(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 and I and our two kids (now 9 and 6) moved to Las Vegas in 2005 when things were booming, especially in the construction industry. Until early in 2008, he was making over $150,000 a year as a project manager for a big casino hotel that was going up, and I was adding to our income working occasional weekend shifts as an emergency room R.N. Then things came to a grinding halt. He got laid off from his job, found another one (at half the pay), and then got laid off from that job. He hasn't worked at all in 2009. I've increased my shifts at the hospital, but things are tight there too, and I can't get a full-time position. The worst part of all this is that I accidently learned recently that my husband hasn't been looking for work (as he claimed), but has been spending his time and what's left of our money at casinos. Instead of taking cash out of our bank account, where I would see any withdrawals, he liquidated his 401(k) account and opened a new bank account in his name to stash the 401(k) proceeds. In three months, he's blown through over half the 401(k) money, and what's left will probably have to go to taxes and penalties (if he hasn't gambled it away by April 15). I'm so angry with my husband I can barely stand to be in the same room with him. I really need some advice before I do something drastic. ("At Wit's End" in Henderson, Nevada).
DEAR "AT WIT'S END": Sometimes it takes a crisis to force people to admit there's a problem and to do something about it. If you and your husband can quickly get on the same page and come up with a step-by-step plan to address the multiple issues you're facing, there's still hope--- for your sanity, your marriage, and maybe even your finances.
The first thing that has to be addressed is your husband's gambling addiction. Although Las Vegas is about the worst place in the world for a gambling addict, at least there are plenty of Gamblers Anonymous-type programs there. Get him into one no later than next week and make sure he stays in it.
Unless your husband's gambling addiction pre-dated his job layoffs, his gambling may well be a symptom of depression. A guy like your husband, who was making a lot of money at something he was evidently very good at, will often become completely adrift if his job---his identity---is suddenly taken from him. He's undoubtedly anxious about his future in the construction industry, and fearful of being seen as a failure.
Most men, though, will not seek psychological help on their own, so if you think your husband may be depressed you'll have to gently but firmly get him to someone who can help.
Of course, you're not going to want to go out of your way to help him if you're angry at him, and believe me, you have reasons to be angry. He lied to you repeatedly, he did things behind your back, he jeopardized his family's financial future. But if you want to stay in your marriage---and at this point I think you should stay---you may need to get some counseling for yourself, apart from whatever help your husband gets. You may also want to consider marriage counseling, but I'd be cautious about overloading your husband and yourself with too many programs and counselors at the same time.
As for the purely financial issues, you're going to have to insist on taking complete control of the money that comes in and the money that goes out, at least until your husband has overcome the gambling addiction and dealt with the psychological problems underlying his addiction. No excuses, no exceptions, and zero tolerance for any further transgressions on your husband's part.
And with respect to money, I realize that the counseling I'm recommending will probably cost more than you feel you can afford, but I think it's worth it in the long run. Look at it this way: it's cheaper than a divorce!
I'm not qualified to give career advice, but once the current crisis is under control I think you and your husband should look hard at the career options you both have, and figure out whether Las Vegas is where you need to be. With your nursing degree and his construction industry expertise, your long-term prospects may be a lot better than you might think.
Good luck, and let me know what happens.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Don't Be So Modest, Girl!
(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 remember hearing you on a radio show a while back discussing online dating profiles. I think you said you didn't like it when someone says "My friends think I'm pretty", but I'm not sure why you think it's a bad idea. I'm in the process of writing my own profile for match.com, and I feel funny about saying something that might make me sound conceited (like "I'm a very pretty woman"). Can you explain what you meant? ("Lori" in Indiana)
DEAR LORI: You're right: I did say that I dislike the "My friends say I'm..." type of statement. The reason I dislike it is that it makes the person (usually a woman) sound as if she doesn't quite believe what she's saying. I think the average man reading such a statement would interpret it to mean something like: "My friends do say I'm pretty, even though I've never really thought so myself. But maybe I should say it just in case they're right."
I agree with you 100% that you want to avoid sounding conceited. But there's a difference between being conceited and being confident. Confidence implies that you know who you are and that you're comfortable with who you are, whereas to be conceited implies an exaggerated opinion of yourelf and an attitude that you're better than everyone else. If you honestly believe you're pretty (or smart, or funny, or whatever), it's perfectly OK to say so---simply and straightforwardly.
The underlying point here is that people---both men and women---respond positively to someone who is quietly confident. Confidence is a desired trait in relationships, because confident people tend to be less needy, less "clingy", and less likely to suppress the personality traits that make them unique. As I say, confident people know who they are. They know they have something good to bring into a relationship, and they're not going to settle for less than they deserve. The only people who typically don't want a confident partner are people who have a need to dominate and control their relationships. My guess is that you're not looking for someone to control you.
Good luck, Lori, and let me know what happens with your online dating search.
DEAR JIM: I remember hearing you on a radio show a while back discussing online dating profiles. I think you said you didn't like it when someone says "My friends think I'm pretty", but I'm not sure why you think it's a bad idea. I'm in the process of writing my own profile for match.com, and I feel funny about saying something that might make me sound conceited (like "I'm a very pretty woman"). Can you explain what you meant? ("Lori" in Indiana)
DEAR LORI: You're right: I did say that I dislike the "My friends say I'm..." type of statement. The reason I dislike it is that it makes the person (usually a woman) sound as if she doesn't quite believe what she's saying. I think the average man reading such a statement would interpret it to mean something like: "My friends do say I'm pretty, even though I've never really thought so myself. But maybe I should say it just in case they're right."
I agree with you 100% that you want to avoid sounding conceited. But there's a difference between being conceited and being confident. Confidence implies that you know who you are and that you're comfortable with who you are, whereas to be conceited implies an exaggerated opinion of yourelf and an attitude that you're better than everyone else. If you honestly believe you're pretty (or smart, or funny, or whatever), it's perfectly OK to say so---simply and straightforwardly.
The underlying point here is that people---both men and women---respond positively to someone who is quietly confident. Confidence is a desired trait in relationships, because confident people tend to be less needy, less "clingy", and less likely to suppress the personality traits that make them unique. As I say, confident people know who they are. They know they have something good to bring into a relationship, and they're not going to settle for less than they deserve. The only people who typically don't want a confident partner are people who have a need to dominate and control their relationships. My guess is that you're not looking for someone to control you.
Good luck, Lori, and let me know what happens with your online dating search.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Common Law Confusion
(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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
