[quote zzz]If I were you, ask Rich to delete this thread, what if your ex or in laws are reading this thread, do you want them suing you for libel over what you wrote about your ex online?[/quote]
Libel only applies if it is not true. Also, opinions on blogs are generally protected under first amendment. Exceptions are if the poster of the information is presenting themselves as an expert. (there are a few other items that would be exceptions, but they don’t apply here).
[quote Eugene]
After some more googling, I found this
“Net value is value the property would sell for after satisfaction of all encumbrances”
[/quote]
I can’t address this directly because I can’t download it to read through it(it wants me to enable everything..javascript, java, activeX…, and then it still won’t let me see it). My comments are from experience, and my parents divorce where each brought their own money. The whole purpose of the calculations being separate from what community property item the money was used to purchase, is to prevent undue penalty or disadvantage on the individual for what is a community decision and purchase.
The real important section is “c) Reimbursement cannot exceed net value of property.” – I used google’s cache to grab it. What is interesting, is that has not been my personal experience.
I did a bit more searching and was able to get the entire set of notes. It looks like “docstoc.com” co-opted someone else’s property and then tries to sell it.
It could be as the result on a 2005 decision. This is part of an addendum, dated 1/13/2005. If he was married before this date, it may not apply because that would be applying something ‘retroactively’.
[quote Eugene]This transaction seems to be treading the fine line between legal trickery and fraud to me.
And then the whole thing was sealed by a waiver in MSA.
He was taken advantage of by a wily lawyer and I’m not sure how much of this can be reversed.[/quote]
It is a close line between legal trickery and fraud. Taken advantage by a wily lawyer is not illegal in the U.S., unless he was prevented from having his own attorney present. This is why my earlier questions about him being represented by an attorney. The types of things that were signed and the conditions they were signed under made me think hey wasn’t. He might get some of these reversed, but he would now have to prove that his attorney (since he was represented/advised by one) was incompetent. I have heard that this is not a very pleasant task.
