- This topic has 390 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by
scaredyclassic.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 19, 2011 at 2:26 PM #698129May 19, 2011 at 3:01 PM #696952
Eugene
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=frenchlambda]The problem is that at the time of divorce, there was only $10K of equity in the house (appraised value: $340K; balance on the loans: $330K). In other words, pretty much my entire contribution to the down-payment disappeared in the loss of value of the property after 5 years.
All that I got was the right to keep the little of equity in the condo.[/quote]In essence, what you did here was agree to pay back the $200K (half of which was your ex’s debt) for $10K in “equity.” This is not even enough to pay a RE commission to a broker to sell it![/quote]
That’s not how I see it.
He had 50% ownership of a $340k property and 50% responsibility for $330k of loans (of which $200k were unsecured). And he had 85k in contributions towards community property that he could get back when dividing property during divorce. Net value: $90k, assuming he does not intend to default on the unsecured note and bear the consequences.
When the dust settled, he had 100% ownership of the property, and 100% responsibility for the loans, and a stipulation from the ex-wife that he is in fact owed those 85k. Net value: $95k.
So, assuming that he didn’t sign away his right to 85k in MSA somehow, it’s not all bad.
[quote]The wording does not say mature, or mention a balloon payment date. Wording has to be specific. You can’t have the word “Balloon” and a date by it.[/quote]
I did some googling. This is a weird wording but it’s not dissimilar from some other balloon notes I found.
Any irregularities were probably normalized when this was converted into a deed of trust.
May 19, 2011 at 3:01 PM #697040Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=frenchlambda]The problem is that at the time of divorce, there was only $10K of equity in the house (appraised value: $340K; balance on the loans: $330K). In other words, pretty much my entire contribution to the down-payment disappeared in the loss of value of the property after 5 years.
All that I got was the right to keep the little of equity in the condo.[/quote]In essence, what you did here was agree to pay back the $200K (half of which was your ex’s debt) for $10K in “equity.” This is not even enough to pay a RE commission to a broker to sell it![/quote]
That’s not how I see it.
He had 50% ownership of a $340k property and 50% responsibility for $330k of loans (of which $200k were unsecured). And he had 85k in contributions towards community property that he could get back when dividing property during divorce. Net value: $90k, assuming he does not intend to default on the unsecured note and bear the consequences.
When the dust settled, he had 100% ownership of the property, and 100% responsibility for the loans, and a stipulation from the ex-wife that he is in fact owed those 85k. Net value: $95k.
So, assuming that he didn’t sign away his right to 85k in MSA somehow, it’s not all bad.
[quote]The wording does not say mature, or mention a balloon payment date. Wording has to be specific. You can’t have the word “Balloon” and a date by it.[/quote]
I did some googling. This is a weird wording but it’s not dissimilar from some other balloon notes I found.
Any irregularities were probably normalized when this was converted into a deed of trust.
May 19, 2011 at 3:01 PM #697637Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=frenchlambda]The problem is that at the time of divorce, there was only $10K of equity in the house (appraised value: $340K; balance on the loans: $330K). In other words, pretty much my entire contribution to the down-payment disappeared in the loss of value of the property after 5 years.
All that I got was the right to keep the little of equity in the condo.[/quote]In essence, what you did here was agree to pay back the $200K (half of which was your ex’s debt) for $10K in “equity.” This is not even enough to pay a RE commission to a broker to sell it![/quote]
That’s not how I see it.
He had 50% ownership of a $340k property and 50% responsibility for $330k of loans (of which $200k were unsecured). And he had 85k in contributions towards community property that he could get back when dividing property during divorce. Net value: $90k, assuming he does not intend to default on the unsecured note and bear the consequences.
When the dust settled, he had 100% ownership of the property, and 100% responsibility for the loans, and a stipulation from the ex-wife that he is in fact owed those 85k. Net value: $95k.
So, assuming that he didn’t sign away his right to 85k in MSA somehow, it’s not all bad.
[quote]The wording does not say mature, or mention a balloon payment date. Wording has to be specific. You can’t have the word “Balloon” and a date by it.[/quote]
I did some googling. This is a weird wording but it’s not dissimilar from some other balloon notes I found.
Any irregularities were probably normalized when this was converted into a deed of trust.
May 19, 2011 at 3:01 PM #697784Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=frenchlambda]The problem is that at the time of divorce, there was only $10K of equity in the house (appraised value: $340K; balance on the loans: $330K). In other words, pretty much my entire contribution to the down-payment disappeared in the loss of value of the property after 5 years.
All that I got was the right to keep the little of equity in the condo.[/quote]In essence, what you did here was agree to pay back the $200K (half of which was your ex’s debt) for $10K in “equity.” This is not even enough to pay a RE commission to a broker to sell it![/quote]
That’s not how I see it.
He had 50% ownership of a $340k property and 50% responsibility for $330k of loans (of which $200k were unsecured). And he had 85k in contributions towards community property that he could get back when dividing property during divorce. Net value: $90k, assuming he does not intend to default on the unsecured note and bear the consequences.
When the dust settled, he had 100% ownership of the property, and 100% responsibility for the loans, and a stipulation from the ex-wife that he is in fact owed those 85k. Net value: $95k.
So, assuming that he didn’t sign away his right to 85k in MSA somehow, it’s not all bad.
[quote]The wording does not say mature, or mention a balloon payment date. Wording has to be specific. You can’t have the word “Balloon” and a date by it.[/quote]
I did some googling. This is a weird wording but it’s not dissimilar from some other balloon notes I found.
Any irregularities were probably normalized when this was converted into a deed of trust.
May 19, 2011 at 3:01 PM #698139Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=frenchlambda]The problem is that at the time of divorce, there was only $10K of equity in the house (appraised value: $340K; balance on the loans: $330K). In other words, pretty much my entire contribution to the down-payment disappeared in the loss of value of the property after 5 years.
All that I got was the right to keep the little of equity in the condo.[/quote]In essence, what you did here was agree to pay back the $200K (half of which was your ex’s debt) for $10K in “equity.” This is not even enough to pay a RE commission to a broker to sell it![/quote]
That’s not how I see it.
He had 50% ownership of a $340k property and 50% responsibility for $330k of loans (of which $200k were unsecured). And he had 85k in contributions towards community property that he could get back when dividing property during divorce. Net value: $90k, assuming he does not intend to default on the unsecured note and bear the consequences.
When the dust settled, he had 100% ownership of the property, and 100% responsibility for the loans, and a stipulation from the ex-wife that he is in fact owed those 85k. Net value: $95k.
So, assuming that he didn’t sign away his right to 85k in MSA somehow, it’s not all bad.
[quote]The wording does not say mature, or mention a balloon payment date. Wording has to be specific. You can’t have the word “Balloon” and a date by it.[/quote]
I did some googling. This is a weird wording but it’s not dissimilar from some other balloon notes I found.
Any irregularities were probably normalized when this was converted into a deed of trust.
May 19, 2011 at 3:02 PM #696972ucodegen
Participant[quote bearishgurl]If this $85K is not addressed in the OP’s MSA, I think he should file for a “characterization hg” (of the 2640 amt). He can then file an abstract on the ex for whatever judgment is awarded to him and then get a writ of execution and lien her wages for payments until it is paid off (assuming other creditors have not already liened her wages). But he should only do this AFTER the negative real property issue is disposed of … in that order.[/quote]
I was thinking of using it as a negotiating point to get the ex-in-laws to write down part of the loan he owes them as well as stopping foreclosure proceedings, possibly bringing the total refinanced into a range he might be successful at. Reading between the lines makes it sound like she is “daddy’s little girl”. The ex-in-laws might negotiate the amount down to make it ‘go away’, but to accomplish this, he needs a competent attorney! Right now, it is hard to tell which way Real Estate is going to go, so disposing of RE might not be a good idea. Too much federal and state meddling. (OOPS.. looks like you caught that on your next post }:-))
[quote bearishgurl][quote ucodegen]If I am out of touch with today’s prices.. then I definitely went into the wrong field 8-P.[/quote]I KNOW, ucodegen. I missed my “calling” at least 35 years ago. It is too late for me now, lol :={
[/quote]
I know a Chinese lady who became an attorney after 50 (after her kids all grew up and left the nest) so it may not be too late.
[quote Eugene]So, assuming that he didn’t sign away his right to 85k in MSA somehow, it’s not all bad.[/quote]
That is what I was thinking.. but I am worried about a certain two words in a certain sentence of the MSA..May 19, 2011 at 3:02 PM #697060Participant[quote bearishgurl]If this $85K is not addressed in the OP’s MSA, I think he should file for a “characterization hg” (of the 2640 amt). He can then file an abstract on the ex for whatever judgment is awarded to him and then get a writ of execution and lien her wages for payments until it is paid off (assuming other creditors have not already liened her wages). But he should only do this AFTER the negative real property issue is disposed of … in that order.[/quote]
I was thinking of using it as a negotiating point to get the ex-in-laws to write down part of the loan he owes them as well as stopping foreclosure proceedings, possibly bringing the total refinanced into a range he might be successful at. Reading between the lines makes it sound like she is “daddy’s little girl”. The ex-in-laws might negotiate the amount down to make it ‘go away’, but to accomplish this, he needs a competent attorney! Right now, it is hard to tell which way Real Estate is going to go, so disposing of RE might not be a good idea. Too much federal and state meddling. (OOPS.. looks like you caught that on your next post }:-))
[quote bearishgurl][quote ucodegen]If I am out of touch with today’s prices.. then I definitely went into the wrong field 8-P.[/quote]I KNOW, ucodegen. I missed my “calling” at least 35 years ago. It is too late for me now, lol :={
[/quote]
I know a Chinese lady who became an attorney after 50 (after her kids all grew up and left the nest) so it may not be too late.
[quote Eugene]So, assuming that he didn’t sign away his right to 85k in MSA somehow, it’s not all bad.[/quote]
That is what I was thinking.. but I am worried about a certain two words in a certain sentence of the MSA..May 19, 2011 at 3:02 PM #697657Participant[quote bearishgurl]If this $85K is not addressed in the OP’s MSA, I think he should file for a “characterization hg” (of the 2640 amt). He can then file an abstract on the ex for whatever judgment is awarded to him and then get a writ of execution and lien her wages for payments until it is paid off (assuming other creditors have not already liened her wages). But he should only do this AFTER the negative real property issue is disposed of … in that order.[/quote]
I was thinking of using it as a negotiating point to get the ex-in-laws to write down part of the loan he owes them as well as stopping foreclosure proceedings, possibly bringing the total refinanced into a range he might be successful at. Reading between the lines makes it sound like she is “daddy’s little girl”. The ex-in-laws might negotiate the amount down to make it ‘go away’, but to accomplish this, he needs a competent attorney! Right now, it is hard to tell which way Real Estate is going to go, so disposing of RE might not be a good idea. Too much federal and state meddling. (OOPS.. looks like you caught that on your next post }:-))
[quote bearishgurl][quote ucodegen]If I am out of touch with today’s prices.. then I definitely went into the wrong field 8-P.[/quote]I KNOW, ucodegen. I missed my “calling” at least 35 years ago. It is too late for me now, lol :={
[/quote]
I know a Chinese lady who became an attorney after 50 (after her kids all grew up and left the nest) so it may not be too late.
[quote Eugene]So, assuming that he didn’t sign away his right to 85k in MSA somehow, it’s not all bad.[/quote]
That is what I was thinking.. but I am worried about a certain two words in a certain sentence of the MSA..May 19, 2011 at 3:02 PM #697804Participant[quote bearishgurl]If this $85K is not addressed in the OP’s MSA, I think he should file for a “characterization hg” (of the 2640 amt). He can then file an abstract on the ex for whatever judgment is awarded to him and then get a writ of execution and lien her wages for payments until it is paid off (assuming other creditors have not already liened her wages). But he should only do this AFTER the negative real property issue is disposed of … in that order.[/quote]
I was thinking of using it as a negotiating point to get the ex-in-laws to write down part of the loan he owes them as well as stopping foreclosure proceedings, possibly bringing the total refinanced into a range he might be successful at. Reading between the lines makes it sound like she is “daddy’s little girl”. The ex-in-laws might negotiate the amount down to make it ‘go away’, but to accomplish this, he needs a competent attorney! Right now, it is hard to tell which way Real Estate is going to go, so disposing of RE might not be a good idea. Too much federal and state meddling. (OOPS.. looks like you caught that on your next post }:-))
[quote bearishgurl][quote ucodegen]If I am out of touch with today’s prices.. then I definitely went into the wrong field 8-P.[/quote]I KNOW, ucodegen. I missed my “calling” at least 35 years ago. It is too late for me now, lol :={
[/quote]
I know a Chinese lady who became an attorney after 50 (after her kids all grew up and left the nest) so it may not be too late.
[quote Eugene]So, assuming that he didn’t sign away his right to 85k in MSA somehow, it’s not all bad.[/quote]
That is what I was thinking.. but I am worried about a certain two words in a certain sentence of the MSA..May 19, 2011 at 3:02 PM #698159Participant[quote bearishgurl]If this $85K is not addressed in the OP’s MSA, I think he should file for a “characterization hg” (of the 2640 amt). He can then file an abstract on the ex for whatever judgment is awarded to him and then get a writ of execution and lien her wages for payments until it is paid off (assuming other creditors have not already liened her wages). But he should only do this AFTER the negative real property issue is disposed of … in that order.[/quote]
I was thinking of using it as a negotiating point to get the ex-in-laws to write down part of the loan he owes them as well as stopping foreclosure proceedings, possibly bringing the total refinanced into a range he might be successful at. Reading between the lines makes it sound like she is “daddy’s little girl”. The ex-in-laws might negotiate the amount down to make it ‘go away’, but to accomplish this, he needs a competent attorney! Right now, it is hard to tell which way Real Estate is going to go, so disposing of RE might not be a good idea. Too much federal and state meddling. (OOPS.. looks like you caught that on your next post }:-))
[quote bearishgurl][quote ucodegen]If I am out of touch with today’s prices.. then I definitely went into the wrong field 8-P.[/quote]I KNOW, ucodegen. I missed my “calling” at least 35 years ago. It is too late for me now, lol :={
[/quote]
I know a Chinese lady who became an attorney after 50 (after her kids all grew up and left the nest) so it may not be too late.
[quote Eugene]So, assuming that he didn’t sign away his right to 85k in MSA somehow, it’s not all bad.[/quote]
That is what I was thinking.. but I am worried about a certain two words in a certain sentence of the MSA..May 19, 2011 at 3:04 PM #696967bearishgurl
ParticipantEugene, why quibble over $5K to $10K in “theoretical” monies the “community” owes him when, if the tactic I suggested works, the OP can live in the same county as the mom, not have to move and just owe the 1st TD amt. That’s comfortable. If the wife had wanted the condo in the divorce (was able to refinance enough cash out to pay the OP his downpayment), I would wager her parents would not have even filed their trust deed or would have reconveyed their TD if they had filed it!
frenchlambda, did your ex sign a quitclaim deed on the condo over to you? Just wondering. This, in and of itself, does not absolve her from its underlying debt.
May 19, 2011 at 3:04 PM #697055ParticipantEugene, why quibble over $5K to $10K in “theoretical” monies the “community” owes him when, if the tactic I suggested works, the OP can live in the same county as the mom, not have to move and just owe the 1st TD amt. That’s comfortable. If the wife had wanted the condo in the divorce (was able to refinance enough cash out to pay the OP his downpayment), I would wager her parents would not have even filed their trust deed or would have reconveyed their TD if they had filed it!
frenchlambda, did your ex sign a quitclaim deed on the condo over to you? Just wondering. This, in and of itself, does not absolve her from its underlying debt.
May 19, 2011 at 3:04 PM #697652ParticipantEugene, why quibble over $5K to $10K in “theoretical” monies the “community” owes him when, if the tactic I suggested works, the OP can live in the same county as the mom, not have to move and just owe the 1st TD amt. That’s comfortable. If the wife had wanted the condo in the divorce (was able to refinance enough cash out to pay the OP his downpayment), I would wager her parents would not have even filed their trust deed or would have reconveyed their TD if they had filed it!
frenchlambda, did your ex sign a quitclaim deed on the condo over to you? Just wondering. This, in and of itself, does not absolve her from its underlying debt.
May 19, 2011 at 3:04 PM #697799ParticipantEugene, why quibble over $5K to $10K in “theoretical” monies the “community” owes him when, if the tactic I suggested works, the OP can live in the same county as the mom, not have to move and just owe the 1st TD amt. That’s comfortable. If the wife had wanted the condo in the divorce (was able to refinance enough cash out to pay the OP his downpayment), I would wager her parents would not have even filed their trust deed or would have reconveyed their TD if they had filed it!
frenchlambda, did your ex sign a quitclaim deed on the condo over to you? Just wondering. This, in and of itself, does not absolve her from its underlying debt.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.