[quote=ucodegen]First things first:
[quote frenchlambda]- a few months ago, while my then wife and I were trying to reach an agreement, her parents freaked out about the loan they gave us. They hired an attorney who threatened me to take legal action against me if I refused to sign a deed of trust for the benefit of his clients.
– at this time, my wife was refusing to sign a “stipulation and order” that showed that I was entitled to some other reimbursement
– so we worked out a deal. I signed the deed of trust and my wife signed the “stipulation and order” document.[/quote]
This is where you screwed up. Did you have an attorney representing you at the time? If not, and considering that coercion/duress was used by their attorney (under threat of legal action but w/o legal representation), it could invalidate the deed of trust (signatures under coercion are often not enforceable – more so if the counter party is not represented by an attorney, even more so if the threat from the counter party or counter party’s attorney contains the implied — “if you get an attorney to check this, then we will definitely sue”). The reason why they threatened here is that they didn’t have a leg to stand on w/ respect to the loan. With the deed, they now do.
NOTE: It might have been useful to offset the loan owed to parents by the amounts under consideration under the “stipulation and order”, thereby reducing your payments and loan amount — and making it easier to refi the ex-inlaw portion. But now you may have to take the effort to make sure the “stipulation and order” is enforced.
What this signature did, was convert an unsecured loan into a secured loan. This is a huge benefit to your wife and parents. From what I am seeing so far, the loan still looks open-ended though, so they aren’t really able to foreclose. The note was not callable as was written, unless you also signed something that changed the loan into something callable.
Was the divorce proceedings done through court or arbitration? $13K sounds like court(but not drawn out). Was the “stipulation and order” part of the divorce agreement? If it was a court divorce proceedings AND was part of the agreement AND she then refused, she could be in contempt of court. What was in the “stipulation and order”?
[quote frenchlambda]I was nice enough to offer her shared child custody when my attorney recommended full custody for me.[/quote]
Should have listened to your attorney. Shared custody is hard enough when both parties are healthy and of fit mind. They are a nightmare if one is addicted, pathological or has revenge in mind. Until she is 100% clean for a period of time, it should have been visitation with supervision- for the sake of your daughter. Once she is 100% clean for a period of time, it is always possible to go back and amend to give her more rights/shared custody. It is hard to take back or re-establish custody once given though.
[quote frenchlambda]I think that it would be extremely disruptive to my daughter if I move.[/quote]
Moving is less disruptive to kids than it is to parents. Kids adapt a lot faster than their parents – just look how fast they can learn and pick up on new things.. ie technology.
And I am stressing again, when they bring an attorney to the table, make sure you have one too.. otherwise, you are the one getting screwed. Their attorney is only there to protect their rights, assets, wishes.. not yours. Considering that you tried to help their daughter and now they want the money immediately, this thing has already gone ‘adversarial’. No point in trying to ‘be nice’. Just deal with the facts.
For the IRA withdrawal, check w/ Accountant/IRS before committing.[/quote]
Fantastic post, ucodegen! I have a REALLY hard time with TWO parties signing a (albeit poorly written) promissory note, yet only ONE ends up being responsible for it by signing the related trust deed encumbering real property in CA (obviously under duress). There’s something terribly, terribly WRONG with that picture. I’m not completely certain, but I don’t understand how ONLY ONE party out of two who signed a note can back out of the related TD obligation. I don’t think a State judge would have jurisdiction over this joint debt.
