I think it is reasonable to expect spouses to share expenses. I remember Linda's post, it seemed strange then and it seems strange now why two of you are married. you keep your finances, properties separate, she makes profit of her property yet lives in yours, why are you married? why not stay single and just date? it seems a bit strange that she lives in your house but does not contribute anything yet her own income grows due to her renting out her own property. seems unfair. this does not sound like marriage to me.

I still think your expectations are not reasonable.
By asking your wife to share the costs of taxes and insurance on the home you own and presumably retain title to, you are expecting her to fund your investment. Sharing the costs of food, utilities and other expendables that she shares in is completely reasonable and I would expect it. But capital investment in property you have indicated will not be hers is unreasonable. Apart from anything else it could make things messy when you eventually pass away. Since you are so anxious to keep your portfolios separate I'm presuming you have/plan to willed them to someone other than your wife (children, perhaps?) which would mean that on your death your wife would lose her home. But then, she could go to court and say, "But I paid taxes and insurance on that home for the last x years, surely I am entitled to something," and then it all gets complicated.
You want her to share the profits from her portfolio. Are you sharing the profits from yours? Let's face it, all you are providing is a place to live, which you would be paying taxes and insurance for whether you lived alone or with a spouse. She is still paying taxes and insurance on the place she formerly lived in, so the only financial benefit to her is the profit on that one house.
Tell you what, why don't you turn the tables and move into HER house, rent yours out, and just pay your share of utilities and grocery bills? Sounds like the only way you will be happy.

"By asking your wife to share the costs of taxes and insurance on the home you own and presumably retain title to, you are expecting her to fund your investment. "

Sorry, I think you should both equally purchase a home together that is both of yours. You are the one that insisted on living in *your* home. However she did agree to it for some reason? I don't get it, but if I have to pay my DH rent, guess what he gets to pay for?

I think your portfolios & living trusts that you came into the marriage with should remain seperate and you should start one together.

I too do not understand why you married each other? Could have had the best of both worlds had you remained a un-married couple. I can't see how this marriage benefits either one of you, but you seem really bothered by the fact that her investments have panned out better than yours. I think she would be a utter fool to mix finances at this point in her life.
~Cat

"It would be nice if some men would respond. Linda put her side of the problem on the forum (Posted 11-8-09), only women responded."

Wrong. I am male and here is what I wrote to her then:

"Posted by asolo (My Page) on Tue, Nov 10, 09 at 15:17
You had separate finances before. You have separate finances now. Nothing unusual about that. But there must be mutual understandings.
I assume your presence and activities within Dan's house amount to something. Cleaning, housekeeping, errands, cooking perhaps? In that sense, what makes you a "tenant" -- one who pays rent -- as opposed to a "housekeeper" or "personal secretary"-- one who is entitled to a wage? I would encourage you not to open that pandora's box. However, if he does, I wouldn't hesitate to turn it around instantly. Spouses often share expenses but they do NOT pay "rent".

Suggest you share all expenses (excluding taxes and insurance on Dan's home which remains his asset) but not "rent". I think "rent" within a marriage is an obnoxious term.

As time goes on and you may buy furniture, etc,. you must be careful to record what's his, yours, and "ours".

Your union can work just fine with separate accounts. Both of you should gain. Neither of you should have your assets depleted. "Rent" would be a net depletion for you because if you still lived in your own house, you wouldn't be paying it. I would resist that.

If you contribute to repairs and/or upgrades to Dan's house over time, that becomes your equitable interest in the property, too, which you'll want to record.

Overall, I think Dan's being kind of a jerk about this. He's creating more problems than he's solving. You may have married a pedant. If he persists, you may want to consider a "post-nuptial" agreement and put this nonsense to bed permanently.

How's the marriage going otherwise?"

Your questions from this post:

"1.) I am asking Linda to share the living cost of the home we live in. 1/2 of the cost is $240.00 per month (includes taxes, insurance, utilities etc.).
Is this right?"

Yes and no. Your idea of "living expenses" is flawed. She should share in "expenses" such as utilities and food and cleaning products, other things you both consume. She should also be willing to contribute to occasional appliance repairs and other wear-and-tear items that both of you use and that will require repair or replacement in time. That part would be fair in my opinion. How much and whether or not that will represent equitable interest thereafter will be a can of worms for both of you, of course. She shouldn't contribute to any capital item. You remodel the place or replace the roof, you pay for all of it. She should not pay taxes or insurance or anything else related to the capital value of your separate asset.

"2.) I am also asking Linda to share $160.00 per month of the profits she makes from her 10 rental units.
Is this right?"

No. Hers is hers. Yours is yours. You've already agreed to that. Your justification is nuts. She could say the same thing if you wanted to turn it around. She's agreed to dance to your tune and you want her to pay the piper, too.

"3) I feel the request I am making for her to share is fair and honest.
Am I right or wrong?"

I don't doubt your honesty. Making requests is "fair" but I don't think an experienced disinterested outsider would back you up about the logic or "fairness" of your proposal.

I suggest two things -- and both of you should share the cost: 1) Seek out an experienced family-practice lawyer, lay this on the table before them and ask their opinion/advice. Nail down the financial logic -- which may give both of you new perspectives. 2) Assuming you reach an agreement, I would then lock it down in a post-nuptial agreement.

What the hell....the way you two are thinking, you're going to be talking to lawyers soon enough anyway if you can't clear this off the table.

You could allow Linda to purchase 1/2 of your house. Maybe she could do her own financing or maybe you could carry the note. That wouldn't disrupt anything else for either of you and would remove the root cause of all this financial pedantry.

If, in your opinion, those options can't be considered -- you will have told me more about yourself than you may have intended.

I haven't changed my mind either. Here's what I wrote to Linda:

"If you did combine finances, half of the income from your house would be his, and half of the bills from both your house and Dan's house would be yours. And that is what I would propose as fair. That half of the net income from your house rental (after expenses) go toward household expenses at Dan's."

Just to clarify -- If you (Dan) include taxes and insurance as 'bills', then Linda should include them as expenses on her former residence as well. But really, I view those items as capital expenses that go with owning the property.

Looking at it from Dan's standpoint, he wants a roommate that helps with the mortgage on his separate property, takes care of the place, pays a share of the profits from her separate property and is available for love and companionship.
This would be okay if he was fabulous looking, younger than her, sexy, & other women would be instantly jealous of Linda. Is that the case?

I just read over both threads and I think this statement says it all:

She's agreed to dance to your tune and you want her to pay the piper, too.

You wanted to keep finances separate. You wanted her to move into the house you own. She agreed to that and now you are bugged by the fact that her portfolio is outperforming yours and you want to share in the profits.

I have to wonder, if things were the other way around, what would you do? Say she were losing money on her rental, which she is only renting out because you insisted she move in with you. Say your portfolio were in better shape than hers. Would you then be handing money over to her to help offset her loss on the rental? Would you even consider doing so if she asked you? I'm guessing not. You want to have your cake and eat it too.

I'm one who believes in pooling the assets when you get married. However, I can certainly understand if one of you has a substantially larger portfolio and wants to protect it for the kids of a previous marriage, but then I think all that would need to be spelled out in a prenup. When you keep assets separate, but don't agree to all the terms of expenses and future income once the marriage is entered into, you run the risk of this exact problem.

What's fair now? I agree with what asolo said. She should share in "expenses" such as utilities and food and cleaning products, other things you both consume. And see a lawyer to come to a reasonable agreement and get it in writing.