So if the woman financial contribution was towards the kids schooling and welfare,she can claim the kids as hers alone?

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).

^^ A Man leaving money for food and rent doesnt eat it alone nor live there a lone.

Make me understand.
Let's say husband and wife both work. It is assumed that both incomes belong to the family. Wife's income is used to cater for children's welfare and education while husband's is used to aquire property for the family.

Is there anywhere he gets off to buying them in is name alone?

Or by agreement,wife is a stay home mom tending to children all round up bringing and home keeping. Her contributions cannot be undermined because they are very important in the genral welfare of the home and even contributes to the man's financial success,can he buy property in his name alone because he's the one who 'works'?
Is his wife's contribution not work?
Can she claim the kids to be hers alone because she's sees to their upbringing?

Or more recently but not so uncommon. If by agreement,the couple decide the man stays home and keeps home while wife earns income.
Can she acquire family property in her name alone and only add him 'if she wishes to?'

Note all these conditions are based on mutual agreement by the couple at the beginning of the marriage.
Can one party decide to buy family prop in his/her name alone neglecting the other person's contribution because it doesn't come with invoice?

crackhaus:
Yeah, now this is what you were really trying to say @emboldened bits and my response was fitting.
You almost made me doubt my sense of perception for a second there.

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....

EOD.

@OP please thread carefully and softly. Accept the boy as yours and show no aversion at all. Use your head not your emotion and make calculated moves. Explore the option of including your name in the properties deeds and your husband writing a will. I wish you grace because you will need it.

cococandy: So if the woman financial contribution was towards the kids schooling and welfare,she can claim the kids as hers alone?

This is not even an accurate analogy. Did she impregnate herself?

@Nonso23: Your analysis is spot on. So spot on, it actually sent cold shivers down my spine.

Adopting a gra-gra approach will only set her husband's back up against her, and she and her daughters have EVERYTHING to lose as it's all in his name. Sitting quietly in one corner, not wanting to rock the boat will only encourage her husband (and now his family) to continue taking advantage of her meekness.

Na wa oh!

@OP: I can only wish you all the best in this.

That doesn't answer my question.
Better still check the second post and read my questions in full.

crackhaus:
This is not even an accurate analogy. Did she impregnate herself?

cococandy: Make me understand.
Let's say husband and wife both work. It is assumed that both incomes belong to the family. Wife's income is used to cater for children's welfare and education while husband's is used to aquire property for the family.

Is there anywhere he gets off to buying them in is name alone?

I have gone over this before. It all depends on the dynamics and how the couple decide to run their home.
If the wife agrees to only cater for the children's welfare/education, while the husband is in charge of acquiring property, then that conversation should also involve how the names appear on documents for said acquired property.

The woman automatically assuming that he is supposed to include her name is wrong, they should have had that discussion and both decided how the names should appear.
How this is so hard to understand beats me..

Or by agreement,wife is a stay home mom tending to children all round up bringing and home keeping. Her contributions cannot be undermined because they are very important in the genral welfare of the home and even contributes to the man's financial success,can he buy property in his name alone because he's the one who 'works'?
Is his wife's contribution not work?
Can she claim the kids to be hers alone because she's sees to their upbringing?

Again this analogy of claiming kids is not accurate and does not relate to this argument.

As for the example, same as above. Wife should discuss it with him and not assume that he's supposed to do it.

Or more recently but not so uncommon. If by agreement,the couple decide the man stays home and keeps home while wife earns income.
Can she acquire family property in her name alone and only add him 'if she wishes to?'

I notice you always mention this situation and try to pass it off as common.
Sorry, but as far as Nigeria is concerned and knowing how most Nigerian men are, this is very rare.. you hardly come across an official stay-at-home dad.
You can't even say you know up to five men who are stay-at-home dads by choice if you're being honest with yourself.

Note all these conditions are based on mutual agreement by the couple at the beginning of the marriage.
Can one party decide to buy family prop in his/her name alone neglecting the other person's contribution because it doesn't come with invoice?

Discuss, Discuss, Discuss!

It is not automatically assumed to have both names in documents procured by one party if it has not being talked about and agreed upon by the couple involved.

cococandy: That doesn't answer my question.
Better still check the second post and read my questions in full.

What question?

I said the analogy is not accurate, hence a woman can't claim a child even if she is responsible for the child's welfare alone. She did not impregnate herself.

Nonso23: This one is a very tricky issue.
From the O.p's submissions she contributed both morally and financially to the husband's family's fortune but somehow have been left out of the naming of the important documents.
The man has a male child who should be in the age range of 16-24 (if he actually had him during his secondary school days), whose mother has been comfortably watching his success from the sidelines (i don't think so).
Let's leave gender rues out. The O.p has every right to be worried.
This man and his family hid his 'illegitimate' child from her throughout their courtship and only chose to disclose this potential 'deal breaker' after 8 years of marriage, this decision possibly fuelled by his inability to sire another male child.
After his wife's miscarriage all he could think up was to request for the properties' documents so as to effect a name change instead of nursing his wife back to sound health.

Automatically, the meeting covened by her inlaws to tell the o.p about the boy was simply to formally inform her that he is the officially recognised heir to the man

Your comment makes sense for the most part , but I'm wondering where you got the emboldened bits from and most especially, the last paragraph?

What's hard to understand is if it is assumed that the wife's income which is spent on the family welfare is automatically understood to be for the family in general.
Why should there be a special case for the family property the man buys? Is that not for the family in general?
The woman's income or contribution is not argued or debated. It is clearly known to be for the family.
But if the man's income buys property,there's supposed to be a family meeting held to decide if the woman is to be included in the ownership or not.

Yea. It is hard to understand.

crackhaus:
I have gone over this before. It all depends on the dynamics and how the couple decide to run their home.
If the wife agrees to only cater for the children's welfare/education, while the husband is in charge of acquiring property, then that conversation should also involve how the names appear on documents for said acquired property.

The woman automatically assuming that he is supposed to include her name is wrong, they should have had that discussion and both decided how the names should appear.
How this is so hard to understand beats me..

it is automatically assumed that whatever she does for the family is the family's. But she's wrong to assume that whatever the man buys should include her name.



Again this analogy of claiming kids is not accurate and does not relate to this argument.

As for the example, same as above. Wife should discuss it with him and not assume that he's supposed to do it.


I notice you always mention this situation and try to pass it off as common.
Sorry, but as far as Nigeria is concerned and knowing how most Nigerian men are, this is very rare.. you hardly come across an official stay-at-home dad.
You can't even say you know up to five men who are stay-at-home dads by choice if you're being honest with yourself.

neither do I know plenty stay at home moms by choice. I'm not sure I know up to 5 either. Everyone is hustling. So you guys should stop making it seem like the Nigerian ideal is the bread winning fathers. That's far from the truth.

Anyway that was generally speaking. But even then if he's a stay home dad or not as long as the situation is one agreed upon by both parties,the person who works works for the family. And the props should be in the couple's name.


Discuss, Discuss, Discuss!

It is not automatically assumed to have both names in documents procured by one party if it has not being talked about and agreed upon by the couple involved.

cococandy: What's hard to understand is if it is assumed that the wife's income which is spent on the family welfare is automatically understood to be for the family in general.
Why should there be a special case for the family property the man buys? Is that not for the family in general?
The woman's income or contribution is not argued or debated. It is clearly known to be for the family.
But if the man's income buys property,there's supposed to be a family meeting held to decide if the woman is to be included in the ownership or not.

Yea. It is hard to understand.

When you put it like this @emboldened, it sounds like you're trying to pit wife against husband...this not a competitive thing.

Like I said before, if the woman and her husband have come to an agreement regarding whose earning is used for what purpose, then every other derivative such as how names should appear on property documents should also be discussed and agreed upon.

Take a look at the story in the OP again, how is it that a woman who financially assisted in procuring the houses and cars as claimed, suddenly realize after 8years and an out-of-wedlock child that her name is not in any document?
How is it that she never questioned her husband or talked to him about including her name?

Okay let's assume she didn't contribute financially in the acquisition of these things, isn't she supposed to have discussed it with her man by asking him to always include her name since the man wasn't doing it?
So after first house and first car, she didn't bring up the issue...then second house and second car came, same thing...she still did not talk. Now when the prospect of having a boy from nowhere coming in to get inheritance, her survival instinct now kicks in.

Abeg this story don tire me sef, shior...

Cool story OP

I haven't addressed the OP's case.
I only commented based on your earlier statement.

But now that you mention it.
She's been relaxed because she felt they were always on the same page.
But things changed all of a sudden.
How is it surprising her survival instincts sprang up now. Who wouldn't? You get a kid sprung on you the 8th year into marriage. A kid he conveniently forgot to mention all their courtship years.

But as a male child isn't forth coming,he feels the need to bring this one home thereby tipping the balance in their peaceful home.

Did I even read you say it's too soon for her to be worried about inheritance? No it's not.
The man is already worried about inheritance. As the typical African male,his daughters inheriting isn't the ideal situation for him. So he's already thinking of an heir. His wife is only following in his footstep.

You honestly believe it was remorse that made him decide to take back the child he denied years ago?
No. It's because he's looking for a son now.
And you know what sons are for. Inheritance.



That said,I've no advice for the OP.folks have already done that.

crackhaus:
When you put it like this @emboldened, it now sounds like you're trying to pit wife against husband...this not a competitive thing.

Like I said before, if the woman and her husband have come to an agreement regarding whose earning is used for what purpose, then every other derivative such as how names should appear on property documents should also be discussed and agreed upon.

Take a look at the story in the OP again, how is it that a woman who financially assisted in procuring the houses and cars as claimed, suddenly realize after 8years and an out-of-wedlock child that her name is not in any document?
How is it that she never questioned her husband or talked to him about including her name (and this is even the right thing since she claims to have contributed)?

Okay let's assume she didn't contribute financially in the acquisition of these things, isn't she supposed to have discussed it with her man by asking him to always include her name since the man wasn't doing it?
So after first house and first car, she didn't bring up the issue...then second house and second car came, same thing...she still did not talk. Now when the prospect of having a boy from nowhere coming in to get inheritance, her survival instinct now kicks in.

Abeg this story don tire me sef, shior...

For someone who contributed substantially in the procurement of houses and cars to be left out of the documents stating so is unbelievable.

All things considered, she's responsible for whatever fears she might be having now.

cococandy

Well we weren't there. Were we?


As for fears she may be having,have you considered that folks trust their partners so much they don't bother about those aspects of names and wills and estates. Only something like this wakes them up to reality.

Now if you know someone whose wife is pressuring him to include her name in the family acquisitions,what would you tell him?
To do or not to do?


Considering that most of our dear naija brothers consider everything that doesn't agree with their POV as insurbodination or not being SUBMISSIVE.how far can a wife go to make her own decisions applicable in the home too?

I mean the mantra around here is that the man's word is law in his home.
So if a submissive wife decides to go along with whatever her husband decides and later it comes around to haunt her.she's responsible for not securing her future because she didn't defend her stand and insist on her right when the man was making the family decisions.??

You guys need to be clear with us.
Total submission or not?

Does the man decide for the family or does the wife have a say too and both of them can reach an agreement based on what's best for the family and not what serves the man's ego.


The OP case is not peculiar.
Some guys get to decide how props are owned in the family no matter who brings the money.
That's called calling the shots AKA being the head of the family. And a submissive wife has to suck it up

crackhaus: For someone who contributed substantially in the procurement of houses and cars to be left out of the documents stating so is unbelievable.

All things considered, she's responsible for whatever fears she might be having now.

cococandy

You're all over the place.

cococandy: We'll we weren't there. Were we?


As for fears she may be having,have you considered that folks trust their partners so much they don't bother about those aspects of names and wills and estates. Only something like this wakes them up to reality.

She should keep trusting him then and not be worried about anything.
Son or no son, her husband was going to die some day.

Now if you know someone whose wife is pressuring him to include her name in the family acquisitions,what would you tell him?
To do or not to do?

For a woman who builds a life from scratch with her husband, she's entitled to co-ownership.

For a woman who marries a man who's already doing very well for himself, I would wonder what her intentions are in that marriage.
However, she can discuss with her husband over co-ownership but she has to do it with tact and care so as not to seem like she's looking out for her own selfish interests.

Considering that most of our dear naija brothers consider everything that doesn't agree with their POV as insurbodination or not being SUBMISSIVE.how far can a wife go to make her own decisions applicabel in the home too?

I mean the mantra around here is that the man's word is law in his home.
So if a submissive wife decides to go along with whatever her husband decides and later it comes around to haunt her.she's responsible for not securing her future because she didn't defend her stand and insist on her right when the man was making the family decisions.??

You guys need to be clear with us.
Total submission or not?

Does the man decide for the family or does the wife have a say too and both of them can reach an agreement based on what's best for the family and not what serves the man's ego.

All this is totally off-tangent.

You must have missed the part(s) where I clearly talked about couples' dynamics and the need for them to have discussions and agree over things.
If a woman can't have discussions with her husband without coming off rude, demanding, or disrespectful...then she has herself to blame if he resists.

You're assuming every man agrees with his wife's opinion because she stated them respectfully?
You haven't seen men who don't agree with their wives even if the wives beg?

Agreed that no one in the union should talk about property and estate as if they are being selfish.
But it is an act of selfishness for the man to wait first to be told that the family props belong to both of them.
He has to be talked to and cajoled and begged to do the right thing?
And the wife has to tread carefully in asking for what's hers because she doesn't want to come off as selfish.
How about he sets the example by being selfless to start with?


And what does being all over the place mean?
I'm only adressing you based on what you typed. How's that being all over the place?

Cocobaby, let's call our lawyers and go through the prenups again. Discussions won't suffice.

Lol

carefreewannabe: Cocobaby, let's call our lawyers and go through the prenups again. Discussions won't suffice.

cococandy: You're assuming every man agrees with his wife's opinion because she stated them respectfully?
You haven't seen men who don't agree with their wives even if the wives beg?

Regarding this situation of names on documents, I see no reason why a woman should even beg going by all that's been said by the females on this thread.

If she has to beg and if her husband has to refuse, then something was already wrong with their union before the present issue.

Agreed that no one in the union should talk about property and estate as if they are being selfish.
But it is an act of selfishness for the man to wait first to be told that the family props belong to both of them.
He has to be talked to and cajoled and begged to do the right thing?
And the wife has to tread carefully in asking for what's hers because she doesn't want to come off as selfish.
How about he sets the example by being selfless to start with?

Again I say:

- If she's a contributor to the running of the house, or a direct contributor to property acquisition, she can have her name on documents.
But if by some stroke of forgetfulness or something else, her husband doesn't include her name, then she should discuss it with him.
I doubt that any reasonable man would refuse after this.

- If she has in no way made any contribution (yet) to her husband's wealth, probably cos she married him when he already had things going well for him, then asking to be included in legal documents should be done with care and tact, so she doesn't come off as having hidden motives.

Also I don't see the selfishness in a man not including his wife on documents to properties he purchased himself...if his wife sees it as such, she should discuss it with him.

And what does being all over the place mean?
I'm only adressing you based on what you typed. How's that being all over the place?

One example of being all over the place is in that line I struck out above, I made no use of those words.

@crackhaus.

Maybe you didn't read my first questions.
I said if they both contributed to the family welfare even if the man was the one who's income was used to buy the props. Then there should be no question about her name on the deeds.
All the examples I gave were ideal situations where both parties agreed to work together (be it home or outside work) for the family progress but then the man buys the stuff in his name only because that's the area his own contribtution is chaneled to.
You initially said he didn't have to include her name unless he wanted to.
But
You ended up agreeing with me.
While trying to make it seem like I'm giving gold diggers a free pass to wealthy men's sweat.

I never implied that I can marry Bill Gates tomorrow and automatically own half his wealth.



The statement you striked was implied.
Although I didn't say you did. I've been reading other comments too. So why did you assume I think you implied it?

Anyway
If the man doesn't know by himself that whatever they own belongs to both of them.
All those 'sit him down gently and talk,discuss,make him see reason,be polite and respectful etc etc amounts to cajoling and begging.

Not saying it's not the right approach. Most times the peaceful is the best way.
But it doesn't change the fact that devicing means and methods to tell someone to do the right thing amounts to begging them to do the right.

cococandy: If the man doesn't know by himself that whatever they own belongs to both of them. All those 'sit him down gently and talk,discuss,make him see reason,be polite and respectful etc etc amounts to cajoling and begging.

Na wah oo, how does having a discussion with one's husband amount to cajoling and begging again?

@emboldened, a reasonable man already knows that whatever he owns is also his wife's by reason of marriage. A woman should know this too, but if having her name written in ink on paper is what she uses as a criteria, then she should find a way to talk about it with her husband...simple!

I mean if for some reason a woman notices that her husband is not including her name in the documents, is it not to have a discussion that is left to do?
As in the OP and in such a situation, what else is left for the wife to do? Is it not to talk to her husband about it?

So because in your mind it feels like you would be begging and cajoling, this means a woman should not bring it up when necessary? You're funny
If the woman in the OP had brought up the discussion about including her name on documents long before now, will she be in this much stress over inheritance after 8years?

Not saying it's not the right approach. Most
times the peaceful is the best way.
But it doesn't change the fact that devising means and methods to tell someone to do the right thing amounts to begging them to do the right.

I'm sorry to say, but the emboldened text is more of a reflection on the kind of person who would see a discussion with their spouse as begging and cajoling.

Deliberately misunderstanding me. Are we?

I haven't said discussion is not the way forward.
In fact I did say and I paraphrase 'I find the peaceful method to be the best method most times'
Go back and read that again.

My only point is that the man should see it as wrong to buy props only in his name.
What's wrong is wrong.
All this dancing around won't change that it is wrong!!!
And such a man might even want family to intervene or most extremely for family lawyers to be involved before he agrees to do the right thing..

If you ask me,any man that has to wait until he's told before he knows that his wife's name should be on their property deeds wants to be begged and will most likely refuse even after he's begged.


Would he be relaxed if all the deed were in the woman's name? I mean he should relax since everything they own is theirs by marriage so even if it's in the woman's name it's no biggie.they are one aren't they?.

crackhaus:
Na wah oo, how does having a discussion with one's husband amount to cajoling and begging again?

@emboldened, a reasonable man already knows that whatever he owns is also his wife's by reason of marriage. A woman should know this too, but if having her name written in ink on paper is what she uses as a criteria, then she should find a way to talk about it with her husband...simple!

I mean if for some reason a woman notices that her husband is not including her name in the documents, is it not to have a discussion that is left to do?
As in the OP and in such a situation, what else is left for the wife to do? Is it not to talk to her husband about it?

So because in your mind it feels like you would be begging and cajoling, this means a woman should not bring it up when necessary? You're funny
If the woman in the OP had brought up the discussion about including her name on documents long before now, will she be in this much stress over inheritance after 8years?


I'm sorr y to say, but the emboldened text is more of a reflection on the kind of person who would see a discussion with their spouse as begging and cajoling.

pickabeau1:

LOL.. but Nairaland did not have to exist to tell you that marital relationships differ..?

Nairaland is where I have heard/read the strangest things about marital relationships
Who would have thought there are women, in today's world, whose names are not on ownership documents, part financier or not?
And what kind of man leaves out his wife's name on ownership docs?
I do not know any such couple amongst my contemporaries, not in my world
So, now you know why I made that statement

MMotimo:

Nairaland is where I have heard/read the strangest things about marital relationships
Who would have thought there are women, in today's world, whose names are not on ownership documents, part financier or not?
And what kind of man leaves out his wife's name on ownership docs?
I do not know any such couple amongst my contemporaries, not in my world
So, now you know why I made that statement

OK.its a wide world

victovrry: I have an uncle, he happen to be one of those that want to finance my wedding, also there is guy happened to be one of those my uncle has helped in secured a job, this guy always attend anything we are doing in our house even he like me so much, we have been friend now going to a year,
here am going, the guy am talking about has fixed a particular date for his wedding, I have also fixed a date which is before his own, but I made a mistake by not inform the church priest before I picked a date, now when my inlaw went to the priest, he said that day has been taken and the only day that is free is that my friend date..... My inlaw have concluded in their mind to pick the date, but my uncle is saying is not good enough like that cos the guy has already pick the day, and this guy is never our family or relative, we are not even from the same state...pls what's your advice.....

This was as at July 22 2013.

victovrry: I got married to my husband several years ago, we are blessed with two girls, after 8years of our marriage my husband and his family called a meeting which the outcome was just to tell me of a boy my husband had when he was in secondary school, though he denied the boy then but now he has grown and look exactly like him...the issue now is that whenever I wanted to give birth to a boy, it always lead to miscarriage or born him dead...hmmm we had nothing when we got married, infact we married in a room, now we have more than four houses and cars, in which all my salaries and efforts are contributed but ...my kids are all girls and all our properties are written in my husband's name, pls I don't know what to do.....

This was as at Aug 2014

There are so many fake stories in this section that when i see inconsistencies, i bail out immediately.

blank, PI

blank: This was as at July 22 2013.
This was as at Aug 2014
There are so many fake stories in this section that when i see inconsistencies, i bail out immediately.

Mtcheew!

Mtcheew!! Mtcheew!!

Mtcheew!!! Mtcheew!!! Mtcheew!!!

You know what, I give up completely on this section with it's endless tirade of ghost stories. Complete and utter waste of time.

Mtcheeeeeeeeeewwww!!!!

That is why i don't waste my breath commenting up and down on NL.

I will rather read,and go find myself a nice nollywood movie,at least they believable.