but not from the content of my original post. Yes I pointed out the fact I am male in my response, but I also pointed out that my intent and the content of my post was not for her to take everything and stick it to him. The fact that I am male doesn't prove I have not been conditioned to hate men or accept man hating in general but coupled with the fact that such conditioning is rare enough that I would argue it does not make up the majority of males (I.e. less than 50% of all males are successfully conditioned to hate males) and the fact that my original post does not support that I am a man hater, leaves no reason to assume that I am. I understand and accept your explanation of being rubbed raw by this and am in no way responding to this now to argue further against you but rather to clarify for others and for peace of mind that I was not writing out of some preconceived notion that all men victimize women or that men are some way entitled to less humanity than women or anything of the sort.
This is kind of an important topic to me personally because I do feel that often (certain numbers of) people of all types play the victim card against prejudices of varying types which are often exasperated to such acceptance that they are believed by far to be broad range truths, and in reality become truths only in some number of cases but stereotypically applied as all encompassing truths. However, I also do not believe the best response is to declare or suggest such a case where no evidence exists, disparity begets disparity. When we think in terms of man/women, black/white, red/yellow etc... Without cause of relevance, we just widen the divide. When I wrote my post I wasn't considering male/female or husband/wife as a relevant factor. I was thinking in terms of spouse/spouse. Your example of us being in agreement that it is their house but HE let it fall into disarray is contextually inaccurate. Yes I did say this, however it had nothing to do with him being male, but everything to do with the fact that the OP stated he was living in the house and she was living in the tiny home and He did not take care of the home. Did I assume the OP represented this accurately, yes. I have no cause to think otherwise. Now please do not take this to be too personal, but the reason I felt the need to clarify is that your latest response leaves it open to be interpreted that I placed the blame on him solely because he is male and thus automatically responsible for the upkeep of their home. I stand by my earlier statement, this is simply not the case, to suggest otherwise is errant. I was simply responding to the OP based on the information provided by the OP.
Now getting back on track.
2.) If we assume their are no other real assets, and only the house. Why is it fair for him to keep the home and take up an offer that may be hard to enforce legally, of 1/2 his SS check? He still keeps his pension and the other half of his SS check, which yes he earned. However, he also keeps 100% of the home, the 2 tiny homes, and has no rent obligation. She on the other hand receives no real assets other than the SS, but she also inherits a liability that he is protected from, rent. I see no reason he should automatically be entitled to the home over her, since we agree it is their home. This means that if she were to retain 100% of the home, and he kept his SS check than he would receive a liability that he was otherwise protected from. In this case he would probably retain 100% of his SS, but as you pointed out, he earned this income, so now it would be unfair for him. I am not saying that you are suggesting such a thing, but rather that said scenario is unfair in both cases. Probably more so if she kept the home than if he did, since her SS income would not offset as much. However, the fact that it would be more unfair the other way around is not reason for him to keep the only asset. Less unfair, is not the same as equitable, and not necessarily the same as close to fair. That why I offered as a suggestion that they demo the home or repair it and sell it. Yes, it's not what he wants, but it is more fair since the assets could be split more appropriately.
3.) Who paid for the home is not relevant, they both lived their and most of not all state laws will look at these types of assets as joint, in part because it is presumed that, as often is the case, other joint liabilities that do not generate assets would have been covered by the other party. I.e. I pay the mortgage, you pay the groceries and utilities. In such a case would it be fair for me to keep the home and you get nothing? Yes this isn't always the case, but it is imo why courts generally treat all major assets as joint regardless of who paid for it. You can argue this is unfair, but without more specific details of their marital fiscal relationship it's impossible to tell and best left up to the spouses to act on or against any advice given based on what they know is right.
4.) How much exactly are NFCU benefits worth. The fiscal value of such benefits is largely indeterminable and vary from individual to individual. I don't think it's fair to argue that such benefits should warrant a defense against her at least considering the pursuit of what we are considering/assuming the only real joint asset. I think she should make that decision on her own.
5.) On the dimensions, if she mentioned in the OP that he was mentally capable I missed that. She did mention it later for sure. But that's now. I am admittedly not a Dr. And any advice I offer on this is based only on my experience with close friends and family members, but dimensia can deteriorate (and as far as I know eventually does in all or almost all cases). For this reason, and others, I think the SS agreement (though a decent gesture) is potentially setting yourself up for failure.
5.) In regards to he being a stay at home mom. Yes nobody knows for sure, but an indicator that she may have been (compare SS amounts).
Immaterial though to presenting ideas. Like the NFCU issue, it's something she should consider in deciding to act or not act on any ideas. We don't have the intimate details of who's decision and who ultimately benefited from it etc... So I don't consider these things in recommending decisions especially if I don't get the impression one part is trying to hose the other party over. Example of why it's immaterial, she may have joined NFCU to up his credit. It may have made fiscal sense at the time for her to be a stay at home mom (assuming she was) and thus been mutually beneficial, or it may have been done at his request.
I'm so sorry to here about your son. 
