|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Aug 3, 2018 13:02:39 GMT -5
So based on the information I just found and posted... who is in the wrong? The husband is refusing to sign the deed/house over and I am guessing is because he does not want to sign it over till he is sure she can get a mortgage under her name on the house. He signs the deed over yet mortgage is still under his name and his equity is still in the house... He is SOL. I can see his side. But in her case, he has tried to steal her house from her. The judge awarded her the house, and as she posted online he is refusing to sign over the quick deed as ordered by the court. So he is in the wrong, absolute wrong and it is not her fault... she has tried to get a mortgage but was not approve for one. I am finding it curious that a judge would order him to quick deed the house to her without in exchange having his share of the equity in the house and the mortgage that is under his name paid off. I mean I would not be one to want to sign up for that.... and after all he was her husband so I am sure he has an idea about her income, finances and capability of getting a mortgage (after all he did buy it under his own name 15 years ago) which I am guessing that is why he never sign the quick deed for 1.5 years after the divorce now. If the mortgage was signed over to her, chances are that his equity was used in lieu of other investments that he received that she should have had part of. You don't know this. For instance, my BIL got 100% ownership of 3 cars and a boat while my sister got 100% ownership of all furnishings. They estimate the costs and try to equalize. I watched how they divvy'ed up my sister's house and while the mortgage is fully held in her ex's name, my sister is part owner on the deed and she has 50% interest in it. The down payment came from her retirement accounts and for the first 8 years, she paid the mortgage on it. It was only when she became a SAHM and the mortgage refinanced that the mortgage was only in her ex's name.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,312
|
Post by NastyWoman on Aug 3, 2018 14:28:47 GMT -5
So based on the information I just found and posted... who is in the wrong? The husband is refusing to sign the deed/house over and I am guessing is because he does not want to sign it over till he is sure she can get a mortgage under her name on the house. He signs the deed over yet mortgage is still under his name and his equity is still in the house... He is SOL. I can see his side. But in her case, he has tried to steal her house from her. The judge awarded her the house, and as she posted online he is refusing to sign over the quick deed as ordered by the court. So he is in the wrong, absolute wrong and it is not her fault... she has tried to get a mortgage but was not approve for one. I am finding it curious that a judge would order him to quick deed the house to her without in exchange having his share of the equity in the house and the mortgage that is under his name paid off. I mean I would not be one to want to sign up for that.... and after all he was her husband so I am sure he has an idea about her income, finances and capability of getting a mortgage (after all he did buy it under his own name 15 years ago) which I am guessing that is why he never sign the quick deed for 1.5 years after the divorce now. aaaaannnnd he took out a line of equity on a house he no longer has any rights to according to the divorce settlement. Provided that all facts presented here are correct that is plenty of sleazy going on here
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,371
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 3, 2018 15:23:14 GMT -5
So based on the information I just found and posted... who is in the wrong? The husband is refusing to sign the deed/house over and I am guessing is because he does not want to sign it over till he is sure she can get a mortgage under her name on the house. He signs the deed over yet mortgage is still under his name and his equity is still in the house... He is SOL. I can see his side. But in her case, he has tried to steal her house from her. The judge awarded her the house, and as she posted online he is refusing to sign over the quick deed as ordered by the court. So he is in the wrong, absolute wrong and it is not her fault... she has tried to get a mortgage but was not approve for one. I am finding it curious that a judge would order him to quick deed the house to her without in exchange having his share of the equity in the house and the mortgage that is under his name paid off. I mean I would not be one to want to sign up for that.... and after all he was her husband so I am sure he has an idea about her income, finances and capability of getting a mortgage (after all he did buy it under his own name 15 years ago) which I am guessing that is why he never sign the quick deed for 1.5 years after the divorce now. aaaaannnnd he took out a line of equity on a house he no longer has any rights to according to the divorce settlement. Provided that all facts presented here are correct that is plenty of sleazy going on here Seems like another good reason to sell the family home upon divorce and start fresh with a property that your ex-spouse could not even pretend to have a claim on.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Aug 3, 2018 15:24:07 GMT -5
Obviously we don't know all the facts of the legal documents (my disclaimer).
It seems she was supposed to be getting the mortgage out of his name and into hers. That's part of the OP "she was unable to buy the house". She probably wouldn't be doing this if it weren't part of their decree.
He was supposed to sign over a quit-claim deed to her but didn't. I probably wouldn't either honestly, if my ex was supposed to be "buying the house" and getting a mortgage in her name (regardless of whether I was getting equity payout or just off the mortgage). What motivation is there for me to do that if she's not doing what she's supposed to do by getting a mortgage in her name? She's not going to file a motion against me if she's also in contempt.
Listing a house with a realtor is not the same as being able to actually sell the house. I'm guessing you can give a realtor the "right" answers to get them to list it. i.e. The house is in my name only, no I'm not married...all true. That doesn't mean the house is going to go through a sale without people figuring out what's going on with the wife, the divorce decree, etc. In my experience, realtors aren't doing much digging into things just to put a sign up in the yard and throw it on MLS. They worry about a lot of that crap later on when the transaction is happening.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,371
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 3, 2018 15:28:52 GMT -5
I've often said that I think everyone should have a pre-nup that says no divorce will be final until all joint accounts are closed and all debt refinanced in a new loan that is in one person's name, only. If there is debt that cannot be refinanced, both parties will sell assets until the debt is paid off. Period. None of this bullshit of having co-mingled finances after the marriage is dissolved.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 0:31:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2018 21:49:12 GMT -5
When ex and I divorced, he "got" the house, and I got my equity in retirement $$$. We still had a mortgage and, in fact, had recently refinanced to pay off all debts in anticipation of the divorce.
Nothing was in our decree about refinancing. He did so a few years later.
I will admit to curiosity about my neighbors, but you just don't know how their decree was written.
|
|
cktc
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 19, 2013 22:15:31 GMT -5
Posts: 3,202
|
Post by cktc on Aug 4, 2018 9:40:03 GMT -5
From the details presented I have zero sympathy for this guy and hope the judge shreds him. He lost the house in the divorce, and instead of signing over the deed as ordered he takes out $80k then tries to sell it out from under his kids? She might have been required to refinance to get him off the mortgage, but taking $80k out pretty much insured she would never be able to qualify on her own. Just a hunch, "but if she can be in contempt I can too" isn't going to fly in court.
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Aug 4, 2018 10:09:25 GMT -5
From the details presented I have zero sympathy for this guy and hope the judge shreds him. He lost the house in the divorce, and instead of signing over the deed as ordered he takes out $80k then tries to sell it out from under his kids? She might have been required to refinance to get him off the mortgage, but taking $80k out pretty much insured she would never be able to qualify on her own. Just a hunch, "but if she can be in contempt I can too" isn't going to fly in court. I don’t think the line of credit would go against her qualifying because it is only under his name.... So again not sure if he used it or planning to use it, it is a line of credit. He could have taken it out and then take zero dollars out. Even if he did, that would he under his name not hers. She basically just need to get approve for enough to pay back the remaining loan and his share. If he did take out the 80k, she would just reduce his share by 80k. Anything , lien or loans against the house would come up before closing anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 0:31:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2018 10:12:46 GMT -5
From the details presented I have zero sympathy for this guy and hope the judge shreds him. He lost the house in the divorce, and instead of signing over the deed as ordered he takes out $80k then tries to sell it out from under his kids? She might have been required to refinance to get him off the mortgage, but taking $80k out pretty much insured she would never be able to qualify on her own. Just a hunch, "but if she can be in contempt I can too" isn't going to fly in court. I don’t think the line of credit would go against her qualifying because it is only under his name.... So again not sure if he used it or planning to use it, it is a line of credit. He could have taken it out and then take zero dollars out. Even if he did, that would he under his name not hers. She basically just need to get approve for enough to pay back the remaining loan and his share.
If he did take out the 80k, she would just reduce his share by 80k. Anything , lien or loans against the house would come up before closing anyway. I don't think it works that way. The lender is going to care about total liens against the property.
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Aug 4, 2018 10:17:12 GMT -5
I don’t think the line of credit would go against her qualifying because it is only under his name.... So again not sure if he used it or planning to use it, it is a line of credit. He could have taken it out and then take zero dollars out. Even if he did, that would he under his name not hers. She basically just need to get approve for enough to pay back the remaining loan and his share.
If he did take out the 80k, she would just reduce his share by 80k. Anything , lien or loans against the house would come up before closing anyway. I don't think it works that way. The lender is going to care about total liens against the property. And the total liens against the property is less than she needs to pay him off. His share of the equity is ~200k.
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Aug 4, 2018 10:19:06 GMT -5
I don’t think the line of credit would go against her qualifying because it is only under his name.... So again not sure if he used it or planning to use it, it is a line of credit. He could have taken it out and then take zero dollars out. Even if he did, that would he under his name not hers. She basically just need to get approve for enough to pay back the remaining loan and his share.
If he did take out the 80k, she would just reduce his share by 80k. Anything , lien or loans against the house would come up before closing anyway. I don't think it works that way. The lender is going to care about total liens against the property. Also that does not get discussed at the approval/getting the mortgage part. She has been denied or was not approved for a mortgage in a sufficient amount to take him off and pay him off.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 0:31:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2018 10:37:38 GMT -5
I don't think it works that way. The lender is going to care about total liens against the property. Also that does not get discussed at the approval/getting the mortgage part. She has been denied or was not approved for a mortgage in a sufficient amount to take him off and pay him off. 2nds and Lines of Credit were always discussed whenever I refinanced. She was trying to get approved for that particular house, not some random pre-approval amount.
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Aug 4, 2018 10:42:42 GMT -5
Also that does not get discussed at the approval/getting the mortgage part. She has been denied or was not approved for a mortgage in a sufficient amount to take him off and pay him off. 2nds and Lines of Credit were always discussed whenever I refinanced. She was trying to get approved for that particular house, not some random pre-approval amount.
She was not refinancing it, she was buying it. She is not on a the deed nor the mortgage, she is no different per the mortgage company than the Joe Schmoe that came right off the street. The only difference is he would be selling it to her at a lower than the value price : old mortgage balance + share of equity - line of credit . No different than if I try to buy my parents house. I may get it at a discount (inheritance) but I still need to get approved for a mortgage that will cover the purchase price.
|
|
andi9899
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 6, 2011 10:22:29 GMT -5
Posts: 30,353
|
Post by andi9899 on Aug 4, 2018 12:34:09 GMT -5
I don't think it works that way. The lender is going to care about total liens against the property. And the total liens against the property is less than she needs to pay him off. His share of the equity is ~200k. Providing he was awarded equity. If not, she doesn't owe him a dime.
|
|
cktc
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 19, 2013 22:15:31 GMT -5
Posts: 3,202
|
Post by cktc on Aug 4, 2018 13:06:40 GMT -5
2nds and Lines of Credit were always discussed whenever I refinanced. She was trying to get approved for that particular house, not some random pre-approval amount.
She was not refinancing it, she was buying it. She is not on a the deed nor the mortgage, she is no different per the mortgage company than the Joe Schmoe that came right off the street. The only difference is he would be selling it to her at a lower than the value price : old mortgage balance + share of equity - line of credit . No different than if I try to buy my parents house. I may get it at a discount (inheritance) but I still need to get approved for a mortgage that will cover the purchase price. But she is supposed to be on the deed. The courts have already said she gets the house. Ignoring a court order doesn't mean it's still his to sell, to her or anyone. He is supposed to sign the deed over, and she is supposed to take out a loan in her name to pay off his mortgage (refinance). Her end could take a while, and he might end up responsible for a mortgage on a house he has no rights to, which sucks for him, but it's the settlement that was reached when the divorce was granted. How do we even know if he was awarded any equity, or what that amount would be? Was it market value at time of the divorce? Original purchase price? Did they have the house appraised? He doesn't just get 50% whenever. And it will be easier for her to get financing when market value greatly exceeds the amount of the loan required to pay off all current liens on the house. He really has made this more difficult for her.
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Aug 4, 2018 13:18:00 GMT -5
She was not refinancing it, she was buying it. She is not on a the deed nor the mortgage, she is no different per the mortgage company than the Joe Schmoe that came right off the street. The only difference is he would be selling it to her at a lower than the value price : old mortgage balance + share of equity - line of credit . No different than if I try to buy my parents house. I may get it at a discount (inheritance) but I still need to get approved for a mortgage that will cover the purchase price. But she is supposed to be on the deed. The courts have already said she gets the house. Ignoring a court order doesn't mean it's still his to sell, to her or anyone. He is supposed to sign the deed over, and she is supposed to take out a loan in her name to pay off his mortgage (refinance). Her end could take a while, and he might end up responsible for a mortgage on a house he has no rights to, which sucks for him, but it's the settlement that was reached when the divorce was granted. How do we even know if he was awarded any equity, or what that amount would be? Was it market value at time of the divorce? Original purchase price? Did they have the house appraised? He doesn't just get 50% whenever. And it will be easier for her to get financing when market value greatly exceeds the amount of the loan required to pay off all current liens on the house. He really has made this more difficult for her. Court order or not I am not signing over a deed to a house a mortgage is still on it and said mortgage is under my name... In that sense I agree with him: let him be in contempt of court. I would never agree to that to begin with and would have push for a sale of the house. The only way I know she needs to buy him out is because she has said so; she has tried to get approved for a mortgage and was not. Again she is a French Teacher not sure the salary for that in DC/MD. I have met teachers that get paid 6 figures and I have met teachers that are crying poor... so I would pin point it at what? At least 50k? Also maybe it is not just the salary is it credit, does she has credit ? Good or bad credit? Sufficient history? Either way she has tried and was turned down and I am guessing he is aware of that because 1.5 years later house is still under his name and no efforts (at least to him) was made to buy him out or pay off the loan so he can sign over the deed.
|
|
cktc
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 19, 2013 22:15:31 GMT -5
Posts: 3,202
|
Post by cktc on Aug 4, 2018 13:44:44 GMT -5
And that's where I lose all sympathy for him. Maybe he's stupid and didn't realize she might not be able to buy him out, maybe he was feeling guilty at the time of the divorce and has since changed his mind. Regardless, the settlement was already reached and the way he is proceeding is going to cost them all a s$#% ton in legal fees.
|
|
Bonny
Junior Associate
Joined: Nov 17, 2013 10:54:37 GMT -5
Posts: 7,437
Location: No Place Like Home!
|
Post by Bonny on Aug 4, 2018 15:48:43 GMT -5
But she is supposed to be on the deed. The courts have already said she gets the house. Ignoring a court order doesn't mean it's still his to sell, to her or anyone. He is supposed to sign the deed over, and she is supposed to take out a loan in her name to pay off his mortgage (refinance). Her end could take a while, and he might end up responsible for a mortgage on a house he has no rights to, which sucks for him, but it's the settlement that was reached when the divorce was granted. How do we even know if he was awarded any equity, or what that amount would be? Was it market value at time of the divorce? Original purchase price? Did they have the house appraised? He doesn't just get 50% whenever. And it will be easier for her to get financing when market value greatly exceeds the amount of the loan required to pay off all current liens on the house. He really has made this more difficult for her. Court order or not I am not signing over a deed to a house a mortgage is still on it and said mortgage is under my name... In that sense I agree with him: let him be in contempt of court. I would never agree to that to begin with and would have push for a sale of the house. The only way I know she needs to buy him out is because she has said so; she has tried to get approved for a mortgage and was not. Again she is a French Teacher not sure the salary for that in DC/MD. I have met teachers that get paid 6 figures and I have met teachers that are crying poor... so I would pin point it at what? At least 50k? Also maybe it is not just the salary is it credit, does she has credit ? Good or bad credit? Sufficient history? Either way she has tried and was turned down and I am guessing he is aware of that because 1.5 years later house is still under his name and no efforts (at least to him) was made to buy him out or pay off the loan so he can sign over the deed. Then he needs to go back to court if she hasn't fulfilled her side of the contract. He can't unilaterally decide to sell the house out from under her (and his kids!). The guy is either ignorant of the process, a jerk, or answer (d) all of the above.
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Aug 4, 2018 16:04:57 GMT -5
Court order or not I am not signing over a deed to a house a mortgage is still on it and said mortgage is under my name... In that sense I agree with him: let him be in contempt of court. I would never agree to that to begin with and would have push for a sale of the house. The only way I know she needs to buy him out is because she has said so; she has tried to get approved for a mortgage and was not. Again she is a French Teacher not sure the salary for that in DC/MD. I have met teachers that get paid 6 figures and I have met teachers that are crying poor... so I would pin point it at what? At least 50k? Also maybe it is not just the salary is it credit, does she has credit ? Good or bad credit? Sufficient history? Either way she has tried and was turned down and I am guessing he is aware of that because 1.5 years later house is still under his name and no efforts (at least to him) was made to buy him out or pay off the loan so he can sign over the deed. Then he needs to go back to court if she hasn't fulfilled her side of the contract. He can't unilaterally decide to sell the house out from under her (and his kids!). The guy is either ignorant of the process, a jerk, or answer (d) all of the above. Having met him I can tell you with absolute confidence he is a jerk! There is no doubt about that. But the wife is not totally innocent either. Off course everyone is now siding with the poor wife (everyone in the neighborhood) and have taken some sort of actions to keep the guy from selling the house (calling the cops on potential visitors).... And I get it: he choose to leave his wife and kids... BUT does that mean she gets a free pass from having to do what she needs to do which is get a new mortgage and get his name off this one? Yes their mortgage is small $900/month... not knowing what he is trying to buy now, a $900/month outstanding obligation can keep him from : A) qualifying for a new mortgage based on his income B) qualifying for a the good home, reduce how much he can borrow. C) as price are increasing, making it harder for him to get back in the market or completely be priced out. It has been 1.5 years.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 0:31:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2018 16:55:46 GMT -5
The guy agreed to this in the divorce (btw, this is why divorce attorneys push to get agreements signed while there is still guilt at play). He obviously knew what she made and how much of a mortgage she'd have to take out and the likelihood of that happening. If there's not some clause in there saying if you don't refinance in X time the house will be put up for sale he's kind of SOL I would think unless he takes her back to court. My ex knew I wouldn't be refinancing in a couple years. The mortgage was 225K and I wasn't even employed. It was 8 years before I could.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 0:31:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2018 18:43:59 GMT -5
The guy agreed to this in the divorce (btw, this is why divorce attorneys push to get agreements signed while there is still guilt at play). He obviously knew what she made and how much of a mortgage she'd have to take out and the likelihood of that happening. If there's not some clause in there saying if you don't refinance in X time the house will be put up for sale he's kind of SOL I would think unless he takes her back to court. My ex knew I wouldn't be refinancing in a couple years. The mortgage was 225K and I wasn't even employed. It was 8 years before I could. Yes, and Knee Deep in Water Chloe had to wait years to refinance because the value just wasn't there. However, I will admit that I don't understand why she couldn't refinance (or technically just buy) the house if she only had to deal with the principal owed. It couldn't be much if it was generating a $900 a month house payment. That would be in the $150,000-$200,000 range, I would think, and I could do it on my Alabama teacher's salary. DC teachers have to earn more than we do. So once again, we don't know the whole story. We probably never will.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 0:31:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2018 19:07:18 GMT -5
The guy agreed to this in the divorce (btw, this is why divorce attorneys push to get agreements signed while there is still guilt at play). He obviously knew what she made and how much of a mortgage she'd have to take out and the likelihood of that happening. If there's not some clause in there saying if you don't refinance in X time the house will be put up for sale he's kind of SOL I would think unless he takes her back to court. My ex knew I wouldn't be refinancing in a couple years. The mortgage was 225K and I wasn't even employed. It was 8 years before I could. Yes, and Knee Deep in Water Chloe had to wait years to refinance because the value just wasn't there. However, I will admit that I don't understand why she couldn't refinance (or technically just buy) the house if she only had to deal with the principal owed. It couldn't be much if it was generating a $900 a month house payment. That would be in the $150,000-$200,000 range, I would think, and I could do it on my Alabama teacher's salary. DC teachers have to earn more than we do. So once again, we don't know the whole story. We probably never will. She can't just borrow the principal owed, she has to finance enough to pay him his 200K of equity as well.
|
|
Knee Deep in Water Chloe
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 21:04:44 GMT -5
Posts: 13,752
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1980e6
|
Post by Knee Deep in Water Chloe on Aug 4, 2018 21:20:27 GMT -5
This is not a fun situation to be in. It really is difficult to just be told to "go refinance that" when the banks keep telling you that it isn't an option.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 0:31:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2018 5:37:05 GMT -5
This is not a fun situation to be in. It really is difficult to just be told to "go refinance that" when the banks keep telling you that it isn't an option.
I agree but as others have noted, they should have seen this coming. My divorce attorney asked me a couple of times if I'd thought of buying my husband out but his share of the equity was $150,000 and the balance on the mortgage was probably another $150,000. After we sold the house I bought a smaller one and borrowed "only" $250,000. So, I might have qualified for $300K but would also have had the higher carrying costs (especially exorbitant NJ property taxes) of a bigger house. That was 1997 so the numbers would be much higher now- and I wasn't a teacher.
|
|
Knee Deep in Water Chloe
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 21:04:44 GMT -5
Posts: 13,752
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1980e6
|
Post by Knee Deep in Water Chloe on Aug 5, 2018 20:00:26 GMT -5
This is not a fun situation to be in. It really is difficult to just be told to "go refinance that" when the banks keep telling you that it isn't an option.
I agree but as others have noted, they should have seen this coming. My divorce attorney asked me a couple of times if I'd thought of buying my husband out but his share of the equity was $150,000 and the balance on the mortgage was probably another $150,000. After we sold the house I bought a smaller one and borrowed "only" $250,000. So, I might have qualified for $300K but would also have had the higher carrying costs (especially exorbitant NJ property taxes) of a bigger house. That was 1997 so the numbers would be much higher now- and I wasn't a teacher. Athena, 97.89% of the time I respect what you have to say and enjoy hearing your stories and life perspective. What I've quoted here is the second time in a few weeks you've quoted something of mine and made a divisive remark about public educators. You are pretty consistent with your disdain for the public education system; it doesn't usually have to do with me specifically. I don't know why you've felt the need to needle me specifically twice in the last few weeks, and I'm not interested in an explanation. However, as this has happened twice recently with quoting me, for the sake of transparent boundary, please know that I will not engage with you regarding your opinions on that topic.
|
|
kjto1
Established Member
Joined: Jan 13, 2013 13:47:03 GMT -5
Posts: 485
|
Post by kjto1 on Aug 6, 2018 7:28:34 GMT -5
I've often said that I think everyone should have a pre-nup that says no divorce will be final until all joint accounts are closed and all debt refinanced in a new loan that is in one person's name, only. If there is debt that cannot be refinanced, both parties will sell assets until the debt is paid off. Period. None of this bullshit of having co-mingled finances after the marriage is dissolved. So...why couldn't that be a requirement of all divorces - pre-nup or not? Wouldn't that make a clean break for both parties divorcing?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Aug 6, 2018 7:44:50 GMT -5
The guy agreed to this in the divorce (btw, this is why divorce attorneys push to get agreements signed while there is still guilt at play). He obviously knew what she made and how much of a mortgage she'd have to take out and the likelihood of that happening. If there's not some clause in there saying if you don't refinance in X time the house will be put up for sale he's kind of SOL I would think unless he takes her back to court. My ex knew I wouldn't be refinancing in a couple years. The mortgage was 225K and I wasn't even employed. It was 8 years before I could. Meh, they're divorcing...I don't think it's up to HIM to figure out what she'll qualify for to buy a house. That's on HER. It's not up to him to figure out whether she can/will live up to their divorce settlement (it might be smart of him to try to figure it out...but I don't think it's really his responsibility). I don't think he's doing anything wrong with not signing over the deed to her...maybe "wrong" in a strict sense, but I think he's being smart. If he's supposed to sign over the deed, and she's supposed to buy the house...and she HASN'T bought the house...then I wouldn't sign over the deed. She's BUYING the house...that's what signing over the deed is...you get it when she actually BUYS the house. That's the only "carrot" he has to try to make sure she does what she's supposed to. If he signs over the deed, then he basically has to go back to court to enforce her to buy the house from him (and then again, what if she can't get financed?). It seems MUCH easier to hold onto your leverage until the other person gives up their leverage...particularly when it's so clearly linked. Personally, I'd much rather be the person in contempt, knowing the other person is also in contempt...than the person who did everything by the letter of the judge's order and then chasing the other one down to make them follow the order. It just seems SUPER unlikely anything negative is going to happen to him by being in contempt if his wife is also in contempt...particularly when the 2 issues have such a direct link to them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 0:31:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2018 7:54:06 GMT -5
I've often said that I think everyone should have a pre-nup that says no divorce will be final until all joint accounts are closed and all debt refinanced in a new loan that is in one person's name, only. If there is debt that cannot be refinanced, both parties will sell assets until the debt is paid off. Period. None of this bullshit of having co-mingled finances after the marriage is dissolved. So...why couldn't that be a requirement of all divorces - pre-nup or not? Wouldn't that make a clean break for both parties divorcing? Because not everyone would want that? You can divorce however you choose. The guy in the OP didn't have to agree to letting her keep the house. My ex didn't want us to sell the farm. He knew it was my dream I'd had since I was like 8 and he wanted our son raised there as well. He was ok with being on the mortgage until I could refinance even if it was many years. Other people could be seriously underwater and would rather wait out the real estate market than take the loss. Plus there are a ton of people out there that don't have the assets to pay off debts even if they wanted to.
The courts are bogged down enough without putting all kinds of restrictions on who can or cannot get divorced.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 0:31:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2018 7:57:42 GMT -5
The guy agreed to this in the divorce (btw, this is why divorce attorneys push to get agreements signed while there is still guilt at play). He obviously knew what she made and how much of a mortgage she'd have to take out and the likelihood of that happening. If there's not some clause in there saying if you don't refinance in X time the house will be put up for sale he's kind of SOL I would think unless he takes her back to court. My ex knew I wouldn't be refinancing in a couple years. The mortgage was 225K and I wasn't even employed. It was 8 years before I could. Meh, they're divorcing...I don't think it's up to HIM to figure out what she'll qualify for to buy a house. That's on HER. It's not up to him to figure out whether she can/will live up to their divorce settlement (it might be smart of him to try to figure it out...but I don't think it's really his responsibility). I don't think he's doing anything wrong with not signing over the deed to her...maybe "wrong" in a strict sense, but I think he's being smart. If he's supposed to sign over the deed, and she's supposed to buy the house...and she HASN'T bought the house...then I wouldn't sign over the deed. She's BUYING the house...that's what signing over the deed is...you get it when she actually BUYS the house. That's the only "carrot" he has to try to make sure she does what she's supposed to. If he signs over the deed, then he basically has to go back to court to enforce her to buy the house from him (and then again, what if she can't get financed?). It seems MUCH easier to hold onto your leverage until the other person gives up their leverage...particularly when it's so clearly linked. Personally, I'd much rather be the person in contempt, knowing the other person is also in contempt...than the person who did everything by the letter of the judge's order and then chasing the other one down to make them follow the order. It just seems SUPER unlikely anything negative is going to happen to him by being in contempt if his wife is also in contempt...particularly when the 2 issues have such a direct link to them. He agreed to not selling the house and letting her stay there and refinance knowing she couldn't afford it. His attorney could have easily shown the judge that she could not afford to buy him out. There was not a lot of figuring out involved. He had to know going into this that she wasn't going to refinance any time soon.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Aug 6, 2018 8:00:08 GMT -5
So...why couldn't that be a requirement of all divorces - pre-nup or not? Wouldn't that make a clean break for both parties divorcing? Because not everyone would want that? You can divorce however you choose. The guy in the OP didn't have to agree to letting her keep the house. My ex didn't want us to sell the farm. He knew it was my dream I'd had since I was like 8 and he wanted our son raised there as well. He was ok with being on the mortgage until I could refinance even if it was many years. Other people could be seriously underwater and would rather wait out the real estate market than take the loss. Plus there are a ton of people out there that don't have the assets to pay off debts even if they wanted to.
The courts are bogged down enough without putting all kinds of restrictions on who can or cannot get divorced.
Totally agree. The flip side would be that you also don't want people staying "together" legally just so they can keep their preferred financial situations the way they want. My wife and I might have joint debt in both of our names for a business we're running. We may decide that we're better business partners than life partners...I wouldn't want us to be forced to stay married because otherwise we'd have to screw up our business (particularly if neither of us could afford to refinance all of that business debt, plus any personal debt, into just one person's name). Ditto for things like rental property, we may be perfectly happy to continue sharing ownership of rentals. Forcing that requirement also sounds like a great way for someone who doesn't WANT to get divorced to string the entire thing out even longer.
|
|