chiefinalowo:

blank, please what is the difference?
I think Mr & Mrs XYZ means the Husband, the Wife and the last name of the husband

Mr & Mrs XYZ is different from Mr XYZ & Mrs ABZ.
If you bring in another woman tomorrow, she will also be Mrs XYZ
If you have 300 wives, they are all Mrs XYZ.

But Mrs ABZ XYZ is specific.

carefreewannabe:

It is not only about trust. It is about fairness and logic. Two people start a family and both work for it but only one partner is the legal owner of everything, how is it justifiable? I fail to understand.

It isn't justifiable.

hushmail: okonjo n Dora r all women
nothing wrong in having only girls
as for d boy take him as a blessing and u will have urs
have u wondered while urs boys turn up dead? It cos ur husband rejected his first son.
For my area there is a similar story, 4 girls n no boy cos d man disvirgin one girl and got her pregnant wt promise of marriage. Later d man denied d girl n her son. D girl cursed d man saying no son will be born in his household. Till date d man n wife d fine boy.
As 4 ur property if u get another Dora, d property wil b multiplied. Take am easy wt ur husband

This is the most ignorant remark I've come across on this page.

crackhaus:
Having both husband and wife as legal owners of properties is only logical if both actually contributed financially in the acquisition of said propert(y/ies).

I disagree with this line of reasoning.

When a man and woman come together in holy matrimony, there shouldn't be any his / hers / mine. It should be ours. Your statement implies that if the man is the sole financial contributor to any acquired property / estate, it should be solely in his name and the wife excluded. Why? Especially if the said property / estate was acquired after marriage?

Does one person (the woman) staying back at home, sacrificing her career prospects, and so on to help raise both their kids equate to nothing? Because going by what you've posted, you imply that being a stay-at-home-mum equates to just that.

EfemenaXY:

It isn't justifiable.



This is the most ignorant remark I've come across on this page.

People believe such things.

Godmystrength: Mr & Mrs XYZ is different from Mr XYZ & Mrs ABZ.
If you bring in another woman tomorrow, she will also be Mrs XYZ
If you have 300 wives, they are all Mrs XYZ.

But Mrs ABZ XYZ is specific.

Thanks!
I need more clarification.

If the husband is Mr. Richard Adams and the wife is Mrs Janet Adams, can't they acquire property(ies) on Mr & Mrs Richard Janet Adams?

crackhaus:
Not sure what you're thinking..but I omitted that part because it's an opinion of yours and not connected to what we were trying to figure out in this <'Two people start a family and both work for it'> context.

Ok, when, according to you, should women be the legal co-owners of properties in a family?

crackhaus:

Now having said all that, you worrying about being chanced or threatened about who inherits what right now says a lot about the kind of person you are...I know you trying to protect the future of your girls and yourself, but you should focus more on raising your girls to be strong independent women who won't need to fight over inheritance

And what kind of person is she? Doesn't she have a right to feel exactly just that? Do the current (and I daresay, primitive) traditional laws which are usually upheld in the absence of a will ever favour widows and her female children? Especially if she didn't bear the deceased man an heir?

crackhaus: and at the same time, focus on yourself by making investments and wise choices from here on out that would leave you comfortable and content even if you end up not acquiring anything from your husband.

Did you really mean that? Like seriously?

I don't know how many years this woman has been married to this man for, but from the sounds of it, she certainly is no spring chicken. A person whose poured their heart, soul, and entire youth into building something from nothing during the course of their marriage is entitled to a well deserved rest in their later / twilight years.

Now you're asking her to start afresh? After giving that union her all, and the best years of her life? Guy abeg talk another thing.

crackhaus: If you really a good, honest, and open-hearted woman, you should have no problem accepting this born-out-of-wedlock love-child into your home and treating him fairly.

It's amazing the way you guys swiftly judge women but won't tolerate an iota of the same stuff you expect them to swallow. That aside, her concerns / issues aren't even with the out-of-wedlock child, but with what she knows will happen to her and her kids futures, based on what his family would do to her, should the man pass away before her.

asadike: op,u nid 2 pray ur way out here coz i think ur husband was placed on a curse neva 2 have a male child since he denied d pregnancy in d first place. 4give ur man,accept d boy nd treat him lyk ur own,ask God 2 giv u a male child nd b wise. Try 2 save up 4 ur girls nd train them wel as d mind of man can b wicked, those girls myt end up being d only hope of d family 2moro. Pls b good nd put ur trust in God. Its wel.

thanks so much for your contribution

Godmystrength: If the sharing of the finances is by mutual agreement, then both names should be on whatever property is acquired. He shouldn't wait for his wife to tell him to include her name because they both worked for it. If he does otherwise, he is just selfish and wicked o. It won't be fair on me if my husband tells me to be in charge of paying the rents and children's school fees alone and also 100% feeding and recurrent bills so that he can concentrate on building a house only for him to put HIS name on the house so where does that leave me? if i know he will do that, i wont agree to the sharing. I will just suggest 50-50 for the recurrent expenses and 50-50 for the capital expenses else we will have to be doing our things separately.

The emboldened is hardly the case, but I understand your point with the example...so yes, if you're talking about fairness, then that won't be fair.

A woman who leaves her husband alone to take care of the finances 100% while using all her own money to build a house she will now call her OWN is just wicked and selfish. If such man should build a house, the woman's name has no place in it.

You keep using extremes to make examples @emboldened and like before, I understand the point you're trying to make.

If a man is using his own money for his selfish interests without any input to the family leaving only the woman to cater for the family and put a shelter over their head ALONE, then it is left for the woman whether to include his name or not. if she doesn't include it, i won't even blame her...

See what you just did there?

Another extreme, not a normal situation @emboldened. Once again I get how you want to make your point.

But let me rephrase the question then;
Unlike in your extreme examples and in a much more realistic situation where both husband and wife contribute substantially to the upkeep of the home, would it be right for a wife who undertakes a personal building project (maybe secretly) without any financial input from her husband to include his name on the documents of this property?

crackhaus:
I don't get what you're trying to say yet, but the emboldened is true.

However, my response to her is the logical response. If wife did not contribute financially in the acquisition of a property, then it's in her husband's predilection to include (or not to include) her name on the receipt, deed, or document of purchase...it's entirely up to him, this is the logic.

Crackhaus, would this logic of yours be applicable to situations where the woman is the breadwinner and earns enough money to buy / build up her property portfolio and estate.

Should she do this entirely in her own name, especially if the man didn't contribute a Kobo?

Godmystrength: How can i contribute financially to something and my name will not be there?? i don't even buy the idea of Mr and Mrs Godmystrength(assuming that is my husband's name). My own is ''Mr Super and Mrs Admin Godmystrength (where Super is his name and Admin is my name) infact, if it is a MAJOR something we must put ''Nee Observe'' (Observe is my father's name). who knows, there could be some other Mrs Godmystrength hiding somewhere so i don't want any surprises. Even our TV sef na ''Mr Super and Mrs Admin Godmystrength dey there. @OP sorry for your plight but it is not too late to remedy it. Talk to your husband maybe he will listen and make corrections. If he doesn't then you may need to start making plans for your future by yourself from now....

*** Faints!***

Girl, you are one tough cookie!

Lol @ "Nee Observe"

crackhaus: But let me rephrase the question then;
Unlike in your extreme examples and in a much more realistic situation where both husband and wife contribute substantially to the upkeep of the home, would it be right for a wife who undertakes a personal building project (maybe secretly) without any financial input from her husband to include his name on the documents of this property?

For her to be building the house secretly show that the foundation is wrong. A woman who can do that will not even think of putting her hubby's name in it. It doesn't mean it is a RIGHT thing to do. If the family is united, everything will be done in the OPEN and everyone will be treated fairly.

Where it is not in secret, this still applies

Godmystrength: If the sharing of the finances is by mutual agreement, then both names should be on whatever property is acquired. He shouldn't wait for his wife to tell him to include her name because they both worked for it. If he does otherwise, he is just selfish and wicked o. It won't be fair on me if my husband tells me to be in charge of paying the rents and children's school fees alone and also 100% feeding and recurrent bills so that he can concentrate on building a house only for him to put HIS name on the house so where does that leave me? if i know he will do that, i wont agree to the sharing. I will just suggest 50-50 for the recurrent expenses and 50-50 for the capital expenses else we will have to be doing our things separately.

victovrry: thanks so much for your contribution

u ar welcome my dear.

Godmystrength: Mr & Mrs XYZ is different from Mr XYZ & Mrs ABZ.
If you bring in another woman tomorrow, she will also be Mrs XYZ
If you have 300 wives, they are all Mrs XYZ.

But Mrs ABZ XYZ is specific.

Bless you sister.

dytbabe:

nne,dis is african, so many people stil beliv in black magic,juju nd so on. It hapend 2 one of my big cousins so i no wot am talkin abt

Haywhymido: Wait, wot is rung with ur husband, y can't he do a DNA test to make d situation clear.

the boy look so much like him, I think there is no doubt about him.

chiefinalowo:

Thanks!
I need more clarification.

If the husband is Mr. Richard Adams and the wife is Mrs Janet Adams, can't they acquire property(ies) on Mr & Mrs Richard Janet Adams?

Best to do Mr Richard Adams and Mrs Janet Adams. Two separate individuals coming together in holy matrimony lol.

Legally, there is no such person as Richard Janet Adams. Thus the name does not mean anything.

EfemenaXY:
I disagree with this line of reasoning.

When a man and woman come together in holy matrimony, there shouldn't be any his / hers / mine. It should be ours. Your statement implies that if the man is the sole financial contributor to any acquired property / estate, it should be solely in his name and the wife excluded. Why? Especially if the said property / estate was acquired after marriage?

Does one person (the woman) staying back at home, sacrificing her career prospects, and so on to help raise both their kids equate to nothing? Because going by what you've posted, you imply that being a stay-at-home-mum equates to just that.

I did not equate anything to something or nothing, you did that yourself.

I only posited that if a man is the sole contributor to a particular property, then it is logical that only his name appears on the document. However, it is at his discretion to include his wife's name if he wishes to or if his wife finds it necessary.

This is not about my money/your money as you're trying to imply, I'm only stating what follows by conventional reasoning. And besides, a man acquiring a property without the financial input of his wife does not entirely mean that he still doesn't contribute financially to the daily running of his household.

Efemena, if a woman purchases a brand new car procured entirely using her own savings and/or earnings with no financial backing by her husband... Going by your stance, I guess it's required that she includes her husband's name on the registration right?
Or in the case of land acquisition, same as above...

blank:

Best to do Mr Richard Adams and Mrs Janet Adams. Two separate individuals coming together in holy matrimony lol.

Legally, there is no such person as Richard Janet Adams. Thus the name does not mean anything.

Thanks.

To all that have contributed one way or the other to my post, I really appreciate a lot, almighty God will bless your home. To add to all I said earlier, most cases I happened to be the one who pave way for how we get all the money for our projects, I have always deal with my husband with all sincerity, even when I was advised to built a house secretly I turn it down because of the consequence if he later know about it. Though after we lost the last male born dead he asked me to bring all the document to change all to both our name but I think he only want to get them out of my hand cos I have been the one keeping those documents. But since he said it on the faithful day we lost the baby, he hasn't mentioned if again.......thank you all

crackhaus:
I did not equate anything to something or nothing, you did that yourself.

I only posited that if a man is the sole contributor to a particular property, then it is logical that only his name appears on the document. However, it is at his discretion to include his wife's name if he wishes to or if his wife finds it necessary.

And that's my bone of contention with you.

Your logic states clearly that if the woman didn't contribute financially to the property acquired by the man, then his name only should be the one on the document. So it should work both ways, shouldn't it? i.e: if the man didn't contribute financially to a piece of property acquired by the woman, then only her name should appear on the document, yes?

However, it is at her discretion to include her husband's name if he wishes to, or if her husband finds it necessary? Would you mind explaining in more detail, that clause of yours in red?

crackhaus: This is not about my money/your money as you're trying to imply,

I never implied that. I was quite explicit in stating ownership should be joint, hence my using the bolded plural, "Ours".

EfemenaXY:

I disagree with this line of reasoning.
When a man and woman come together in holy matrimony, there shouldn't be any his / hers / mine. It should be ours.

crackhaus: I'm only stating what follows by conventional reasoning. And besides, a man acquiring a property without the financial input of his wife does not entirely mean that he still doesn't contribute financially to the daily running of his household.

I see nothing conventional about your line of reasoning.

There is nothing conventional about one person in a relationship taking advantage of the other because they feel it's their right to. As far as I know, when a couple decide to get married, everything they acquire from the moment they say "I do", should be of joint ownership. It's only fair that way.

crackhaus: Efemena, if a woman purchases a brand new car procured entirely using her own savings and/or earnings with no financial backing by her husband... Going by your stance, I guess it's required that she includes her husband's name on the registration right?
Or in the case of land acquisition, same as above...

Uh..uh.. don't you try to turn this one on me.

I'm questioning your line of reasoning where you've explicitly stated that if the man acquires property / estate without any financial contribution from his wife, then any such property should be solely in his name. Then you go on to add conditional clauses stating that the woman's name should only be included if the man deems it fit to do so, or if the woman is concerned and requests him to do so.

Why should he have to be told what to do in the first place? Isn't it common sense?

carefreewannabe:

Ok, when, according to you, should women be the legal co-owners of properties in a family?

By marriage alone, women are already co-owners of whatever is owned...this is legally binding.

I really don't understand why the names appearing on a paper should cause this much trouble...especially when most women still insist on being next-of-kin.

EfemenaXY:

And that's my bone of contention with you.

Your logic states clearly that if the woman didn't contribute financially to the property acquired by the man, then his name only should be the one on the document. So it should work both ways, shouldn't it? i.e: if the man didn't contribute financially to a piece of property acquired by the woman, then only her name should appear on the document, yes?

However, it is at her discretion to include her husband's name if he wishes to, or if her husband finds it necessary? Would you mind explaining in more detail, that clause of yours in red?




I never implied that. I was quite explicit in stating ownership should be joint, hence my using the bolded plural, "Ours".





I see nothing conventional about your line of reasoning.

There is nothing conventional about one person in a relationship taking advantage of the other because they feel it's their right to. As far as I know, when a couple decide to get married, everything they acquire from the moment they say "I do", should be of joint ownership. It's only fair that way.



Uh..uh.. don't you try to turn this one on me.

I'm questioning your line of reasoning where you've explicitly stated that if the man acquires property / estate without any financial contribution from his wife, then any such property should be solely in his name. Then you go on to add conditional clauses stating that the woman's name should only be included if the man deems it fit to do so, or if the woman is concerned and requests him to do so.

Why should he have to be told what to do in the first place? Isn't it common sense?

There really is nothing wrong with my line of reasoning to be honest, you ladies just don't like it.

EfemenaXY:

Crackhaus, would this logic of yours be applicable to situations where the woman is the breadwinner and earns enough money to buy / build up her property portfolio and estate.

Should she do this entirely in her own name, especially if the man didn't contribute a Kobo?

If her husband has no problem with this arrangement, then she should go ahead.

Madam

I think you need to get your name on asset titles

If both couples contributed to acquiring an asset both names should be on it as Mr Goodluck Jonathan and Mrs Patience Jonathan

In a family there might be asset jointly owned and those owned individually

If both couple are working and contributing to running of the house,

The husband might like real estate and the wife likes jewelries, the husband might like cars and the wife likes stocks .

EfemenaXY:

Crackhaus, would this logic of yours be applicable to situations where the woman is the breadwinner and earns enough money to buy / build up her property portfolio and estate.

Should she do this entirely in her own name, especially if the man didn't contribute a Kobo?

ABSOLUTELY!!!!

The man was probably earning money too and what did he do with his own savings/investment? Carry am drink beer or pursue woman?

Now wan share another persons?

victovrry: To all that have contributed one way or the other to my post, I really appreciate a lot, almighty God will bless your home. To add to all I said earlier, most cases I happened to be the one who pave way for how we get all the money for our projects, I have always deal with my husband with all sincerity, even when I was advised to built a house secretly I turn it down because of the consequence if he later know about it. Though after we lost the last male born dead he asked me to bring all the document to change all to both our name but I think he only want to get them out of my hand cos I have been the one keeping those documents. But since he said it on the faithful day we lost the baby, he hasn't mentioned if again.......thank you all

Since you have the documents already. Discuss with hubby and together get a lawyer to effect the name change reflecting your name

On the child out of wedlock... Where is d mum

Are u sure u r female

[quote
author=chiefinalowo]

Thanks!
I need more clarification.

If the husband is Mr. Richard Adams and the wife is Mrs Janet Adams,
can't they acquire property(ies) on Mr & Mrs Richard Janet Adams?
[/quote]i don't know. I am comfortable with Mr Richard &Mrs Janet Adams.

crackhaus:
By marriage alone, women are already co-owners of whatever is owned...this is legally binding.

I really don't understand why the names appearing on a paper should cause this much trouble...especially when most women still insist on being next-of-kin.

Me neither ...

EfemenaXY:
And what kind of person is she? Doesn't she have a right to feel exactly just that? Do the current (and I daresay, primitive) traditional laws which are usually upheld in the absence of a will ever favour widows and her female children? Especially if she didn't bear the deceased man an heir?

Oh please, it's mighty early for her to be getting worried about inheritance.

Did you really mean that? Like seriously?

I don't know how many years this woman has been married to this man for, but from the sounds of it, she certainly is no spring chicken. A person whose poured their heart, soul, and entire youth into building something from nothing during the course of their marriage is entitled to a well deserved rest in their later / twilight years.

Now you're asking her to start afresh? After giving that union her all, and the best years of her life? Guy abeg talk another thing.

I didn't ask her to start afresh, did I?
I said she should focus on making investments and improving on her financial standing so that she doesn't have to be worried about who inherits what.
I also said she should ensure her husband makes use of both their names on any future acquisitions.

It's amazing the way you guys swiftly judge women but won't tolerate an iota of the same stuff you expect them to swallow. That aside, her concerns / issues aren't even with the out-of-wedlock child, but with what she knows will happen to her and her kids futures, based on what his family would do to her, should the man pass away before her.

That's the thing, a man bringing a child born out of wedlock into a marriage is totally different from a woman doing same.
Unfortunately I don't make the rules, but that's just the way it is. Men and women are different genders and do not follow the same set of rules...trying to judge both on the same criteria is absolute delusion.

And if she's worried about her future and that of her kids, I already suggested she talks to her husband about writing his will ...or better still, focus on improving her lot from here on out instead of sulking.

Ma'am you need to help yourself right now and make some little demand. Sit him down and tell him he should amend those titles to bear both names or forget about your trust and confidence in the marriage.

Don't bank on his frigging damn will, judges can be bought in Nigeria . That little boy may assume you are the reason why he wasn't accepted and he will surely come after you when he is gone. Your inlaw may also team up with that boy to deal with you in future. How are you sure he did not arrange the family show to break the news , so that he can reconcile with his boy since you don't have a son?

He has messed up by not giving you a hint on his affairs and he should smoothen this union a Lil bit. If he doesn't amend those documents right now let him know you have the right to buy your own properties. He will make amends if he is a smart man and stop making it look like giving birth to girls is a crime.

@OP, are you male or female?

EfemenaXY:

*** Faints!***

Girl, you are one tough cookie!

Lol @ "Nee Observe"

i can be mugu in everything but in cases like this, my number 6 must be at alert. No time for touching stories.