MovieChat Forums > The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio (2007) Discussion > signing the mortgage papers

signing the mortgage papers

posted 17 years ago by o1977jp
15 replies | jump to latest

Julianne Moore's character seemed as smart as a whip (she had to be to win all those contests). So why didn't she sign the mortgage papers along with her husband? She knew she was supposed to, she even said it. And then she got talked out of it so easily (by the way, that's malpractice by the loan officer). The scene was believable at that point in the movie but at the end I couldn't believe it was the same character who made such a dumb move.

Now maybe back in those days it wasn't customary for a woman to sign (I don't know for sure, I wasn't around), but her husband and the loan officer didn't seem like they cared either way. I know it's a true story but it really seemed almost like a plot hole or something.

[–] grills 17 years ago

hi there,

think back in those days, it wasn't mandatory for both of them to sign the mortgage papers, we have to remember it was a whole different time when it came to women and human rights. I always got the feeling both in the book and movie that even tho she was the one who actually came up with the $$ for the house, she was trying to bolster his ego/empower him that he was still the breadwinner in the family. Just my opinion tho.... :O)

[–] MdmBadenov 17 years ago

No, it's not just your opinion, grills...I don't think there's any question that's what Evelyn was doing...bolstering Kelly's ego by agreeing to let him be the sole signatory on the deed. But it's true that at the time, that was very typical. It's interesting to me to hear from someone who can't remember times when women were second class citizens and they were customarily cut out of everything that gives people power like professional careers, income earning opportunity, property ownership, birth control. I'm glad to hear from someone who has no memory of any of this and finds it foreign and unimaginable. That tells me we have made real progress, although at times it feels like we haven't.

No, it's not a plot hole. That's really the way it was until a lot more recently. People should remember that only 87 years ago, women were not able to vote.

[–] lorrigirl 17 years ago

This scene made me very angry. I realize that this was normal for the times, but this is what kept women in unhappy, abusive marriages and why we have so many adult children of alcoholics with huge issues.

Even twenty years ago women would get divorced after many years of marriage and find that they had no credit established so they couldn't even buy a car or get a credit card.

[–] shadycady 17 years ago

That is true that some women didn't even have any credit 20 years ago, but more and more women were empowered in the early 70s with Gloria Steinam and the late 60s with Betty Friedan's The Feminist Mystique. The 70s were the crowning glory of women becoming more and more indepedent. Most of the woman that I knew in the 80s went to college and had careers including myself.

Mommy to two little monsters

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Inthalight 17 years ago

I had the feeling it was eating her up and that she had to bite her tounge. Maybe because she knew if she did sign her husband would lose even more face in the community(if possible)giving him reason to have yet another outburst. He was so unpredictable.

[–] subase 13 years ago

It's true. It amazes me how much trash talking a husband who earns less than his wife or doesn't work gets.

The pressure in the 1950's must of been out of this world. Although Evelyn was an enabler for her husbands behaviour you can't really blame her, she thought she was helping him and I would actually agree with her.

She wasn't the dominating type of person her husband needed. In those times even though she was very intelligent, the submissiveness uncultured into her bowed to religion (no birth control, no trial separation) and no knowledge seeking in reading.

[–] janef-13 17 years ago

Just to clarify, this movie takes place in the 1950's, not 20 years ago in the 80's, as mentioned by a previous reply. Of course women in the 80's could secure credit and sign mortgages!

[–] lorrigirl 17 years ago

Actually, I knew divorced women in the 80's that got married in the 60's and still had this problem.

[–] megmarch2003 17 years ago

Women from that era were raised to do the cooking and cleaning and child-rearing and it was the man who managed the bills. There was an elderly couple at my church, who, when he died first, she didn't even know how to write a check. We ran into her at the bank and she said to us "Oh, I'm learning how to do all of this!"

"You can't tell me nothin' if you ain't had an 8-track." -Sinbad

[–] GaelicLass 11 years ago

Back then a couple was jointly responsible for all transactions even if only the husband signed. Eventually you had to check a box on life insurance policy claiming you told your husband he wasn't the beneficiary if he wasn't. Now the person who signs is financially responsible but it is a mess in a divorce.

IMDb; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...another poster

[–] timlin-4 9 years ago

Bigger question is how the parents were able to steal a check made out to their son without putting him on the mortgage

[–] MNRebecca (750) 5 years ago

That’s addressed briefly in the movie. The child is a minor, so a legal guardian over 21 can sign for the check.

[–] cammus118 9 years ago

I don't think Ohio is a community property state, but California is - and in California, women didn't even have equal management and control of the communal family funds until 1975. Basically, if a married woman took title to anything in her own name, it was presumed that her husband allowed it and gave her the funds as a gift - but this was rebuttable by his word. In divorce court, his testimony that he never gave her permission to use the money (their money) would trump her title to property.

Even if Ohio is not a community property state, I assume things worked in pretty much the same way.

[–] mlaiuppa 7 years ago

This was the 50s.

It wasn't customary for a woman to sign a mortgage or any other legal papers, especially since she didn't work or earn any money.

Not a plot hole. That's the way it was back then.

Did you hear the counseling of the priest?

After WWII men and society spent a lot of time putting Rosie the Riveter back in her place, barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen where she belonged.

You'll still hear a lot of that attitude today, by misogynists will fragile egos and teenie ZiZis. Smart women who work and make more money are threats to their egos.

My parents married in 1953 and moved to California in 1957. When they bought a home both of their names were on the deed. My Mother worked before she married and after the three of us kids were out of elementary school she went back to working. My Father was never threatened by her. While he made more money and had more education, he respected her and during times when he was between jobs appreciated her helping to make ends meet. They always discussed large purchases and expenditures. They had a joint checking account.

Women take for granted their freedom and rights. They have no idea what life was like in the generations before them or how far women have come.