AL Property Law

[anniewalker]

This is the law in AL:

Section 30-4-1

Separate property of wife - Property held prior to marriage or acquired after marriage.

All property of the wife, held by her previous to the marriage or to which she may become entitled after the marriage in any manner, is the separate property of the wife and is not subject to the liabilities of the husband.

(Code 1886, �2341; Code 1896, �2520; Code 1907, �4486; Code 1923, �8261; Code 1940, T. 34, �65.)

My question is: is this ever upheld?

And yes, I do just sit around reading AL Code all day.

[Jade]

This is the law in AL:

Section 30-4-1

Separate property of wife - Property held prior to marriage or acquired after marriage.

All property of the wife, held by her previous to the marriage or to which she may become entitled after the marriage in any manner, is the separate property of the wife and is not subject to the liabilities of the husband.

(Code 1886, �2341; Code 1896, �2520; Code 1907, �4486; Code 1923, �8261; Code 1940, T. 34, �65.)

My question is: is this ever upheld?

And yes, I do just sit around reading AL Code all day.

In my opinion, and I am not a lawyer, if it is kept completely separate, I don't think that it would be considered marital property. 

I am not so sure if a house is inherited by one party and it became the family home.  Especially if the marriage is long-term. 

[anniewalker]

The law as I know it states that in Alabama, if a single person buys a home and then marries, the home is automatically joint marital property. I own my house.  If I get married tomorrow and wish to sell my home on Saturday, my husband will have to sign the papers to allow the sale of the house. This section does not state that at all.  So, if anyone is familiar with Alabama law, please respond to my post.

[Lee Borden]

First, let me point out that there is a separate board here just for questions that deal with Alabama. Because this post deals with a principle that's common in most of the states of the US, however, I'm going to let it stay here and add a response. The basic answer to your question, Annie, is that the statute is enforced every day, and unerringly. However, let's make sure we understand the difference between domestic relations law (like the one you quote) and real property law (like the principle that avoids saddling one spouse’s property with the debts of the other). And let's be very careful about reading what the statute actually says.

Real property law says that when a married couple live in a house together, even if the house is owned solely in the name of only one of the spouses, the other spouse may acquire some rights in the property. The rights of a non-titled wife are called dower, and the rights of a non-titled husband are called curtesy. These rights arose, I am told, in response to the determination that it was unjust for a widower or more often, a widow, to be shoved out of the house where she had lived for years because her husband died and his greedy children wanted to make a quick buck by selling the house out from under her. You can quarrel with whether this principle is just, but not with me. I don't endorse it; I simply describe it.

Now let's layer onto that property principle the domestic relations laws that attempt to bring order, fairness, and predictability to the process of dividing assets and debts between spouses when they divorce or separate. Confronted with the specific facts you describe, most judges would have little or no trouble deciding to award the house to the wife and would have full power to order the husband to sign anything he needs to sign to make that happen (backed up by a full cluster of contempt powers to persuade him to cooperate). If a husband were to refuse to cooperate and the parties are not in domestic relations court, this wife may have no choice but to bring an action in domestic relations court to enforce her rights.

Now let’s tie a string around it. Your posts illustrates the complexity inherent in the juxtaposition of property law and domestic relations law, but I would submit to you that the wife in the specific fact situation you describe has a remedy available.

However, the essential truth of your post remains. When people marry each other, they enter a new world where their fortunes become intertwined, particularly after they have stayed married for many years. And frankly, most of us would agree with that principle. If a person doesn’t want to enter that world, I would suggest that he or she do one of two things: (1) avoid saying “I do” or (2) negotiate and sign a prenuptial agreement.

[anniewalker]

Thanks Lee.  That explained everything perfectly.  My mom is a widow, and she is about to marry a widower... so I think that a prenup is the answer to the question.  She assured me that they both have wills, but I explained to her that a) you can change a will on a whim and b) they only work when you are dead.  So... Much thanks!

[AU~MEL]

Let's just say I would be making someone sign a prenup if I owned my own house, if I was in that situation.