Divorcing/Can’t sell house

[UCGal]

I didn’t watch the show – but I read the bit at the link…

Divorce is expensive. Of course it’s more expensive to have 2 households, vs one. My parents came close to divorce more than once – but the financial realities (retirement moneys split, etc) kept them together… And they found a way to work it out and rekindle, over time. Maybe that gives me a different perspective than most – seeing my parents get VERY close to divorce, and find a way to work it out – through a lot of work and effort.

I’ve got friends who “fell out of love” and got divorced. The men complain about child support, and a lowered lifestyle because the ex got half the assets. The women complain about loss of the life they had before (material things) and how hard it is to make ends meet. There are no winners.

[moneymaker]

I haven’t read the link yet either however when I read the topic I just couldn’t help but replace “Can’t sell house” with “Won’t sell house” as all real estate agents know when a house is properly priced it sells.

[moneymaker]

I haven’t read the link yet either however when I read the topic I just couldn’t help but replace “Can’t sell house” with “Won’t sell house” as all real estate agents know when a house is properly priced it sells.

[moneymaker]

I haven’t read the link yet either however when I read the topic I just couldn’t help but replace “Can’t sell house” with “Won’t sell house” as all real estate agents know when a house is properly priced it sells.

[moneymaker]

I haven’t read the link yet either however when I read the topic I just couldn’t help but replace “Can’t sell house” with “Won’t sell house” as all real estate agents know when a house is properly priced it sells.

[moneymaker]

I haven’t read the link yet either however when I read the topic I just couldn’t help but replace “Can’t sell house” with “Won’t sell house” as all real estate agents know when a house is properly priced it sells.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=threadkiller]I haven’t read the link yet either however when I read the topic I just couldn’t help but replace “Can’t sell house” with “Won’t sell house” as all real estate agents know when a house is properly priced it sells.[/quote]

This is a valid point, threadkiller, but many splitting couples have no assets except what they perceived to be in their house. If they were overmortgaged and sold it short, there would be no assets to split and MAYBE they would have to pay out-of-pocket to consummate the deal. One party is always pressuring the other to sign a quit claim but that takes the leverage out of that signing party being able to get any “walking money” from the divorce in order to move. If their principal residence is at 125% LTV or less, some feel they can wait for a better day in hopes it will enable them to pay down debt, save their credit and eventually come out with some monies to split to move.

Also, many times the party unable to support themselves is trying to “buy time” to get skills to go to work so will not sign a listing agreement unless court-ordered to do so. And the support-payor is often happy with this live-in deal because as long as the supported party and children are still living with him/her, he/she doesn’t owe any child support. Sometimes it is a matter of only 1-3 years before all the children are 18 and/or graduate from HS and thus the child-support order will be void.

Personally, I think this whole setup is wacky. How can a divorcee start a new life if they are still chained down living with an ex they can’t get along with? I think these couples should just default and get the clock started running on their waiting time as to when each can qualify for a RE loan again, since there doesn’t seem to be a “foreclosure stigma” anymore. I don’t believe the market will pick up enough to help these people for several years hence.

[quote=UCGal]My parents came close to divorce more than once – but the financial realities (retirement moneys split, etc) kept them together… And they found a way to work it out and rekindle, over time. Maybe that gives me a different perspective than most – seeing my parents get VERY close to divorce, and find a way to work it out – through a lot of work and effort.[/quote]

UCGal, your parents former “on/off relationship” is NOT uncommon. My own parents divorced in ’71, but not before trying multiple times to stay together.

On one block I lived on with my ex-spouse, there were NO LESS THAN NINE “housewife-types” who had been living in separate rooms and took separate vacations from their spouses for YEARS and never filed for divorce. Most “boomer” women (and even a little younger) WILL NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES leave a relationship that no longer exists if it means any kind of “lifestyle” changes for them or any hardship whatsoever. In addition, if a parent doesn’t have a home base for their minor child(ren) to live in and their spouse forces them into going to court (a common occurrence), a CA judge will not grant the “homeless” parent any custody timeshare, just visitation. So these “roommate-moms” just hang in there and hope to outlive their spouses or at the very least, get the last child thru HS graduation before flying the coop.

Sad, but there are a lot of advance lessons here, esp for women. However, this is a topic for another day and another thread.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=threadkiller]I haven’t read the link yet either however when I read the topic I just couldn’t help but replace “Can’t sell house” with “Won’t sell house” as all real estate agents know when a house is properly priced it sells.[/quote]

This is a valid point, threadkiller, but many splitting couples have no assets except what they perceived to be in their house. If they were overmortgaged and sold it short, there would be no assets to split and MAYBE they would have to pay out-of-pocket to consummate the deal. One party is always pressuring the other to sign a quit claim but that takes the leverage out of that signing party being able to get any “walking money” from the divorce in order to move. If their principal residence is at 125% LTV or less, some feel they can wait for a better day in hopes it will enable them to pay down debt, save their credit and eventually come out with some monies to split to move.

Also, many times the party unable to support themselves is trying to “buy time” to get skills to go to work so will not sign a listing agreement unless court-ordered to do so. And the support-payor is often happy with this live-in deal because as long as the supported party and children are still living with him/her, he/she doesn’t owe any child support. Sometimes it is a matter of only 1-3 years before all the children are 18 and/or graduate from HS and thus the child-support order will be void.

Personally, I think this whole setup is wacky. How can a divorcee start a new life if they are still chained down living with an ex they can’t get along with? I think these couples should just default and get the clock started running on their waiting time as to when each can qualify for a RE loan again, since there doesn’t seem to be a “foreclosure stigma” anymore. I don’t believe the market will pick up enough to help these people for several years hence.

[quote=UCGal]My parents came close to divorce more than once – but the financial realities (retirement moneys split, etc) kept them together… And they found a way to work it out and rekindle, over time. Maybe that gives me a different perspective than most – seeing my parents get VERY close to divorce, and find a way to work it out – through a lot of work and effort.[/quote]

UCGal, your parents former “on/off relationship” is NOT uncommon. My own parents divorced in ’71, but not before trying multiple times to stay together.

On one block I lived on with my ex-spouse, there were NO LESS THAN NINE “housewife-types” who had been living in separate rooms and took separate vacations from their spouses for YEARS and never filed for divorce. Most “boomer” women (and even a little younger) WILL NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES leave a relationship that no longer exists if it means any kind of “lifestyle” changes for them or any hardship whatsoever. In addition, if a parent doesn’t have a home base for their minor child(ren) to live in and their spouse forces them into going to court (a common occurrence), a CA judge will not grant the “homeless” parent any custody timeshare, just visitation. So these “roommate-moms” just hang in there and hope to outlive their spouses or at the very least, get the last child thru HS graduation before flying the coop.

Sad, but there are a lot of advance lessons here, esp for women. However, this is a topic for another day and another thread.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=threadkiller]I haven’t read the link yet either however when I read the topic I just couldn’t help but replace “Can’t sell house” with “Won’t sell house” as all real estate agents know when a house is properly priced it sells.[/quote]

This is a valid point, threadkiller, but many splitting couples have no assets except what they perceived to be in their house. If they were overmortgaged and sold it short, there would be no assets to split and MAYBE they would have to pay out-of-pocket to consummate the deal. One party is always pressuring the other to sign a quit claim but that takes the leverage out of that signing party being able to get any “walking money” from the divorce in order to move. If their principal residence is at 125% LTV or less, some feel they can wait for a better day in hopes it will enable them to pay down debt, save their credit and eventually come out with some monies to split to move.

Also, many times the party unable to support themselves is trying to “buy time” to get skills to go to work so will not sign a listing agreement unless court-ordered to do so. And the support-payor is often happy with this live-in deal because as long as the supported party and children are still living with him/her, he/she doesn’t owe any child support. Sometimes it is a matter of only 1-3 years before all the children are 18 and/or graduate from HS and thus the child-support order will be void.

Personally, I think this whole setup is wacky. How can a divorcee start a new life if they are still chained down living with an ex they can’t get along with? I think these couples should just default and get the clock started running on their waiting time as to when each can qualify for a RE loan again, since there doesn’t seem to be a “foreclosure stigma” anymore. I don’t believe the market will pick up enough to help these people for several years hence.

[quote=UCGal]My parents came close to divorce more than once – but the financial realities (retirement moneys split, etc) kept them together… And they found a way to work it out and rekindle, over time. Maybe that gives me a different perspective than most – seeing my parents get VERY close to divorce, and find a way to work it out – through a lot of work and effort.[/quote]

UCGal, your parents former “on/off relationship” is NOT uncommon. My own parents divorced in ’71, but not before trying multiple times to stay together.

On one block I lived on with my ex-spouse, there were NO LESS THAN NINE “housewife-types” who had been living in separate rooms and took separate vacations from their spouses for YEARS and never filed for divorce. Most “boomer” women (and even a little younger) WILL NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES leave a relationship that no longer exists if it means any kind of “lifestyle” changes for them or any hardship whatsoever. In addition, if a parent doesn’t have a home base for their minor child(ren) to live in and their spouse forces them into going to court (a common occurrence), a CA judge will not grant the “homeless” parent any custody timeshare, just visitation. So these “roommate-moms” just hang in there and hope to outlive their spouses or at the very least, get the last child thru HS graduation before flying the coop.

Sad, but there are a lot of advance lessons here, esp for women. However, this is a topic for another day and another thread.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=threadkiller]I haven’t read the link yet either however when I read the topic I just couldn’t help but replace “Can’t sell house” with “Won’t sell house” as all real estate agents know when a house is properly priced it sells.[/quote]

This is a valid point, threadkiller, but many splitting couples have no assets except what they perceived to be in their house. If they were overmortgaged and sold it short, there would be no assets to split and MAYBE they would have to pay out-of-pocket to consummate the deal. One party is always pressuring the other to sign a quit claim but that takes the leverage out of that signing party being able to get any “walking money” from the divorce in order to move. If their principal residence is at 125% LTV or less, some feel they can wait for a better day in hopes it will enable them to pay down debt, save their credit and eventually come out with some monies to split to move.

Also, many times the party unable to support themselves is trying to “buy time” to get skills to go to work so will not sign a listing agreement unless court-ordered to do so. And the support-payor is often happy with this live-in deal because as long as the supported party and children are still living with him/her, he/she doesn’t owe any child support. Sometimes it is a matter of only 1-3 years before all the children are 18 and/or graduate from HS and thus the child-support order will be void.

Personally, I think this whole setup is wacky. How can a divorcee start a new life if they are still chained down living with an ex they can’t get along with? I think these couples should just default and get the clock started running on their waiting time as to when each can qualify for a RE loan again, since there doesn’t seem to be a “foreclosure stigma” anymore. I don’t believe the market will pick up enough to help these people for several years hence.

[quote=UCGal]My parents came close to divorce more than once – but the financial realities (retirement moneys split, etc) kept them together… And they found a way to work it out and rekindle, over time. Maybe that gives me a different perspective than most – seeing my parents get VERY close to divorce, and find a way to work it out – through a lot of work and effort.[/quote]

UCGal, your parents former “on/off relationship” is NOT uncommon. My own parents divorced in ’71, but not before trying multiple times to stay together.

On one block I lived on with my ex-spouse, there were NO LESS THAN NINE “housewife-types” who had been living in separate rooms and took separate vacations from their spouses for YEARS and never filed for divorce. Most “boomer” women (and even a little younger) WILL NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES leave a relationship that no longer exists if it means any kind of “lifestyle” changes for them or any hardship whatsoever. In addition, if a parent doesn’t have a home base for their minor child(ren) to live in and their spouse forces them into going to court (a common occurrence), a CA judge will not grant the “homeless” parent any custody timeshare, just visitation. So these “roommate-moms” just hang in there and hope to outlive their spouses or at the very least, get the last child thru HS graduation before flying the coop.

Sad, but there are a lot of advance lessons here, esp for women. However, this is a topic for another day and another thread.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=threadkiller]I haven’t read the link yet either however when I read the topic I just couldn’t help but replace “Can’t sell house” with “Won’t sell house” as all real estate agents know when a house is properly priced it sells.[/quote]

This is a valid point, threadkiller, but many splitting couples have no assets except what they perceived to be in their house. If they were overmortgaged and sold it short, there would be no assets to split and MAYBE they would have to pay out-of-pocket to consummate the deal. One party is always pressuring the other to sign a quit claim but that takes the leverage out of that signing party being able to get any “walking money” from the divorce in order to move. If their principal residence is at 125% LTV or less, some feel they can wait for a better day in hopes it will enable them to pay down debt, save their credit and eventually come out with some monies to split to move.

Also, many times the party unable to support themselves is trying to “buy time” to get skills to go to work so will not sign a listing agreement unless court-ordered to do so. And the support-payor is often happy with this live-in deal because as long as the supported party and children are still living with him/her, he/she doesn’t owe any child support. Sometimes it is a matter of only 1-3 years before all the children are 18 and/or graduate from HS and thus the child-support order will be void.

Personally, I think this whole setup is wacky. How can a divorcee start a new life if they are still chained down living with an ex they can’t get along with? I think these couples should just default and get the clock started running on their waiting time as to when each can qualify for a RE loan again, since there doesn’t seem to be a “foreclosure stigma” anymore. I don’t believe the market will pick up enough to help these people for several years hence.

[quote=UCGal]My parents came close to divorce more than once – but the financial realities (retirement moneys split, etc) kept them together… And they found a way to work it out and rekindle, over time. Maybe that gives me a different perspective than most – seeing my parents get VERY close to divorce, and find a way to work it out – through a lot of work and effort.[/quote]

UCGal, your parents former “on/off relationship” is NOT uncommon. My own parents divorced in ’71, but not before trying multiple times to stay together.

On one block I lived on with my ex-spouse, there were NO LESS THAN NINE “housewife-types” who had been living in separate rooms and took separate vacations from their spouses for YEARS and never filed for divorce. Most “boomer” women (and even a little younger) WILL NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES leave a relationship that no longer exists if it means any kind of “lifestyle” changes for them or any hardship whatsoever. In addition, if a parent doesn’t have a home base for their minor child(ren) to live in and their spouse forces them into going to court (a common occurrence), a CA judge will not grant the “homeless” parent any custody timeshare, just visitation. So these “roommate-moms” just hang in there and hope to outlive their spouses or at the very least, get the last child thru HS graduation before flying the coop.

Sad, but there are a lot of advance lessons here, esp for women. However, this is a topic for another day and another thread.

[Ren]

This is why no one under the age of 35 should get married (until then, they’re usually still maturing), and only after a minimum of one year living together. Let’s face it, a 20-something couple is still rapidly changing and learning, and completely clueless about themselves and life in general.

If “a lot of work and effort” is necessary to save a marriage, I’m inclined to say that those people should not be together. Some compromise is essential, of course, but if you consider your marriage full time “work”, you’re incompatible. I believe friendship is more important than love for a couple to be happy in the very long term. Love comes naturally when you like spending time with someone, and it has little to do with the obsessive feeling of being “in love”. IMHO.

[Ren]

This is why no one under the age of 35 should get married (until then, they’re usually still maturing), and only after a minimum of one year living together. Let’s face it, a 20-something couple is still rapidly changing and learning, and completely clueless about themselves and life in general.

If “a lot of work and effort” is necessary to save a marriage, I’m inclined to say that those people should not be together. Some compromise is essential, of course, but if you consider your marriage full time “work”, you’re incompatible. I believe friendship is more important than love for a couple to be happy in the very long term. Love comes naturally when you like spending time with someone, and it has little to do with the obsessive feeling of being “in love”. IMHO.

[Ren]

This is why no one under the age of 35 should get married (until then, they’re usually still maturing), and only after a minimum of one year living together. Let’s face it, a 20-something couple is still rapidly changing and learning, and completely clueless about themselves and life in general.

If “a lot of work and effort” is necessary to save a marriage, I’m inclined to say that those people should not be together. Some compromise is essential, of course, but if you consider your marriage full time “work”, you’re incompatible. I believe friendship is more important than love for a couple to be happy in the very long term. Love comes naturally when you like spending time with someone, and it has little to do with the obsessive feeling of being “in love”. IMHO.

[Ren]

This is why no one under the age of 35 should get married (until then, they’re usually still maturing), and only after a minimum of one year living together. Let’s face it, a 20-something couple is still rapidly changing and learning, and completely clueless about themselves and life in general.

If “a lot of work and effort” is necessary to save a marriage, I’m inclined to say that those people should not be together. Some compromise is essential, of course, but if you consider your marriage full time “work”, you’re incompatible. I believe friendship is more important than love for a couple to be happy in the very long term. Love comes naturally when you like spending time with someone, and it has little to do with the obsessive feeling of being “in love”. IMHO.

[Author]

Posts