<BR>Found out my STBX is going after half of my 1/5 interest in my dad's farm. My dad died before we got married, but the estate was in probate until after we were married. 'My' 60 acres of land is still in a chunk with my sisters' and brothers' parcels ... the whole thing is in all of our names.<P>I don't think he deserves half of it. He hasn't put any time or any money into it. I pay the taxes out of money I get from the government to not farm it. He claims marital money was used to pay the taxes, so he's entitled?<P>He wants me to just give him the property we bought together, which is worth TWICE as much, and then he will back off on my dad's land.<P>I want to sell OUR property and split it 50/50. I don't think he should be entitled to my inheritance any more than I think I should get half of what he gets when HIS parents die.<P>But, has anyone out there been through this? What to expect??

The laws vary from state to state. Check with your lawyer.<P>Here in California, he would not be entitled to your inherited property. He *might* (emphasize might) be entitled to the increase in value of the property while you have owned it.

<BR>State laws vary, you'll have to see a lawyer. Some states (IIRC, Texas) treat inheritances strictly as individual property and any income/gains on that property remain with the individual. Other states (e.g., Massachusetts) treat any income/gain as marital property, but the original property remains with the individual. Still other states (e.g., Wisconsin, IIRC) treat any inheritances that are commingled with marital property to be marital property. If I understand his legal angle, he's probably trying to argue that the 20% interest in the farm is effectively commingled due to marital funds being used to support the property. I don't think he would succeed with this argument, but I've heard stranger things win, too. <P>Bystander

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bystander:<BR><B>Still other states (e.g., Wisconsin, IIRC) treat any inheritances that are commingled with marital property to be marital property. If I understand his legal angle, he's probably trying to argue that the 20% interest in the farm is effectively commingled due to marital funds being used to support the property. I don't think he would succeed with this argument, but I've heard stranger things win, too. </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Commingled. That was the word he used. He will have to prove that HIS money went to support the property, true? Because I have copies of my sisters' checks for at least four of the past eight years where she paid the taxes for me, because I could not pay her back until I had the CRP money (it comes in the fall, taxes are due in the spring).<P>I'm in Michigan, and I've heard a few different things. My other sister said he was entitled to 10% of its value, but not 50%. Of course she married and divorced a MAN, not a momma's puppet boy, and he didn't go after her property. I think I've lost enough.<BR>

T-L-C,<P>To prove assets were commingled he would try to demonstrate that marital income (joint income created during the marriage) was used to support the property. It wouldn't matter if the income was "his" or "yours," so long as it was earned during the marriage. Depending on state law (here's where you need a lawyer), CRP money may be considered marital income or it may not.<P>All that said, I don't think he'd prevail with this argument, mainly because you did not retitle the property in a joint title with him. But you need to see a lawyer. If the asset was a net liability during the marriage (i.e., if you actually paid more in expenses than the asset earned), he probably could make a case for you having to buy out his share of those costs.<P>Bystander<p>[This message has been edited by Bystander (edited June 19, 2001).]