Argument over a £1

[ForGentleBeaker]

Years ago my best friend and her husband ran into severe financial difficulties and were going to lose their home. I was pregnant, hormonal, emotional, my head was all over the place, and I desperately wanted to help them.
At that time I had no money but we owned a property in an absolute rundown part of London - my husband purchased it with a gift from his parents and I was added to the deeds after we were married.
Long story short, my attempt to help my friend went awry, and my husband had to sell the property. The property is worth an absolute fortune now. The whole area has undergone gentrification, and we missed out on the crazy London property boom.

My husband doesn't ever want to discuss and I had thought we had put it behind us. I have immense guilt.

Last week, whilst grocery shopping with him, I exchange a premium product for a store brand, and he went ballistic. He started mumbling about why I was saving pennies when I happlynlissed away so much trying to help my friend.

In the car, I was called a jumped up bitch, and he spent the journey home ranting at me for making him sell the property; being a SAHM when the children were younger; spending money; and diminishing his role and magnifying mine.

He is refusing to speak to me because he doesnt want to listen to the verbal diarrhea coming out of my mouth - his words.

I don't know where we go from here. We have 3 children, and he is an excellent father, and husband, till now. It seems he has been harbouring this resent towards me but there is nothing I can do.

Of course it’s guaranteed the house would have gained in value😂 You are engaging in some bizarre mental gymnastics here in order to justify the OP’s error in judgement.

Unless there was a serious issue with it, it is extremely unlikely a London flat wouldn’t have appreciated over several decades. Yes there is negative equity to consider but that isn’t an issue unless you are in a hurry to sell. OP’s family could have kept the flat for years, ridden through any years of depreciation and would now be sitting on a healthy profit. I’m sure the OP mentioned upthread that her DH has checked property prices in the area and so is fully aware of what the flat would be worth now.

I think the point is: OP lost the value of the loan, everything else is potential. There is no guarantee that they would still own the BLT now, or even 10 years ago.

It could have required some unexpected expensive maintenance with them opting to sell as a fixer upper. They could have had a run of unfortunate tenants that didn’t look after the place/wouldn’t pay rent such that court intervention was required and decided they didn’t want the hassle. They may have wanted to liquidate some of the investment to move to a larger family home.

Them still owning the flat now is just one potential outcome. It isn’t helpful to anyone to ruminate on it now. He should look for better coping strategies to manage his stress than verbal abuse and stonewalling.

Given that OP hasn’t told us whether or not she’s now working, the £1 she was ‘saving’ by changing the product was probably his £1 anyway.

So as you say, they could have sold it as a fixer upper because of maintenance costs or got rid because of problematic tenants. In both instances they would be better off than the situation they are in now with no money to show for the DH’s inheritance.

So we are back to my original point: whichever way you look at it, OP’s poor decision making has cost them money.

Her DH needs better coping strategies and to stop ruminating? Imagine the roles were reversed and a woman posted about her DH doing what the OP has done. No-one would be telling her to cope better and just get over it!

Yes, she’s lost them money, I haven’t disputed that.

This happened over a decade ago and has only reared its ugly head because he’s now worried about his job. Instead of focusing on that, he’s focusing on events that happened over a decade ago and lashing out at his wife. So yes, he needs to develop healthier coping strategies.

There's no 'probably' unless you know she is working or not. So why make up a little dig like that?

I wish we weren’t at nearly the thread limit so you could explain why on earth you are so determined to defend OP’s behaviour.

You wouldn't agree with it anyway, so why bother?

Alternatively, you could simply answer the question.

OK, will answer. Because the balance of probability is that she doesn’t work; she would otherwise have been at pains to mention in every post how she was doing everything in her power to contribute something to the family coffers. Something tangible, I mean, not the previously suggested false equivalence of childcare and housework (which I am NOT diminishing, before you accuse me, but which pales into insignificance against the loss of a property that checks notes she had also not paid a penny towards).

Because the balance of probability is that she doesn’t work

Since she said that her DH criticised her for being a SAHM 'when the children were younger' we can actually deduce that she is no longer a SAHM, or else she wouldn't have included that it was in the past.

So that doesn't hold up.

Posters wanting her to describe her financial contributions, but not receiving that information does not equal her not financially contributing. It just means it's not known – and that's all it means.

I know someone who did something similar and it destroyed their marriage. It was the husband in that situation.

Did people tell his wife to get over it?

If you actively choose to remain with that person, then yes – you do have to 'get over it'.

So you are quite happy to gatekeep mental health sympathy away from those who stoically get on making the best of a bad situation (especially where the perpetator of the bad situation is having her own mental health episodes), but who finds it all crashing down on them, triggered by the stress of a potential job loss? Let's face it, there's nothing OP's husband could have done that wouldn't have made him an abuser in your eyes. If he'd divorced her at the time whilst she was pregnant, you'd have labelled him abusive. He's abusive for not airing the issue over the last 10 years (even though the OP categorically states he's been a great husband and father). He could have thrown money at therapy at the time, I suppose, but maybe he thought one of them failing to cope when there was a young child in the mix was enough - having had talking therapy myself, I can say it's not for everyone, it left me worse than I was too begin with. So yes, the abusive git just got on with being a provider and keeping them afloat - probably his method of "getting over it". He's probably just finding now that he isn't over it - as many of us in abusive/traumatic situations come to realise later down the line when something triggers us.

I assume if the OP chooses to stay with he husband after the supermarket incident, you will require her to just get over it too. And any other person who decides to stay in a marriage after a serious incident that challenges their vows.

So you are quite happy to gatekeep mental health sympathy away from those who stoically get on making the best of a bad situation

Saying you have to 'get over' an issue if you have chosen to stay in a relationship is not gatekeeping mental health. The 'getting over' is for the mental health benefit of the wronged person also. If they cannot 'get over it' then they should leave – also for their own mental health. I did not use the simplistic term 'get over it' – that was you. Hence me always using it in quotes.

Let's face it, there's nothing OP's husband could have done that wouldn't have made him an abuser in your eyes.

If you read my first post to OP, I tell her what she did was awful and that I understand her husband's reaction. I guess you're simply making incorrect assumption – again.

If he'd divorced her at the time whilst she was pregnant, you'd have labelled him abusive. He's abusive for not airing the issue over the last 10 years (even though the OP categorically states he's been a great husband and father).

Assumptions. Assumptions. Assumptions. Wrong. Wrong Wrong. Please state where I ever used the term that he was abusive. I'll be waiting.

He could have thrown money at therapy at the time, I suppose, but maybe he thought one of them failing to cope when there was a young child in the mix was enough

Therapy for mental health issues is not 'falling apart'. Having a mental health issue and not addressing it is 'falling apart'.

having had talking therapy myself, I can say it's not for everyone, it left me worse than I was too begin with

What is the relevance of this?

So yes, the abusive git just got on with being a provider and keeping them afloat - probably his method of "getting over it".

Again – please refer to where I have labeled him as abusive. Please refer to where I have described him as not providing, and please refer to where I have described him as not keeping them afloat. Gosh – so many assumptions, so little evidence.

He's probably just finding now that he isn't over it - as many of us in abusive/traumatic situations come to realise later down the line when something triggers us.

All completely irrelevant. In my first and second posts I say exactly that it's understandable that he is triggered.

Yes, her decisions are ultimately her responsibility.

I am counting down to the end of this thread, so that all the bickering can finally stop!!
@ForGentleBeaker you have 7 posts left... if you'd like to have the final say?

• Is your DH still not talking to you?
• Did your fiends* ever make any attempt to repay you?
• Do you work now, to ease the sole financial burden on your DH?

* friends typo to fiends, but I've decided to leave it as it's apt!

If you choose to respond to a post not directed at you and adopt my words without further elaboration, then expect me to assume you are adopting my understanding of that phrase. I have seen you earlier post where you say it was the husband's responsibility to deal with his feelings and not let resentment build up over the years (paraphrasing). I believe he has made the best of a bad situation and has very much done is best to "get over it" over the years and now he is not coping because he's worried about his job. Not everyone is as lucky as the OP and gets to go into therapy straight after a traumatic event, especially when they have brought that trauma on themselves and are effectively in a helpless situation (pregnant with no job). Other people have to pick up the pieces, in this case, the husband. She very much sounds like she fell apart, but since she won't answer any questions on her own thread, I guess we will never know. And no, not everybody finds talking therapy useful, which may account for his not seeking any - if that is indeed the case - again, we don't know.

I apologise for saying you called him an abuser if you did not - some of your posts are deleted, so I don't know what you said in those ones.

I've changed my mind a bit on this now. I agree with you. I bet every house that any of us has previously sold is worth more now. It's just how it is.

There's no guarantee he would have kept the house this long. He may have chosen to sell it at some random point along the way. To be honest he gave half of it away the day he got married, putting OP 'on the deeds' or not.

I think he's probably mad at himself. That house was his and his alone. He had the power to protect it but he married a wastrel. At the first hint of money trouble he should have bailed and took what he could salvage. As it stands he would now lose even more if they divorced.

I agree that a house you sold for 200k now being worth 300k, doesn't mean you've lost 100k (especially if you bought elsewhere).
But I can imagine the DH in this scenario is thinking... well I didn't want to sell but I had to because wifey basically gave away the equity of the house, and so I had to sell to avoid her going bankrupt. If I had that house now, I wouldn’t be so worried about the precariousness of my job. We'd have something to fall back on.

I'm actually still in shock that @ForGentleBeaker did that!! It's a fucking ridiculous thing to do!

If you sell a btl 10 years ago, yes you have nit lost any money it is now worth, but you would have the peofit from that sale to put into another property, your own property, savings etc. However the OPs husband has sold the property and has nothing, because his wife has thrown money away on friends who it turns out weren't that good friends after all, as they've taken the money and legged it.

For all we know she volunteers or works a part time/self employed hobby 'job' or she has returned to education etc... not being a SAHM (now the kids are older so not at home most the time) doesn't automatically mean shes has a financially viable career.

You’re right – randomly piggybacking on a comment isn’t constructive of me. In no way did I mean ‘get over it’ in the dismissive sense. I mean it in the ‘come to peace with it for your own good’ way, and if you can’t then you really shouldn’t remain.

I suppose we differ in that you believe you see evidence that the DH has been poorly treated for years post the event, and I don’t see evidence for that (don’t see evidence against necessarily either, just see nothing either way).

Thank you for apologising, as I posted very much on team DH, as it’s not unreasonable he was triggered – I said I would have similar choice words for my DH should he have done the same.

I think this aspect of expecting him to have ‘gotten over it’ is a bit moot anyway. If he has genuinely been harbouring steam for a decade and just now blown his top, then that’s one thing. On the other hand he could have genuinely been largely fine – regretful but forgiving – but recent events have made him cycle back to it for whatever reason.

We don’t know. And who even knows if OP knows either.

In either case I wish them both a way through this, separately or together.

So long all....
Hope @ForGentleBeaker and her DH have sorted it all by now, and he's allowed his Kellogg's cornflakes 😊