(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).
DEAR JIM: I'm 63 years old and living with a 71 year old man on a ranch he inherited from his parents many years ago. He was widowed ten years ago and we've been living together nearly eight years. He's not in great health (he has emphysema and diabetes). I hate to sound selfish or greedy, but I worry about what would happen if he passes away. A couple of friends have told me that after seven years of living together I'm considered his common law wife. Is that true? And does that mean I'd inherit the ranch if he dies before me? He has two daughters, if that matters. ("Joanie" in Nevada)
DEAR JOANIE: Common law marriage is a very misunderstood subject, but the bottom line in your case is that it doesn't apply to you or your relationship. There are only nine states that currently recognize common law marriages, and Nevada is not one of them. And even in those nine states, living together does not automatically grant the couple common law marriage status, no matter how long the cohabitation has lasted.
So if the man you're living with were to die, you would not automatically be entitled to a share of his estate, the way you would if the two of you were married to each other. You could still inherit the ranch, as well as any or all other property he may own at the time of his death, but only if he leaves a valid will naming you as his beneficiary. Without a will, his daughters would inherit everything.
I know it may be awkward to bring up these matters with him, but you've really got to. You've invested eight years of your life in a relationship that could---for no fault of yours---end suddenly, and you'd have nothing to show for it. Even if, for whatever reason, he doesn't want to get married, he should at least have a will, and so should you. It would cost very little to have an attorney draw up "reciprocal" wills---wills that are the mirror images of each other, and that leave everything to the person who dies first.
The truth is, even though he may be in poor health, life sometimes throws a curveball: he may outlive you. The fact that you'd be willing to leave everything you have to him if he's willing to do the same, should make it easier to discuss the issue without your looking selfish in any way.
Good luck, Joanie, and please let me know what happens.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
Get Mom to a Lawyer!
(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).
DEAR JIM: My mother is a widow in her early 70's. Dad died five years ago and, fortunately, left her in good shape financially. But recently, she's taken up with a guy in his 60's who my sister and I feel is a slippery character. He's vague about his background. He's supposedly a "long-time widower", with kids "out of state", and lives off his "investments", but he never says what those investments are or how he made his money in the first place. Google searches on him turn up next to nothing. My mother told us that they're planning to get married on Valentine's Day, and will be going on a Caribbean cruise for their honeymoon. Mom has already put a deposit down on the cruise using her credit card---his funds are supposedly "tied up." When we try to talk sense to her, she gets angry with us, and tells us we don't know what it's like to be lonely (my sister and I are both married). Is there anything we can do legally to keep my mother from making a big mistake? ("Sally" in Dallas)
DEAR SALLY: I agree with you this all smells fishy, but I doubt that a court would intervene at this point. Although every state has guardianship and "conservatorship" laws that can, in extreme cases, transfer some or all of a person's decision-making powers to a relative or other person, there has to be a clear-cut case of incapacity proven. Bad judgment isn't enough. Unless it's combined with seriously-diminished physical and/or mental capacity---which, at the very least, would require a doctor's written opinion---courts will usually stay away from cases like this.
However, that doesn't mean a lawyer can't help you and your mother. In fact, I strongly recommend that she immediately consult a lawyer who specializes in domestic relations law. The reason is that, assuming you can't persuade your mother not to go ahead with the wedding, she absolutely needs a pre-nuptial agreement.
In a properly-drafted "pre-nup", both parties would fully disclose their respective finances and personal information prior to the wedding. The lawyer your mother hires would represent only her. If the boyfriend wants to be represented by a lawyer, he'd have to get his own (and some states require both parties to a pre-nup to have separate representation). Your mother's lawyer's job would be to make sure that her boyfriend is coming clean about his income, assets, debts, marital history, and all other relevant facts. An experienced lawyer could quickly tell if someone is being evasive or dishonest, and he would advise your mother accordingly.
A domestic relations lawyer would probably also have access to investigative tools that go beyond simple google searches. He might be able to uncover information about the boyfriend that could convince your mother to break off the relationship without even getting to the pre-nup stage.
I know your mother seems to be headstrong about this, but it's quite possible that she might listen to an "outside" professional more readily than to you and your sister. A lot of older people are resentful of what they see as power plays by their children. They resist giving up authority of any kind to their children, and will do almost anything---including making bad decisions---to assert their independence. A lawyer wouldn't normally present the same kind of threat to your mother.
I hope this helps, Sally. Please let me know what happens.
DEAR JIM: My mother is a widow in her early 70's. Dad died five years ago and, fortunately, left her in good shape financially. But recently, she's taken up with a guy in his 60's who my sister and I feel is a slippery character. He's vague about his background. He's supposedly a "long-time widower", with kids "out of state", and lives off his "investments", but he never says what those investments are or how he made his money in the first place. Google searches on him turn up next to nothing. My mother told us that they're planning to get married on Valentine's Day, and will be going on a Caribbean cruise for their honeymoon. Mom has already put a deposit down on the cruise using her credit card---his funds are supposedly "tied up." When we try to talk sense to her, she gets angry with us, and tells us we don't know what it's like to be lonely (my sister and I are both married). Is there anything we can do legally to keep my mother from making a big mistake? ("Sally" in Dallas)
DEAR SALLY: I agree with you this all smells fishy, but I doubt that a court would intervene at this point. Although every state has guardianship and "conservatorship" laws that can, in extreme cases, transfer some or all of a person's decision-making powers to a relative or other person, there has to be a clear-cut case of incapacity proven. Bad judgment isn't enough. Unless it's combined with seriously-diminished physical and/or mental capacity---which, at the very least, would require a doctor's written opinion---courts will usually stay away from cases like this.
However, that doesn't mean a lawyer can't help you and your mother. In fact, I strongly recommend that she immediately consult a lawyer who specializes in domestic relations law. The reason is that, assuming you can't persuade your mother not to go ahead with the wedding, she absolutely needs a pre-nuptial agreement.
In a properly-drafted "pre-nup", both parties would fully disclose their respective finances and personal information prior to the wedding. The lawyer your mother hires would represent only her. If the boyfriend wants to be represented by a lawyer, he'd have to get his own (and some states require both parties to a pre-nup to have separate representation). Your mother's lawyer's job would be to make sure that her boyfriend is coming clean about his income, assets, debts, marital history, and all other relevant facts. An experienced lawyer could quickly tell if someone is being evasive or dishonest, and he would advise your mother accordingly.
A domestic relations lawyer would probably also have access to investigative tools that go beyond simple google searches. He might be able to uncover information about the boyfriend that could convince your mother to break off the relationship without even getting to the pre-nup stage.
I know your mother seems to be headstrong about this, but it's quite possible that she might listen to an "outside" professional more readily than to you and your sister. A lot of older people are resentful of what they see as power plays by their children. They resist giving up authority of any kind to their children, and will do almost anything---including making bad decisions---to assert their independence. A lawyer wouldn't normally present the same kind of threat to your mother.
I hope this helps, Sally. Please let me know what happens.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Going Broke in the Dating World
(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).
DEAR JIM: I'm 46 years old and have been divorced a little over a year. I'm paying $950 a month in child support, and I'm still paying half the mortgage on the house my ex-wife and kids live in, plus the rent on my own apartment. I'm fortunate to have a decent job, but I have very little discretionary income at this point. I've met a few women through an online dating site, but every date I've gone on has been expensive and has lead to nothing. I hate to look cheap, but I can't afford to drop a hundred dollars or more on a first date with someone I may never see again. Is it OK to go Dutch on a date, or would it be the kiss of death to suggest it? ("Ron" in Connecticut)
DEAR RON: Before I answer your question, let me suggest an alternative. You don't have to spend a hundred dollars on a first date, regardless of who pays. In fact, even aside from the money involved, it's crazy to go to dinner at a nice restaurant with someone you barely know. If the chemistry isn't there, you'll both realize it before you've finished your first drink, and for the next hour or two you'll be making uncomfortable small talk while at the same time running up a substantial bill.
First dates should be in places that are inexpensive and where there is no automatic expectation of a lengthy time commitment. A coffee shop is an ideal venue for first dates; you'd have to buy a lot of lattes and pastries to drop $20 or $25, and you can make a graceful exit after thirty minutes if things aren't going well. On the other hand, if things are going well, you can usually linger as long as you'd like, or just leave together and take a nice stroll.
Another reason not to spend big bucks on first dates is that the woman may feel you're trying to buy her. This is one of those issues that cause a great deal of mutual misunderstanding and mutual resentment. The man feels that the woman is happy to let him lavish his money on her, and the woman feels that the guy is acting like he owns her. It's a common problem in the dating world.
Getting back to your question about going Dutch, I personally don't like the idea, unless the woman insists on it (there's nothing to be gained in arguing with a woman). If you're keeping your costs to a minimum and not obviously hinting at a "quid pro quo", you're more likely to come across as a man of sophistication if you pick up the tab. I may be old-fashioned in this regard, but I think that, when it comes to women, a little treat is never a bad idea. But keep the treats little, especially on first dates. You don't want to miss a child support payment because of too many fancy restaurant meals.
Good luck, Ron, and let me know how your next date goes.
DEAR JIM: I'm 46 years old and have been divorced a little over a year. I'm paying $950 a month in child support, and I'm still paying half the mortgage on the house my ex-wife and kids live in, plus the rent on my own apartment. I'm fortunate to have a decent job, but I have very little discretionary income at this point. I've met a few women through an online dating site, but every date I've gone on has been expensive and has lead to nothing. I hate to look cheap, but I can't afford to drop a hundred dollars or more on a first date with someone I may never see again. Is it OK to go Dutch on a date, or would it be the kiss of death to suggest it? ("Ron" in Connecticut)
DEAR RON: Before I answer your question, let me suggest an alternative. You don't have to spend a hundred dollars on a first date, regardless of who pays. In fact, even aside from the money involved, it's crazy to go to dinner at a nice restaurant with someone you barely know. If the chemistry isn't there, you'll both realize it before you've finished your first drink, and for the next hour or two you'll be making uncomfortable small talk while at the same time running up a substantial bill.
First dates should be in places that are inexpensive and where there is no automatic expectation of a lengthy time commitment. A coffee shop is an ideal venue for first dates; you'd have to buy a lot of lattes and pastries to drop $20 or $25, and you can make a graceful exit after thirty minutes if things aren't going well. On the other hand, if things are going well, you can usually linger as long as you'd like, or just leave together and take a nice stroll.
Another reason not to spend big bucks on first dates is that the woman may feel you're trying to buy her. This is one of those issues that cause a great deal of mutual misunderstanding and mutual resentment. The man feels that the woman is happy to let him lavish his money on her, and the woman feels that the guy is acting like he owns her. It's a common problem in the dating world.
Getting back to your question about going Dutch, I personally don't like the idea, unless the woman insists on it (there's nothing to be gained in arguing with a woman). If you're keeping your costs to a minimum and not obviously hinting at a "quid pro quo", you're more likely to come across as a man of sophistication if you pick up the tab. I may be old-fashioned in this regard, but I think that, when it comes to women, a little treat is never a bad idea. But keep the treats little, especially on first dates. You don't want to miss a child support payment because of too many fancy restaurant meals.
Good luck, Ron, and let me know how your next date goes.
Friday, October 16, 2009
The Cohabitation Blues
(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).
DEAR JIM: I'm a 34 year old woman. I've been going with my boyfriend for about four years, and living with him for two years. When he moved in with me, I thought it would be the next step in our relationship, and that we'd soon be making plans to get married. Instead, it seems like we're farther from marriage now than we were before. Whenever I bring up the subject, my boyfriend says "Why should we rock the boat?" He feels we've got a nice thing going right now, and that marriage is just asking for trouble (he likes to cite the 50% divorce rate). My friends say he's stringing me along, but I'd like a man's perspective, which is why I'm writing to you. Thanks. ("Frustrated" in Portland, Oregon)
DEAR "FRUSTRATED": I agree with your friends: your boyfriend is stringing you along.
He may not be doing it intentionally, but he's perfectly happy with the current set-up and he has no motivation to change it. My guess is he has a nice place to live in and a nice woman to sleep with, cook for him, and keep him company. If you're not going to press him for a commitment, why should he offer one on his own?
The problem with cohabitation arrangements is that most women go into it with your attitude (that it's a step closer to marriage), and most guys go into it with your boyfriend's attitude (that's it's a great way to eat well, live in a clean house, and have sex regularly). Unless the woman gives the guy an ultimatum, things just drift along until one of the other of them takes up with someone new or finds some other reason to end the relationship.
And that's my advice to you: give him an ultimatum. But an ultimatum doesn't have to mean a threat, nor does it have to be delivered in an angry tone. In fact, it's a positive message. You'd be telling your boyfriend you love him enough to want to spend the rest of your life with him. You're willing to make a lifelong commitment to him, but only if he's willing to make one to you, and by "lifelong commitment" you mean marriage.
As for a timetable, I think it's reasonable to give him thirty days to make a decision, but I wouldn't give him more than that. And I wouldn't accept an answer that says he'll marry you "someday" or in "a couple of years." Unless he's willing to set a wedding date within a year, move on with your life.
By the way, the argument about the 50% divorce rate is, at best, very misleading. We know the divorce rates because every state keeps statistics on the number of marriages and the number of divorces each year. But there are no official statistics on the break-up of non-marriage cohabitations. My guess is, though, that 95% of such cohabitations fail within ten years, and probably only 25% of them last as long as five years. So, if you're looking for permanence, don't look at cohabitation.
Good luck, "Frustrated", and let me know what happens.
DEAR JIM: I'm a 34 year old woman. I've been going with my boyfriend for about four years, and living with him for two years. When he moved in with me, I thought it would be the next step in our relationship, and that we'd soon be making plans to get married. Instead, it seems like we're farther from marriage now than we were before. Whenever I bring up the subject, my boyfriend says "Why should we rock the boat?" He feels we've got a nice thing going right now, and that marriage is just asking for trouble (he likes to cite the 50% divorce rate). My friends say he's stringing me along, but I'd like a man's perspective, which is why I'm writing to you. Thanks. ("Frustrated" in Portland, Oregon)
DEAR "FRUSTRATED": I agree with your friends: your boyfriend is stringing you along.
He may not be doing it intentionally, but he's perfectly happy with the current set-up and he has no motivation to change it. My guess is he has a nice place to live in and a nice woman to sleep with, cook for him, and keep him company. If you're not going to press him for a commitment, why should he offer one on his own?
The problem with cohabitation arrangements is that most women go into it with your attitude (that it's a step closer to marriage), and most guys go into it with your boyfriend's attitude (that's it's a great way to eat well, live in a clean house, and have sex regularly). Unless the woman gives the guy an ultimatum, things just drift along until one of the other of them takes up with someone new or finds some other reason to end the relationship.
And that's my advice to you: give him an ultimatum. But an ultimatum doesn't have to mean a threat, nor does it have to be delivered in an angry tone. In fact, it's a positive message. You'd be telling your boyfriend you love him enough to want to spend the rest of your life with him. You're willing to make a lifelong commitment to him, but only if he's willing to make one to you, and by "lifelong commitment" you mean marriage.
As for a timetable, I think it's reasonable to give him thirty days to make a decision, but I wouldn't give him more than that. And I wouldn't accept an answer that says he'll marry you "someday" or in "a couple of years." Unless he's willing to set a wedding date within a year, move on with your life.
By the way, the argument about the 50% divorce rate is, at best, very misleading. We know the divorce rates because every state keeps statistics on the number of marriages and the number of divorces each year. But there are no official statistics on the break-up of non-marriage cohabitations. My guess is, though, that 95% of such cohabitations fail within ten years, and probably only 25% of them last as long as five years. So, if you're looking for permanence, don't look at cohabitation.
Good luck, "Frustrated", and let me know what happens.
Monday, October 12, 2009
A Disaster Waiting to Happen
(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).
DEAR JIM: I heard you on a radio show talking about online dating, and I remember you said that long-distance relationships are not necessarily a waste of time, especially when one person is seriously thinking of moving close to where the other person lives. I live in the Tampa Bay area, and I met a great guy from Chicago through match.com. He says he's fed up with Midwestern winters, and wants to move to Florida before Thanksgiving. The only thing is, he won't have the money to buy a place here until he can sell his condo in Chicago. He says that if I let him move in with me temporarily, he'll pay me $1,000 a month rent. I do have an extra bedroom, and I could certainly use the money, but I feel a little funny about having someone move in that I don't really know (we've talked on the phone many times, but have never met in person). Any thoughts? ("Jennifer" from Clearwater)
DEAR JENNIFER: You're right to "feel funny" about all of this. In both a legal and a personal sense, this could turn into a disaster for you.
Legally, if your online friend moves in with you, you'd be creating a landlord-tenant relationship. I don't know the details of Florida law, but in general once a tenancy is created, a tenant has all sorts of protections. If he pays you the first month's rent and then suddenly stops paying, it may take you up to three months to evict him, during which time you'd be paying court costs and legal fees. Unless you're in the business of owning rental properties, you shouldn't become a landlord these days unless it's an absolute last resort.
In a personal sense, the situation could still be a disaster even if he pays the rent each month. What if, after you finally meet in person, it turns out that you really don't think of him as a romantic partner, but he thinks of you that way? It would be extremely uncomfortable, to say the least, to have to share a house with someone under those circumstances. You'd be spending all your time trying to avoid him, and you probably wouldn't feel comfortable bringing some new boyfriend over. There's even the possibility of a sexual assault. I just don't see any good coming of this.
If the guy really does have a sincere desire to move to Florida, and the money to do it, let him find his own place, or let someone else take him on as a roommate. That way, you can still see each other if you want, but without the legal complications, the financial risk, and the interpersonal and sexual tensions.
Good luck, Jennifer, and let me know how it turns out.
DEAR JIM: I heard you on a radio show talking about online dating, and I remember you said that long-distance relationships are not necessarily a waste of time, especially when one person is seriously thinking of moving close to where the other person lives. I live in the Tampa Bay area, and I met a great guy from Chicago through match.com. He says he's fed up with Midwestern winters, and wants to move to Florida before Thanksgiving. The only thing is, he won't have the money to buy a place here until he can sell his condo in Chicago. He says that if I let him move in with me temporarily, he'll pay me $1,000 a month rent. I do have an extra bedroom, and I could certainly use the money, but I feel a little funny about having someone move in that I don't really know (we've talked on the phone many times, but have never met in person). Any thoughts? ("Jennifer" from Clearwater)
DEAR JENNIFER: You're right to "feel funny" about all of this. In both a legal and a personal sense, this could turn into a disaster for you.
Legally, if your online friend moves in with you, you'd be creating a landlord-tenant relationship. I don't know the details of Florida law, but in general once a tenancy is created, a tenant has all sorts of protections. If he pays you the first month's rent and then suddenly stops paying, it may take you up to three months to evict him, during which time you'd be paying court costs and legal fees. Unless you're in the business of owning rental properties, you shouldn't become a landlord these days unless it's an absolute last resort.
In a personal sense, the situation could still be a disaster even if he pays the rent each month. What if, after you finally meet in person, it turns out that you really don't think of him as a romantic partner, but he thinks of you that way? It would be extremely uncomfortable, to say the least, to have to share a house with someone under those circumstances. You'd be spending all your time trying to avoid him, and you probably wouldn't feel comfortable bringing some new boyfriend over. There's even the possibility of a sexual assault. I just don't see any good coming of this.
If the guy really does have a sincere desire to move to Florida, and the money to do it, let him find his own place, or let someone else take him on as a roommate. That way, you can still see each other if you want, but without the legal complications, the financial risk, and the interpersonal and sexual tensions.
Good luck, Jennifer, and let me know how it turns out.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Married, But Living Separately?
(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please submit your questions to jim@attorneyatlove.com).
DEAR JIM: I'm 64 and have been a widow for ten years. About nine months ago, I met a wonderful man, "Carl", at a lunch club for widows and widowers. Carl is 66 and lost his wife three years ago. We fell in love almost immediately, and we're already talking marriage. The only thing that concerns me is that Carl doesn't want us to live together after we're married. We're both homeowners---in fact, we live only a mile from each other---and either one of our homes is big enough for two people to share. But Carl is perfectly happy with continuing the kind of relationship we have now after we're married: seeing each other for lunch and dinner almost every day, staying overnight together two or three times a week at one place or the other, going away on weekend trips every so often, etc. In some ways it sounds appealing; I've been living alone for so long I'm not sure how easy it would be to share a home again. But it also sounds a little crazy, like it wouldn't be a "real" marriage. And isn't it a waste of money to have two houses when one will do? What do you think? ("Karen" in South Florida)
DEAR KAREN: Financially speaking, it probably is a waste of money to have two houses when one will suffice. You would have twice the taxes, twice the insurance, twice the maintenance and utilities, and---if you don't own your homes outright---twice the mortgage payments.
But you would also have twice the space. And space, literally or figuratively, is what Carl seems to want. Like you, he's evidently comfortable with the daily routine he's developed since being on his own. It sounds as if he's successfully adapted that routine to allow for a significant amount of time with you, and it also sounds as if there is no other woman in his life or any other troubling reason for his not wanting to live with you full-time.
My personal feeling is that what Carl wants is unusual but not "crazy." In fact, it may be perfectly rational. He may fear that sharing a house full-time would destroy the romance you have now, or cause one or both of you to grow irritated with the other person's habits. He may like the idea of staying up late several nights a week to read or watch TV without keeping you up, or lingering over the morning paper without having to make conversation.
In my book, I discuss what I call "unconventional" marriages. In essence, I say that if a particular arrangement works for the two people involved, and there are no child-rearing issues to complicate things, it doesn't matter how strange it may appear to the rest of the world. In fact, the rest of the world may be jealous of a married couple who respect each other's need for alone-time, and see each other only when they really want to.
Of course, if you're truly uncomfortable with Carl's idea, you shouldn't get married to him. But if your main concern is how the arrangement would look to others, I wouldn't let that influence your decision. As for the money, it sounds like the two of you are doing pretty well right now, so your standard of living shouldn't be compromised if you were to get married.
Good luck, Karen, and please let me know what happens.
DEAR JIM: I'm 64 and have been a widow for ten years. About nine months ago, I met a wonderful man, "Carl", at a lunch club for widows and widowers. Carl is 66 and lost his wife three years ago. We fell in love almost immediately, and we're already talking marriage. The only thing that concerns me is that Carl doesn't want us to live together after we're married. We're both homeowners---in fact, we live only a mile from each other---and either one of our homes is big enough for two people to share. But Carl is perfectly happy with continuing the kind of relationship we have now after we're married: seeing each other for lunch and dinner almost every day, staying overnight together two or three times a week at one place or the other, going away on weekend trips every so often, etc. In some ways it sounds appealing; I've been living alone for so long I'm not sure how easy it would be to share a home again. But it also sounds a little crazy, like it wouldn't be a "real" marriage. And isn't it a waste of money to have two houses when one will do? What do you think? ("Karen" in South Florida)
DEAR KAREN: Financially speaking, it probably is a waste of money to have two houses when one will suffice. You would have twice the taxes, twice the insurance, twice the maintenance and utilities, and---if you don't own your homes outright---twice the mortgage payments.
But you would also have twice the space. And space, literally or figuratively, is what Carl seems to want. Like you, he's evidently comfortable with the daily routine he's developed since being on his own. It sounds as if he's successfully adapted that routine to allow for a significant amount of time with you, and it also sounds as if there is no other woman in his life or any other troubling reason for his not wanting to live with you full-time.
My personal feeling is that what Carl wants is unusual but not "crazy." In fact, it may be perfectly rational. He may fear that sharing a house full-time would destroy the romance you have now, or cause one or both of you to grow irritated with the other person's habits. He may like the idea of staying up late several nights a week to read or watch TV without keeping you up, or lingering over the morning paper without having to make conversation.
In my book, I discuss what I call "unconventional" marriages. In essence, I say that if a particular arrangement works for the two people involved, and there are no child-rearing issues to complicate things, it doesn't matter how strange it may appear to the rest of the world. In fact, the rest of the world may be jealous of a married couple who respect each other's need for alone-time, and see each other only when they really want to.
Of course, if you're truly uncomfortable with Carl's idea, you shouldn't get married to him. But if your main concern is how the arrangement would look to others, I wouldn't let that influence your decision. As for the money, it sounds like the two of you are doing pretty well right now, so your standard of living shouldn't be compromised if you were to get married.
Good luck, Karen, and please let me know what happens.
Monday, September 28, 2009
His Driving is Driving Her Crazy!
(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).
DEAR JIM: My husband has always been a pretty aggressive driver, but over the past couple of years he's gotten worse. He can't drive across town without at least once leaning on the horn, giving someone the finger, following too closely, etc. I cringe when I'm with him, and I'm afraid that one of these days there will be a road rage incident like you read about in the newspaper. He knows I'm terrified of getting into an accident or some other incident, but if I say something he just gets angrier, accusing me of siding with the other driver over him. I try not to drive with him unless it's necessary, but we do go a lot of places together (restaurants, weekend trips, etc.), and he won't even consider letting me drive "his" truck. What can I do? ("Lynda" in Tennessee)
DEAR LYNDA: I'm hoping you have another vehicle you can drive, because I don't think you should even get in your husband's truck until he's gotten some psychological help. He's got major anger-management issues, and it's just a matter of time before---as you said---you'll be reading about him in the newspaper.
It may feel strange at first, but you're going to have to start going places in two separate vehicles. When he demands to know why, you'll want to stay calm and stay in control. Explain that it's been obvious for a long time that you're uncomfortable being in the truck with him, and that it's best for both of you that you go in separate vehicles for the time being.
If he asks what "the time being" means, tell him that it's entirely up to him; once he gets help and changes his driving habits for the better, you'll be happy to start going places together again. To give him some practical information, you might want to do a google search of defensive-driving programs in your area, most of which at least touch on road rage prevention. You might also want to find out if there are psychologists nearby who deal with anger-management issues regularly. Because judges will often require anger-management sessions for people convicted of aggressive driving offenses, your local traffic court may be an excellent source of information.
With guys like your husband, I would be careful not to provoke him even more by implying that he is totally at fault. Tell him that you know that there are a lot of idiots out there on the road, but that there's nothing he can do about them except keep his distance from them. Tell him you don't want to see him do something crazy, even if in theory he's in the right, nor do you want to see him wind up in jail, or in the hospital, or in the morgue.
But don't be so supportive that you back down; your safety and your sanity are at stake. And don't think about the monetary costs. Whatever extra money you'll have to spend on gas by taking two vehicles, or whatever the anger-management treatment will cost, is a pittance compared to the cost of car repairs, hospital bills, lawyer fees, insurance surcharges, and God-knows-what else.
Good luck, Lynda, and let me know how it turns out.
DEAR JIM: My husband has always been a pretty aggressive driver, but over the past couple of years he's gotten worse. He can't drive across town without at least once leaning on the horn, giving someone the finger, following too closely, etc. I cringe when I'm with him, and I'm afraid that one of these days there will be a road rage incident like you read about in the newspaper. He knows I'm terrified of getting into an accident or some other incident, but if I say something he just gets angrier, accusing me of siding with the other driver over him. I try not to drive with him unless it's necessary, but we do go a lot of places together (restaurants, weekend trips, etc.), and he won't even consider letting me drive "his" truck. What can I do? ("Lynda" in Tennessee)
DEAR LYNDA: I'm hoping you have another vehicle you can drive, because I don't think you should even get in your husband's truck until he's gotten some psychological help. He's got major anger-management issues, and it's just a matter of time before---as you said---you'll be reading about him in the newspaper.
It may feel strange at first, but you're going to have to start going places in two separate vehicles. When he demands to know why, you'll want to stay calm and stay in control. Explain that it's been obvious for a long time that you're uncomfortable being in the truck with him, and that it's best for both of you that you go in separate vehicles for the time being.
If he asks what "the time being" means, tell him that it's entirely up to him; once he gets help and changes his driving habits for the better, you'll be happy to start going places together again. To give him some practical information, you might want to do a google search of defensive-driving programs in your area, most of which at least touch on road rage prevention. You might also want to find out if there are psychologists nearby who deal with anger-management issues regularly. Because judges will often require anger-management sessions for people convicted of aggressive driving offenses, your local traffic court may be an excellent source of information.
With guys like your husband, I would be careful not to provoke him even more by implying that he is totally at fault. Tell him that you know that there are a lot of idiots out there on the road, but that there's nothing he can do about them except keep his distance from them. Tell him you don't want to see him do something crazy, even if in theory he's in the right, nor do you want to see him wind up in jail, or in the hospital, or in the morgue.
But don't be so supportive that you back down; your safety and your sanity are at stake. And don't think about the monetary costs. Whatever extra money you'll have to spend on gas by taking two vehicles, or whatever the anger-management treatment will cost, is a pittance compared to the cost of car repairs, hospital bills, lawyer fees, insurance surcharges, and God-knows-what else.
Good luck, Lynda, and let me know how it turns out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
