A couple of weeks later she emailed and asked why we couldn't buy each other out of the house. I said because I didn't think either of us could afford it, not that we couldn't. Her response was that the bank said that she could afford it. My reply was I didn't want to do anything by an emotional decision and that she could stay here, with me contributing for the interim a smaller component of house expenses since I'd have other costs for my own place and left it at that. Maybe that was avoidance but I also didn't want to agree to something I'd regret later. She has fully explored the means of buying me out though as to how the process would work but I think that is it.
OK, I'm a bit confused here. If she can (if she wanted to and chose to) afford the house all by herself, then why are you paying for BOTH a rental for you, AND a share of the house expenses that you'll no longer be living in??
We used to talk a lot about "BGPs" around here: Big-Girl Panties. (and it was a former walkaway wife that brought the term here). The idea is that if your wife has it in her head that she wants to flee the marriage, then you have to let her put on her BGPs and feel the full weight of the consequences of her decision.
You may not be able to stop her from fleeing, but you certainly don't have to -- and shouldn't -- finance the flight.
