Kyron Horman, 7 years old, PORTLAND, OR #36 11/21/10 - 12/05/10

[no rose colored glasses]

Exactly and not everything works for all married couples. The name on the house has Kaine's name only, so Terri could have had bad credit or he just didn't want her name on it.

[islandmonkey]

Exactly and not everything works for all married couples. The name on the house has Kaine's name only, so Terri could have had bad credit or he just didn't want her name on it.

Except bad credit only matters in getting the loan ,not the title to the house, trust me I KNOW this one......one person can apply for the mortgage if the other has bad credit, and still have the other name on the mortgage      (and in many states the spouse HAS to go on the title due to laws, but can be removed by getting them to sign a quitclaim deed or many other ways, but it's mandatory here). Of course, they weren't married IIRC when he bought the house, I thought they married a few months later. I thought they married on 2005, although I could be wrong.

[no rose colored glasses]

Exactly and not everything works for all married couples. The name on the house has Kaine's name only, so Terri could have had bad credit or he just didn't want her name on it.

Except bad credit only matters in getting the loan ,not the title to the house, trust me I KNOW this one......one person can apply for the mortgage if the other has bad credit, and still have the other name on the mortgage      (and in many states the spouse HAS to go on the title due to laws, but can be removed by getting them to sign a quitclaim deed or many other ways, but it's mandatory here). Of course, they weren't married IIRC when he bought the house, I thought they married a few months later. I thought they married on 2005, although I could be wrong.

Thank-you I didn't know that.

[Monkey King]

Melisb- Sorry I didn't see you post your question previously.  Former, is your answer and thank you

[sebastian]

You are still not getting it. No one is suggesting that KAINE lied to his lawyers or that he should.I did not even remotely suggest such a thing. I am saying very plainly that it's part of the legal process and that it's the way that LAWYERS word things. Do not twist my words either.

The person who should be held accountable is Terri Moulton Horman. Kaine did not know in advance that she would harm his child. He was blindsided by her duplicity, and he is also a victim.
I do not blame him for trying to help his wife, and for wanting to save his marriage. I blame the appropriate person...Terri.

"I get it" quite well. You see Kaine as the victim and I see Kyron as the victim.

[hellokitty]

 

they weren't married when they bought the house.

And there is no way in h*** that you can apply for a loan with your spouse that has bad credit. 

Kaine bought the house before marriage, so the bank would not need to know anything about TH.

Maybe they just never got around to putting her name on the deed.  Or maybe TH has creditors.

Quite frankly, I do not know anyone who has separate bank accounts in their marriages of my friends, family and acquaintances.

An incredibly strange concept to me.  But I am older and have been married for a million years.

It sounds more like a room mate thing to me than a marriage. 

But  I can see where it would be beneficial if finances are limited.  That way the bills can be paid and each spouse can deal with the rest of the income without impacting the necessities and obligations.

[no rose colored glasses]

they weren't married when they bought the house.

And there is no way in h*** that you can apply for a loan with your spouse that has bad credit. 

Kaine bought the house before marriage, so the bank would not need to know anything about TH.

Maybe they just never got around to putting her name on the deed.  Or maybe TH has creditors.

Quite frankly, I do not know anyone who has separate bank accounts in their marriages of my friends, family and acquaintances.

An incredibly strange concept to me.  But I am older and have been married for a million years.

It sounds more like a room mate thing to me than a marriage. 

But  I can see where it would be beneficial if finances are limited.  That way the bills can be paid and each spouse can deal with the rest of the income without impacting the necessities and obligations.

I've been married a million years also, finances are not limited, and it isn't a roommate situation. For some people this just works better, I know that I like the idea of my own money.

[hellokitty]

 

I see parents who are in the shoes of Kaine and Desiree as victims.  Their  son is missing.  How horrifying is that? 

 

[sebastian]

I see the parents of missing children as victims too. However, some of the time, the child would not have been a victim in the first place, had the parents not allowed them to be put in the position of being a victim. Until a child turns 18, they have no rights at all. It is so sad.

With regards to the $1000.00 that Terri CLAIMS she paid Kaine, I guess I would have to do the math. I was in a similar situation when I met my husband. He wanted me to contribute ex amount to the monthly bills. I did this for a few months until I realized that I could live elsewhere for about the same money and I would not have to cook, clean or be the primary care-taker of his children. I brought this to his attention and the situation was fixed. I don't trust anything that Terri has to say at this point. I am starting to not trust much that Kaine has to say either, simply based on inconsistencies. I have not seen a lot of inconsistencies with Desiree. When I see her on t.v. my heart breaks for her.

[Monkey King]

FCL- let's respectfully agree to disagree! My understanding of a martyr is someone who is sacraficed in some way for a cause. Enabling is when you either overlook, deny or save someone from the consequences of the error of their ways, as in alcoholisim or drug addiction, pedophilia- something not acceptable by societies standards.

[islandmonkey]

they weren't married when they bought the house.

And there is no way in h*** that you can apply for a loan with your spouse that has bad credit. 

Kaine bought the house before marriage, so the bank would not need to know anything about TH.

Maybe they just never got around to putting her name on the deed.  Or maybe TH has creditors.

Quite frankly, I do not know anyone who has separate bank accounts in their marriages of my friends, family and acquaintances.

An incredibly strange concept to me.  But I am older and have been married for a million years.

It sounds more like a room mate thing to me than a marriage. 

But  I can see where it would be beneficial if finances are limited.  That way the bills can be paid and each spouse can deal with the rest of the income without impacting the necessities and obligations.

ITA they bought the house before the marriage, but if two ppl had kept seperate acct's and filed taxes seperately they can apply for a loan without getting smacked, but there was no need to put her on the loan since they were not married, but I do know from personal experience you can have someone listed on the mortgage and not the loan and it can be done at closing. I was 31 when I married for the first time and my prospective hubby (now known as SATAN's spawn) had an IRS issue from collapsing his 401K, IRA and pension acct so he could use the money to buy custody of his boys from a previous marriage. He never paid the taxes on the $400,000+ and I didn't want that following me, so I spoke to my CPA and he told me to keep everything in my name until it was cleared up, never put my name on a credit app with him, and file taxes seperately and it worked, he was never tied to me financially and I never put his name on the house since he never cleared up the tax issue, I was able to obtain a loan for a home in my name only at the best rate available even though we were married, now had I followed thru and bought the home I would have had to add his name to the mortgage since it was in Florida and that's the law unless you put the home in a living trust.......anyway I nixed the deal when I noticed his behavoir and you know the rest. Granted not everyone would know that it can be done, but since it was a worry to me when I married him, I made sure to safeguard my credit. Of course after a longggggg divorce proceeding and having to stay home and not work so he wouldn't be alone with our son my credit was destroyed But it was the right thing to do and I ended up turning it around when we moved here. I think someone (maybe Muffy) stated how some ppl do this when they come into a marriage at an older age with assets of their own and if things go well, eventually combine them so I can see why ppl have seperate accts under certain circumstances, but would hope when and if I marry again when my son is grown that I can relax a bit and combine acct's...

[Monkey King]

Ok, quick question- we shouldn't believe Terri stating she had to pay Kaine 1,000.00 a month, but it's ok to believe she wrote emails complaining, hateful towards Kyron? How can we have it both ways/double standard?

[Monkey King]

We forget, in the begining of this case, Terri and Kaine, Desiree and Tony put up a united front. Where would this investigation be had Terri passed the polygraph?

[sebastian]

Ok, quick question- we shouldn't believe Terri stating she had to pay Kaine 1,000.00 a month, but it's ok to believe she wrote emails complaining, hateful towards Kyron? How can we have it both ways/double standard?

I am not sure about the emails. The thing that I find hinky about the emails are that it is my belief that LE must have had them for months. I just cannot understand why they were just brought to Desiree's attention. My personal feeling is that Desiree is fed up. I don't blame her. She is probably starting to make a lot of noise and demands of LE, AS SHE SHOULD. I also think that Desiree has known about Kaine's allegations about Terri since the beginning of Kyron's disappearance. She tried to remain by Kaine's side but after all of this time, she is worn down and speaking out. She wanted Kyron back a year ago and Terri agreed by Kaine said no.

[sebastian]

We forget, in the begining of this case, Terri and Kaine, Desiree and Tony put up a united front. Where would this investigation be had Terri passed the polygraph?

Correct me if I am wrong, as it has been a long time, but the part of the polygraph that Terri flunked was her timeline? Didn't she pass on the part about knowing or causing harm to Kyron?

[islandmonkey]

I see the parents of missing children as victims too. However, some of the time, the child would not have been a victim in the first place, had the parents not allowed them to be put in the position of being a victim. Until a child turns 18, they have no rights at all. It is so sad.

With regards to the $1000.00 that Terri CLAIMS she paid Kaine, I guess I would have to do the math. I was in a similar situation when I met my husband. He wanted me to contribute ex amount to the monthly bills. I did this for a few months until I realized that I could live elsewhere for about the same money and I would not have to cook, clean or be the primary care-taker of his children. I brought this to his attention and the situation was fixed. I don't trust anything that Terri has to say at this point. I am starting to not trust much that Kaine has to say either, simply based on inconsistencies. I have not seen a lot of inconsistencies with Desiree. When I see her on t.v. my heart breaks for her.

  ::MonkeyDevil::Love it!! I need to find the calculations where they showed the value in monetary terms of a stay at home mom (sans nannies or anything like that), and it was pushing $100m a yr, so ITA!

Also agree that so far I haven't seen any inconsistencies with Desiree, only extreme pain and think so far she is the only one that has been totally honest, I wouldn't trust Terri as far as I could throw her, and Kaine I think is trying to keep what he thinks are skeletons in the closet, ie the affair not being an affair and the drinking issue, so that is prolly why we see these inconsistencies, at least IMO, so if I had to pick anyone I believe and trust more than the other she'd win out......granted if something comes out from her that is also inconsistent I will change my mind. That being said, I'd love to know what the aggreement was with her and Kaine on Ky's custody when she left for lifesaving treatment, was it that it was only temporary and she custody was supposed to revert back to her and he fought it (and I can see that as a normal response from any parent so no judgement call from me), I see her as a very selfless person who has consistently put her son's needs ahead of hers and I am amazed at that, to me it's akin to someone putting their child up for adoption that they love and want to keep with every fiber of their being, but realize the child would have a better life for (fill in the blank) reasons, so they allow the adoption because they put the child's needs ahead of their own.

[islandmonkey]

We forget, in the begining of this case, Terri and Kaine, Desiree and Tony put up a united front. Where would this investigation be had Terri passed the polygraph?

Correct me if I am wrong, as it has been a long time, but the part of the polygraph that Terri flunked was her timeline? Didn't she pass on the part about knowing or causing harm to Kyron?

Great question MK, and who knows is my answer

Sebastian~ IIRC, I also thought the questions she failed were not pertaining to harming Kryon (of course we know nothing as fact, but I thought I read that on Blink's site). Of course I guess she could pass that part of a poly if she was asked did you harm Kyron or do you know where Kyron is if she had an accomplice and honestly doesn't know where he is, and didn't directly harm him.....I think my guilt of knowing I had laid the plans would give me away, but we don't know the questions asked or how they were worded, so it's another huge issue lingering out there.

[sebastian]

I see the parents of missing children as victims too. However, some of the time, the child would not have been a victim in the first place, had the parents not allowed them to be put in the position of being a victim. Until a child turns 18, they have no rights at all. It is so sad.

With regards to the $1000.00 that Terri CLAIMS she paid Kaine, I guess I would have to do the math. I was in a similar situation when I met my husband. He wanted me to contribute ex amount to the monthly bills. I did this for a few months until I realized that I could live elsewhere for about the same money and I would not have to cook, clean or be the primary care-taker of his children. I brought this to his attention and the situation was fixed. I don't trust anything that Terri has to say at this point. I am starting to not trust much that Kaine has to say either, simply based on inconsistencies. I have not seen a lot of inconsistencies with Desiree. When I see her on t.v. my heart breaks for her.

  ::MonkeyDevil::Love it!! I need to find the calculations where they showed the value in monetary terms of a stay at home mom (sans nannies or anything like that), and it was pushing $100m a yr, so ITA!

Also agree that so far I haven't seen any inconsistencies with Desiree, only extreme pain and think so far she is the only one that has been totally honest, I wouldn't trust Terri as far as I could throw her, and Kaine I think is trying to keep what he thinks are skeletons in the closet, ie the affair not being an affair and the drinking issue, so that is prolly why we see these inconsistencies, at least IMO, so if I had to pick anyone I believe and trust more than the other she'd win out......granted if something comes out from her that is also inconsistent I will change my mind. That being said, I'd love to know what the aggreement was with her and Kaine on Ky's custody when she left for lifesaving treatment, was it that it was only temporary and she custody was supposed to revert back to her and he fought it (and I can see that as a normal response from any parent so no judgement call from me), I see her as a very selfless person who has consistently put her son's needs ahead of hers and I am amazed at that, to me it's akin to someone putting their child up for adoption that they love and want to keep with every fiber of their being, but realize the child would have a better life for (fill in the blank) reasons, so they allow the adoption because they put the child's needs ahead of their own.

Hi Island Monkey,
Seriously, why do some women do all of this and then also allow the husband or boyfriend to control the purse strings? I love all of my kids, but being the primary care taker of children is a full-time job. It is exhausting! I was also working outside of the home at the time! It is all about that "fairness factor" for me.

I so agree about Desiree! I also have to give both Kaine and Desiree credit for being able to restrain themselves when the had access to Terri. If I thought that someone had taken my child, I would probably would have done some really illegal things to get them to talk.

[no rose colored glasses]

I see the parents of missing children as victims too. However, some of the time, the child would not have been a victim in the first place, had the parents not allowed them to be put in the position of being a victim. Until a child turns 18, they have no rights at all. It is so sad.

With regards to the $1000.00 that Terri CLAIMS she paid Kaine, I guess I would have to do the math. I was in a similar situation when I met my husband. He wanted me to contribute ex amount to the monthly bills. I did this for a few months until I realized that I could live elsewhere for about the same money and I would not have to cook, clean or be the primary care-taker of his children. I brought this to his attention and the situation was fixed. I don't trust anything that Terri has to say at this point. I am starting to not trust much that Kaine has to say either, simply based on inconsistencies. I have not seen a lot of inconsistencies with Desiree. When I see her on t.v. my heart breaks for her.

I agree, and I have not seen inconsistencies with Desiree, and my heart breaks for her also.

[islandmonkey]

Not the article I am looking for, but it will do in a pinch wrt the value of a homeaker:

What's a Wife Worth?
A Lot More Than She Used to Be, Thanks to Divorce Lawyer Michael Minton
By Marianna Beck
 
 
 Comments In 1979, a young attorney named Michael H. Minton successfully argued that a housewife was worth more than $40,000 a year. The public snorted and the press made fun, but the ramifications proved enormous. When the dust finally settled, the 33-year-old Chicago lawyer had catapulted matrimonial law into an entirely new arena.

Michael Minton likes to tell you that he takes cases no one else will. It's not for the money, he says, or for another 15 minutes of Warholian fame, but because he doesn't like what happens to a lot of women when they get divorced. It isn't that Minton favors female clients. (His firm handles an almost equal number of divorce-seeking husbands.) What bothers him most is that divorce has been reduced to a battle of economics and its victims are almost always wives and children. The losers are further harmed by an overburdened court system that favors the party with the deepest pockets. Although last year Minton managed to win alimony for a doctor's husband, more often than not, the economically disadvantaged party is the wife.

Divorce attorneys are part of the problem, Minton says. Many like nothing better than a lengthy legal battle, he contends, describing a case he has just inherited in which the husband has already spent a quarter of a million dollars in legal fees over the last two years. This same man claims he can't afford to pay his wife $3,850 a month. Minton, on the other hand, says he's never fired a client for not being able to pay (a lot of divorce lawyers do), and directs his efforts toward reaching some compromise outside of court.

Minton willingly acknowledges that public opinion ranks divorce lawyers only slightly above ambulance chasers. But though they are the bloodsucking profiteers of domestic wrangling, they are both necessary and in great demand. Last year more than 50,000 couples in Cook County had reason to use them.

 

Minton believes there are fundamental differences in the way men and women approach divorce. Men, he will tell you, generally view divorce as a business transaction, another claim to be settled. Women tend to react. "For them, there's a far more emotional connection to the concept of ending a marriage. If a husband files first, he's generally planned months ahead, hiding assets, perhaps increasing his debt service, and if he's self-employed, cutting his own pay. Women don't approach it that way."

Minton thinks women would be a lot better off if they viewed marriage as an economic partnership and were more cognizant of their monetary value, particularly as homemakers. That's a long way from when the length of a marriage was thought to equal the distance between Niagara Falls and Reno.

 

Placing a price tag on housework isn't exactly a new idea. Economists, feminists, and political ideologues have skirmished over the concept for years. Even a Justice Department task force took a whack at defining the value of housework, and in 1979 came up with the following: "The home production that is a woman's primary responsibility is obviously not work. Since no money is paid for the services, it is not only not work, it is valueless." While the conclusion may seem antediluvian, it sums up the attitudes that have prevailed since Australopithecus set up housekeeping.

Enter Michael Minton and a wealthy couple called the Gallaghers. It was 1978, one year after passage of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. Like most other states, Illinois had finally decided to come out of the dark ages and overhaul its matrimonial laws.

The primary changes focused on the concept of marriage as an economic entity to which each partner made a different but equally important contribution. This meant that in a divorce, both parties' contributions to marital assets would be recognized, including those of a spouse as homemaker.

Traditionally, most major assets were held in the husband's name. The old laws refused to recognize any ownership of property by virtue of the marriage itself and provided no economic reward for a wife's at-home contributions. A husband could sell the house out from under his wife, and as one infamous Missouri case had shown, even keep the fruit she'd canned. "It was obscene," notes Minton. "A husband could walk away from a 50-year marriage and leave his wife with nothing."

The idea that a wife could acquire rights to shared property from her contributions as a homemaker was so revolutionary and contrary to past experience that few realized its implications. Until the Gallagher case.

After 39 years of marriage, Mrs. Gallagher had decided to file for divorce from her husband, a vice-president of Sears Roebuck. Although he had an annual income of more than $250,000 and net assets exceeding a million dollars, he had no plans to turn much of it over to his wife. After all, he argued, it was his money, his earnings, his property. Why should his wife be entitled to anything more than the maintenance most ex-wives got? But with alimony, what ex-wives usually got was the shaft. Past cases had demonstrated that those who needed alimony most--older women with no job skills--found it the least reliable. When an ex-husband retired, moved away, or died, the alimony ground to a halt. A legal battle with a nonpaying ex-husband could be prohibitively costly.

The concept of assigning monetary values to the services of a homemaker left Minton in virgin territory. He thought Mrs. Gallagher was indeed entitled to compensation, but how much was "just a housewife" worth? How could he quantify the enormous contributions he felt she had made as a homemaker, mother, hostess, corporate wife, and marital partner?

Not only did Minton need to affix a dollar amount to the nebulous and undefined role of homemaking, but he also had to convince the court that though the duties of her role were taken for granted, they earned Mrs. Gallagher an economic share in the gains her husband had made. After all, she had provided the environment in which he could successfully carry out his activities.

Minton's major argument centered on the replacement cost approach--a valuation method that determined what it would cost if someone else were hired to perform each one of Mrs. Gallagher's tasks. The total money paid all these replacements would then equal the value of her contributions to the household. Minton drew up a chart of 24 activities ranging from food buyer, nurse, and waitress to bookkeeper, dietitian, and child psychologist and based the earnings on prevailing hourly wages. When he was through, the annual figure had reached $40,288.04. (The same calculations today produce a sum of $48,698.)

But that was only the beginning. Minton called in expert witnesses to bolster his case. An employment expert confirmed that the 59-year-old Mrs. Gallagher had little hope in the job market. Her husband, on the other hand, would leave the marriage with his high earning power intact and even after retirement could expect to earn substantial fees as a consultant. An industrial psychologist and economist reinforced the importance of a corporate wife whose managerial skills at home influenced her husband's economic success. The psychologist went as far as putting a dollar value on her companionship, arguing that it could have influenced her husband's net worth by 20 to 50 percent. Finally, Minton reminded the court of another financial benefit: the amount a wife can save her husband on his taxes by enabling him to file jointly.

The Gallagher trial proved rancorous and protracted, and after it was over, legal actions dragged it out another year. But ultimately, the court did admit that the services of a homemaker had economic value. While it declined to place a price tag on them, the judge in the case awarded Mrs. Gallagher $40,000 a year in permanent maintenance, in addition to her share of the proceeds of the house, stock in her husband's company, 65 percent of the stock held in a profit-sharing plan, and part of his pension. The case had set a precedent and Minton had established that homemaking and motherhood could no longer be considered a worthless enterprise. He had legitimized it as a profession.

http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/whats-a-wife-worth/Content?oid=871934