Weddingbee boards

Okay, so I'm obviously not an expert, but this is what I believe to be true (but please don't take my word on it):

If you have good credit and your SO has bad, does his credit score affect yours once married?

I don't believe his credit score affects yours at all.  His debt, loans, credit cards, etc. are still in his name only, regardless of whether you are married or not.  Your debt, loans, credit cards, eetc. are still in your name only.  Unless you have cards that belong to both of you, or loans that belong to both of you, you won't affect each other's credit score.

When/if you decide to buy something TOGETHER, both your credit scores will be checked, and so his bad credit score will affect your together purchase or whatever.  When my SO and I went to buy a house (before we were married), his credit score is what dictated our interest rate, because his credit score was worse than mine.  But if you were to buy a house under just YOUR name, then his credit score shouldn't be an issue.  After my husband and I got married, we decided to buy me a new car.  Since I knew my husband's credit score wasn't great, we decided that only MY name would be on the car loan.  Only my credit score was checked, and they said my credit score was still great, so I'm assuming my husband's credit score did not affect mine at all, otherwise my car loan wouldn't have been so good.

If your SO have unpaid loans and debt and you have a clean bill, once married does his debt and unpaid loans become your problem as well?

I think these depend on the loans and stuff.  I know some debt gets passed on to immediately family (once deceased) while other loans doesn't.  But his debt would probably only be your problem if he passed away, and then it might be your responsibility to pay them, depending on the loan/debt, etc.  Does that make sense?

If he takes out a new loan or accrues new debt after married, is that now your problem because you were married before the new loan/credit/debt?

I don't believe that's the case.  Like I mentioned earlier, I was able to take out a car loan after my husband and I were married, and they only checked my credit score.  I assume if we check our credit information, the loan would appear on my credit report, and not on his, since he has nothing to do with the loan.

I think that if you want to keep all your finances separate, you can, though if you or your husband were to die, I believe the other would be left with the burden, depending on the nature of your loan/debts/etc.

Hope that helps!

A few of the posts in this thread are wrong on several points.  I don't know why people who've never stepped foot into a property or family law classroom feel the need to increase their post count.  I actually know a bit more about this because I have studied this, but I am NOT a licensed attorney (yet), I do not live in your state, and you should take this as a general outline of the rules of separate property rather than legitimate advice.

Both NJ and NY are common law aka separate property states.  I'm not going to look up the specific states' laws, because that would get too far into specific advice, but I'll tell you a bit about the general rules of separate property states.  The general rules may be modified by statute or judicial decision in your states, which is why if you have real concerns rather than general curiosity, you need to talk to someone there.

1) Your personal credit score will not be impacted by his personal credit score.  The two are completely separate.  I'm sure of that.  I'm not sure of this:  If you try to buy a house with both of you on the application, I imagine they would look at his as well as yours, and this would hurt you both.

2) Re:  Debts prior to the marriage.  Absolutely not.  Both property and debt acquired prior to the marriage remain separate property.  His creditors can only reach property that is his.  If it is an issue, I would recommend keeping your bank account with your savings separate.  You can open a joint account if you want, but keep the extent of your assets in it limited, because his creditors would be able to reach it.  If you add him as a joint owner of your separate bank account, you give him the right to use the whole.  Thus, his creditors would be able to reach money that was once yours alone.  This does not happen immediately upon marriage, you have to choose to do it.  I would recommend that you don't add him as a joint owner of anything or deposit many of your assets into a joint account before consulting an attorney.  Whether separate creditors can reach only half of the money in a joint account or all of it depends on the specific state where it is owned, and I'm not going to look up the specific state rules.

3) In a separate property state, property and debts accrued during a marriage remain separate, with exceptions.  Say you both work and both deposit your earnings into separate accounts.  Then, you buy yourself jewelry with it and he buys himself a fancy watch.  Then, your bank account and the jewelry are entirely your separate property, and his bank account and his watch are entirely his separate property.  If either owes money on the jewelry or watch, creditors can't go after the separate assets of the other.  But, if you own a joint account, the watch creditors could go after the joint money either up to the half or whole (depending on your state, see immediately above).

There are some exceptions.  (a) You can choose to acquire personal property or loans jointly.  You could do this by depositing earnings into a joint account, purchasing things using money held jointly, or taking out a loan jointly.  This is not the default and it's something you have to choose.  (b) There is probably an implied joint ownership of debts accrued in furtherance of both of your purposes--like a house purchased after the marriage, or a car frequently used by both of you, or food--the marital necessities, even if these debts are accrued in one of your names only.  If this weren't so, it would be too easy for spouses to collude to avoid creditors--this is why I think it probably exists.  If you take out any joint debt, or he takes on separate debt in furtherance of some marital purpose, you would be liable, even from out of your separate property, for up to the full amount.

And if you ever move to California, Texas, or one of those other community property states, ALL of this becomes screwed up.  I don't want to and won't go into that.

"If your SO have unpaid loans and debt and you have a clean bill, once married does his debt and unpaid loans become your problem as well? This depends by state. Wisconsin is a marital property state so once married, even if one spouse has no debt and they other has a lot of debt, the spouse is also responsible for the other's debt."

This is inaccurate.  Perhaps Wisconsin has modified this by statute, but I doubt it.  Generally, even in community (aka marital) property states, property owned or debts owed PRIOR TO the marriage remain the separate liabilities of the spouses.  The problem you are talking about arises in community property states when (a) spouses misguidedly add each other as joint owners to prior savings accounts, or (b) assets are accrued by the debt-free spouse during the marriage, because most incoming assets are by default owned jointly in community property states.  Joint assets can be used to pay the prior liabilities of either spouse, but separate assets cannot be used to pay prior debt.  The prior debt itself remains separate, and the prior savings accounts (so long as you don't choose to make them joint or [possibly] deposit anything earned after the marriage in them) remain separate.  Inheritances also still remain separate in community property states, unless modified by the individual state.

The OP is in a separate property state, so she shouldn't worry about this unless she plans to move out west.

@chicagobride092010, your statements of

A few of the posts in this thread are wrong on several points.  I don't know why people who've never stepped foot into a property or family law classroom feel the need to increase their post count.  I actually know a bit more about this because I have studied this

are pretty rude.  I don't think anyone posted just to "increase their post count."  I think most everyone pointed out that they were NOT experts, so their advice should be taken with a grain of salt.  The OP asked questions, and people tried to answer to the best of their ability and give them the knowledge that they knew (or thought) to be true, and what their own experiences was.

@Adira.  I fully intended to be abrupt.  Misinformation and less than full (all the potentially distinguishing facts) recounts of personal experiences are potentially damaging in an area like this.  And I'm not sorry for pointing that out. 

And I agree with you mmuncha.  You are being responsible to ask these questions.  Asking these questions does not mean you are even considering the possibility of divorce (which everyone should also do).  Protecting your assets from your FI's creditors can protect your well being, his, and your marriage in the long run.  Why pay more than you legally have to, seriously?  But, please, please seek help from a licensed attorney who specializes in marital law or estate planning in the tri-state area.  And do that before making any of your current, separate assets joint, for the reasons I explained.  He or she will be familiar with the local rules and would be able to help you both get squared away in a matter of hours.  Even if the billing rate is $300/hour, a couple of hours worth of attorneys fees are probably nothing compared to the amount of assets he or she can help you BOTH protect from past creditors.

@chicagobride092010 - I agree, that with questions like this, it's important to get the facts, and maybe recounting personal experiences is not helpful.  But I think you could have made your point without being so insulting.  That was ALL I was trying to say.  I don't think you have to be sorry for pointing out flawed logic or misinformation.  But I do find it offensive that you insinuated people are posting just to "increase their post count".

Pot, kettle, black.  Teaad, perhaps until you have gone to law school and taken a class in this, it would be wise for you to refrain from correcting someone who has regarding the most basic, fundamental rules of community property.  By the way, I was correct.

Ladies, ladies. Let's keep it civil. It's not like we're talking about open vs. cash bar.

I am just trying to be helpful.  I did that by correcting where I could, giving an overview of the default rules, stating at which steps she's fine, and at which steps (like before converting separate assets to joint, or prior to moving to a community state) it's really important to seek a local attorney's help.  And I think it's helpful to point out, sternly if necessary, that the best way to be helpful in potentially consequential matters like this is to not comment when the other alternative is providing misinformation.  Law is not always common sense and bunnies.  I would hope that someone would sternly smack me down if I said anything about a tax issue.  Despite years of personal and professional practical experience, I lack a firm grasp of the legal basics, to the point where I could lead someone to miss a big issue and cause serious financial harm.

And my pot calling the kettle black remark was entirely deserved.  I don't appreciate being told to shut up about my correction re: community property in WI, just because I don't have practical experience there, by someone who hasn't even studied marital property.  I'm even more irritated thereby when what I said was accurate, stuck to the basics, and was not disparaging of the WI poster's understanding of the law (it was, although not accurate, a wise observation because it is partially true).

@chicagobride - no one is telling you that you pointing out facts or pointing out faults is wrong.  We are simply pointing out that your tone is rude and some of the things you've said have been insulting.  You may be correct in every point you made, but being rude to people isn't a great way to make your points.

But I think that's the third time I've stated that, so maybe I'm not getting my point across, or maybe you don't care.  Eitherway, hopefully the OP got some good advice and is seeking out the correct information so she can make more informed decisions.

@teaad.  You are or were a 0L in the current application cycle, no?  You're not the only one who visits TLS.  You also apparently still care or think about the LSAT.   And, seriously?  You might want to save your snide, holier than thou attack about LSAT 101 for someone who hasn't come out near the top at Chicago.  It would be much more fruitful for you to find something other than my reasoning ability to insult.  There's plenty, but that's not it.

MissAB, I think your second and third answers are only applicable to the handful of community property states, and the OP lives in a separate property state.

The poster above brings up an interesting twist.  I don't know anything about how divorce would complicate the community vs separate issues, the timing and type of property and debt, and the division of assets and debts.  My impression is that it's much more individual state specific than the other stuff, but I would love if someone who has studied that area of law would share, because it could really be an important dimension to consider.