DVM gone riding
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:04:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,383
Favorite Drink: Coffee!!
|
Post by DVM gone riding on Oct 15, 2016 18:38:38 GMT -5
Well thank you for posting. I did what your sisiter did, put all the downpayment out of pre marital funds. So i went and printed out all the prove and saved digital copies. Hope to never need it but you can't predict the future.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 7:27:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2016 20:01:35 GMT -5
He is ....deliberately running up his credit card (entertaining his squeeze) thinking my sister is going to have to pay half. This is just the stuff off the top of my head...... Nah, won't work. That's called "dissipating the marital assets" and the courts are onto that. If he's buying himself clothes and toys, buying rounds for his friends at the sports bar, etc. (not paying for home repairs or family vacations or his daughter's clothing) that debt will not get split down the middle. My Ex had a ton of credit card debt in his name (I was smart enough never to have a joint account with him) but it was all stuff for him. He got stuck with it all.
|
|
seriousthistime
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 20:27:07 GMT -5
Posts: 4,736
|
Post by seriousthistime on Oct 15, 2016 22:34:06 GMT -5
Let me play devil's advocate here.
How can she prove that he destroyed the document because of the divorce? She may be sure he did it, but how would she prove it? Did she have access to that paperwork too, over the years? In cases where an inference can be drawn that evidence was destroyed due to pending litigation, it is usually when just one side had access to that evidence so if it was destroyed, it is clear who did it. Like, a security tape showing that someone slipped and fell in a store, or a "smoking gun" memo that was never shared outside the company. If both parties had access to the evidence, it is equally plausible that either one of them could have destroyed it to disadvantage the other. To a neutral arbitrator or judge, it is equally plausible that SHE destroyed the document to cover up the fact that HE was the source of the down payment.
She is trying to escalate the value of her $25K contribution to $50K because the house has appreciated 100% over 20 years. Is that what her lawyer is advising her to go for, or is that what she thinks she should get?
And although a judge may determine that he has dissipated marital assets and may order him to pay those bills, the credit card company is not bound by that. If she is jointly responsible for payment of those credit cards and he doesn't pay, the credit card company will come after her. She can take him to court to try and get the court to enforce the divorce decree but her credit can take a nosedive in the meantime.
I hope her lawyer is advising her well. Sorry she is going through this. It is a very stressful time for her, as anyone who has been there can attest.
|
|
seriousthistime
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 20:27:07 GMT -5
Posts: 4,736
|
Post by seriousthistime on Oct 16, 2016 0:00:09 GMT -5
I know you know your sister's telling the truth. You asked about how to get the documents to prove it.
The devil's advocate part comes in because someone above mentioned destruction of documents and how the court's inference is against the person who destroyed them. In this case, it is clear to you but may not be clear to the court who destroyed them. What if STBX says HE paid the downpayment from his funds, and that SHE'S lying, and SHE destroyed the documents so she could claim she was the source or that they contributed equally? If he had all the documents locked up in a safe deposit box only he had access to, and suddenly that document goes missing, that would show he was in a better position to destroy those documents which could support her version. But they had equal access. If he agrees that she was the source, she doesn't need the document; she's good to go. If they each claim they were the source of the funds, there is no clear inference to be made because each of them could have destroyed the document to support their version.
Most of what happens in divorce court is governed by state law and custom in the area where the divorce occurs. It is not SOP that if one spouse is the source of a downpayment, the funds are returned to reflect the same percentage increase as in the house overall. It may be SOP where your sister is, but it is not generally true.
I feel for your sister. She has been taken advantage of by someone she used to love and trust and was with for twenty years, she has to look out for the kids, and she has to deal with a legal proceeding. She's dealing with a lot right now. I'm glad you are there for her. I hope she can get this done quickly and fairly.
ETA: Posted this, and saw your comment to my post above is gone.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Oct 16, 2016 11:45:24 GMT -5
I deleted it because I don't want to deal with your point of assuming my sister is lying. The one thing I knew when they got married was that he was a financial train wreck, and my sister was not. She had the retirement accounts, and he did not as he pulled money from his retirement accounts as he left each job. He spent each of his accounts each time he left a job, and the pattern continues as he just liquidated another one. Her retirement account still exists, and it is about 2x the amount that he has in his, despite the fact that she has not contributed to it since she rolled it over in 1993, before they got married.
Was she smart about things? Absolutely not. I didn't care for my BIL from the beginning, and there were a lot of things that he did that didn't set well with me. The only time I actually voiced my concerns was when he started to use her old IRA for a piggy bank too, once she stepped out of the workforce. He wanted a boat, and that is where he got the cash for it. I told my sister that she needed to stop it now, only not quite so nicely, trying to make her see that she needed to protect herself. The results of that conversation was that she stopped telling me anything about their finances. Just recently, I found out that other than the boat, he withdrew another $30k from her IRA until she stopped it. So my words did sink in, but not before more money was taken.
My BIL is not going to agree that her IRA was the source of funds for the down payment because that is more money he is going to have to pay out. She does not want the house, she can't afford it on her salary (the mortgage would be damn near 100% of her income), but she wants enough to start over elsewhere.
Is this sufficient evidence, his spending patterns? Probably not. But the fact that my sister has an IRA that contains money contributed from 1982-1993 in it and despite the fact that her STBX does not says tons....despite the fact that their careers are parallel, they worked in the same industry, at the same jobs, during the same time and at the same employers.
|
|
seriousthistime
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 20:27:07 GMT -5
Posts: 4,736
|
Post by seriousthistime on Oct 16, 2016 13:28:03 GMT -5
I get it, Mich. I do.
I do not assume your sister is lying. I assume she is truthful. I was trying to respond to the other comment about destruction of evidence and how in this case, the court's reaction is not a slam-dunk.
My point was apparently not taken well. I'm sorry.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Oct 16, 2016 13:44:07 GMT -5
I get it, Mich. I do. I do not assume your sister is lying. I assume she is truthful. I was trying to respond to the other comment about destruction of evidence and how in this case, the court's reaction is not a slam-dunk. My point was apparently not taken well. I'm sorry. No, I understand what you are saying but it really isn't pertinent because my sister's not going into this trying to pin blame on him for destroying the documents in the courts, but find a way of replacing them. She knows he destroyed them, but has no proof that he did so, other than circumstance, and if she can't figure out a way of recreating 20+ year old documents, she's going to lose about $50K.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Oct 19, 2016 12:51:35 GMT -5
It looks like my sister lucked out.
The financial adviser her husband insisted that she go with (friend of the family) actually DID have all of my sister's IRAs and rollovers, including the amount that she debited from her IRA right before they bought the house. He also has the other debits that were made from her retirement account by her husband for his 'toys' (boat, motorcycle). I still can't believe she signed off on that though, dumbass!
Fortunately, the amount that was debited from her account ($24, 733) was the exact amount that was applied as the down payment.
|
|
Works4me
Senior Member
Someone responded to your personal ad - a German Shepherd named Tara wants to have you for dinner...
Joined: May 5, 2012 12:11:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,522
|
Post by Works4me on Oct 19, 2016 13:40:05 GMT -5
It looks like my sister lucked out. The financial adviser her husband insisted that she go with (friend of the family) actually DID have all of my sister's IRAs and rollovers, including the amount that she debited from her IRA right before they bought the house. He also has the other debits that were made from her retirement account by her husband for his 'toys' (boat, motorcycle). I still can't believe she signed off on that though, dumbass! Fortunately, the amount that was debited from her account ($24, 733) was the exact amount that was applied as the down payment. Grea! Does she have a good lawyer? ETA - STBXH is going to have a conniption fit and it so serves him right! I guess I must be evil or something but I really love it when karma gets people like him.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Oct 19, 2016 13:55:07 GMT -5
I hope so. STBX's lawyer sounds pretty sketchy though. I don't see how she thought that the family house we inherited from my dad is considered marital property. I can see how my BIL might see that, but shouldn't she have counseled her client that it's not?
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Oct 19, 2016 14:03:25 GMT -5
If I had to guess I would think the lawyer thought marital money was used to maintain or pay bills on the inherited property. My very basic understanding is that makes it marital property once you do that. And not all of us have the money to pay for things like that out of unmingled funds. Or the STBX told the lawyer that he had paid for part of it or didn't even tell them that it was inherited at all.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Oct 19, 2016 14:08:03 GMT -5
If I had to guess I would think the lawyer thought marital money was used to maintain or pay bills on the inherited property. My very basic understanding is that makes it marital property once you do that. And not all of us have the money to pay for things like that out of unmingled funds. Or the STBX told the lawyer that he had paid for part of it or didn't even tell them that it was inherited at all. Nope, no mingled funds were used on the inherited property. None of us have paid for upkeep on the property (yet). My stepmom is currently living in the house, along with 2 of her daughters.
|
|
debthaven
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 7, 2015 15:26:39 GMT -5
Posts: 10,379
|
Post by debthaven on Oct 19, 2016 14:15:51 GMT -5
I'm glad for your sister that those documents were found!
|
|
seriousthistime
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 20:27:07 GMT -5
Posts: 4,736
|
Post by seriousthistime on Oct 20, 2016 8:48:37 GMT -5
It looks like my sister lucked out. The financial adviser her husband insisted that she go with (friend of the family) actually DID have all of my sister's IRAs and rollovers, including the amount that she debited from her IRA right before they bought the house. He also has the other debits that were made from her retirement account by her husband for his 'toys' (boat, motorcycle). I still can't believe she signed off on that though, dumbass! Fortunately, the amount that was debited from her account ($24, 733) was the exact amount that was applied as the down payment. Great news! I'm so happy that she has it now. Turns out STBX wasn't so crafty after all.
|
|
Works4me
Senior Member
Someone responded to your personal ad - a German Shepherd named Tara wants to have you for dinner...
Joined: May 5, 2012 12:11:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,522
|
Post by Works4me on Oct 20, 2016 11:18:08 GMT -5
My understanding is that one can ask,fo anything in a divorce settlement - however asking is not getting. It seems to me that sometimes they ask for a bunch of crazy stuff so that it appears as if they are being more cooperative than they are when they let it go in the name of compromise. I'm just sorry you sister is going through this but happy she has you in her corner.
|
|