Ex-in-laws (3rd party creditors) want to foreclose on my condo

[Eugene]

[quote=frenchlambda]
My understanding was that whatever down-payment was used to purchase the property could only be recuperated from the equity that’s in it.
Am I wrong?
If so, am I legally entitled to get $85k (or even a percentage of it) from my ex?[/quote]

You _had_ the right to be reimbursed $85k out of the community estate during division of assets when you were divorcing. (Which, in practice, would have meant that you’d get $43k more and she’d get $43k less.) For example, if there was a joint savings account with more than $85k in it, you could have taken $85k to yourself and evenly divided the rest.

Whatever rights you have now, two months after the divorce has been finalized, and after countless signed papers, it’s really hard for me to say.

Edit: actually I’m not sure. CFC §2640 mentions “net value of the property”. What is net value of the property? Is it the fair market value or is it the amount of equity?

[frenchlambda]

[quote=threadkiller] If you keep the condo you won’t be able to afford it, ever hear of child support?
[/quote]
I do not have to pay Child Support. We have equal custody (50/50) and have exactly the same income.

[quote=threadkiller]
if you lose it in foreclosure you lose your down payment.
[/quote]
I have already lost my down payment regardless of it going into foreclosure or on the market being sold by me.
I don’t expect to get that down-payment back for another 5 to 10 years.

[quote=threadkiller]
Believe it or not you can rent cheaper than your mortgage would be on the condo.[/quote]
Hmmm let me know where I can find a 3-bdr rental in 92127 or 92128 for under $1,400 a month.

My initial goal for starting this thread was to understand if my ex-in-laws have a legal right to proceed with foreclosing while I STILL make payments to them (as well as the first lender) EVERY MONTH.

[frenchlambda]

[quote=threadkiller] If you keep the condo you won’t be able to afford it, ever hear of child support?
[/quote]
I do not have to pay Child Support. We have equal custody (50/50) and have exactly the same income.

[quote=threadkiller]
if you lose it in foreclosure you lose your down payment.
[/quote]
I have already lost my down payment regardless of it going into foreclosure or on the market being sold by me.
I don’t expect to get that down-payment back for another 5 to 10 years.

[quote=threadkiller]
Believe it or not you can rent cheaper than your mortgage would be on the condo.[/quote]
Hmmm let me know where I can find a 3-bdr rental in 92127 or 92128 for under $1,400 a month.

My initial goal for starting this thread was to understand if my ex-in-laws have a legal right to proceed with foreclosing while I STILL make payments to them (as well as the first lender) EVERY MONTH.

[frenchlambda]

[quote=threadkiller] If you keep the condo you won’t be able to afford it, ever hear of child support?
[/quote]
I do not have to pay Child Support. We have equal custody (50/50) and have exactly the same income.

[quote=threadkiller]
if you lose it in foreclosure you lose your down payment.
[/quote]
I have already lost my down payment regardless of it going into foreclosure or on the market being sold by me.
I don’t expect to get that down-payment back for another 5 to 10 years.

[quote=threadkiller]
Believe it or not you can rent cheaper than your mortgage would be on the condo.[/quote]
Hmmm let me know where I can find a 3-bdr rental in 92127 or 92128 for under $1,400 a month.

My initial goal for starting this thread was to understand if my ex-in-laws have a legal right to proceed with foreclosing while I STILL make payments to them (as well as the first lender) EVERY MONTH.

[frenchlambda]

[quote=threadkiller] If you keep the condo you won’t be able to afford it, ever hear of child support?
[/quote]
I do not have to pay Child Support. We have equal custody (50/50) and have exactly the same income.

[quote=threadkiller]
if you lose it in foreclosure you lose your down payment.
[/quote]
I have already lost my down payment regardless of it going into foreclosure or on the market being sold by me.
I don’t expect to get that down-payment back for another 5 to 10 years.

[quote=threadkiller]
Believe it or not you can rent cheaper than your mortgage would be on the condo.[/quote]
Hmmm let me know where I can find a 3-bdr rental in 92127 or 92128 for under $1,400 a month.

My initial goal for starting this thread was to understand if my ex-in-laws have a legal right to proceed with foreclosing while I STILL make payments to them (as well as the first lender) EVERY MONTH.

[frenchlambda]

[quote=threadkiller] If you keep the condo you won’t be able to afford it, ever hear of child support?
[/quote]
I do not have to pay Child Support. We have equal custody (50/50) and have exactly the same income.

[quote=threadkiller]
if you lose it in foreclosure you lose your down payment.
[/quote]
I have already lost my down payment regardless of it going into foreclosure or on the market being sold by me.
I don’t expect to get that down-payment back for another 5 to 10 years.

[quote=threadkiller]
Believe it or not you can rent cheaper than your mortgage would be on the condo.[/quote]
Hmmm let me know where I can find a 3-bdr rental in 92127 or 92128 for under $1,400 a month.

My initial goal for starting this thread was to understand if my ex-in-laws have a legal right to proceed with foreclosing while I STILL make payments to them (as well as the first lender) EVERY MONTH.

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]It is actually a little more complex.
The purchase price of the condo including closing costs was about $490k.
We took a $145k loan with BofA, $200k with in-laws and $145k down payment.
The down-payment amount was “assembled” as follow:
– $85k came from me as pre-marriage money
– $60k came from our joint saving account
So theoretically I put $115k down and she put $30k
[/quote]
The math is basically the same, but the results would be more in your favor:
assets = $490K(in property, form of condo)
liability = $30K(wife’s pre-marriage contrib) + $115K(husband’s pre-marriage contrib) + $200K(from inlaws) + $145K(bank loan)
Property drops to $340K in value, shared loss is $150K. Because condo is community property – loss is shared equally 50/50 at $75K each. Balancing against pre-marital assets gives the wife $30K – $75K or a net negative $45K and the husband $115K – $75K or positive $40K.
[quote frenchlambda][quote ucodegen]There is an interesting quirk in the “stipulation and order” in that you may still have a right to have the $85K reimbursed.
The way it was written does not tie it to the value of the property(condo),[/quote]Sure the way it was written does not tie it the property. But when tracing this money, it becomes obvious that it was. [/quote]
The ‘tracing’ requirement is only on the remaining 16K or so. No such requirement on 85K for “stipulation and order”. This is why wording is so critical, and why making sure the wording match the intent with legal docs is so important. In this case, it might save you. Both parties accepted the 85K not tied to real estate.
[quote frenchlambda]If I had bought a $50k car for both myself and my wife with pre-marriage money and then crashed a car into a wall resulting in a total loss, would I get $50k back from my wife after divorce? Obviously not.[/quote]
WRONG! If the car was a personal asset, bought with money outside the marriage and the resulting personal asset was used by only you – this would be true. If the car was bought by money outside the marriage, but became an shared communal asset (California community property law) – this would be wrong. When transferring assets from outside marriage sources to communal, it does NOT matter what it is spent upon and the end value of the asset. The dollar amount matters. This is also why I said the gains on the real estate would have been communal unless specified with a prenup. Because your down was 75% does not mean you get 75% of the gain. Part of the problem is that though your down was 75% of the total down, it was about 25% of the total obligation. Both you and your ex-wife were party to the remaining balance, shared equally. You get your $115K back – net of the community property losses.

Take another example. Lets say your wife had a bit more money outside of the marriage and that her money was the down on the house. Your outside money bought the car. Now your wife trashed the car.. and now you are getting divorced. In the mean time the real estate value doubled. How would this be split?

[quote frenchlambda]My understanding was that whatever down-payment was used to purchase the property could only be recuperated from the equity that’s in it.[/quote]
Except for pre-marital assets. The property is communal. It is very hard to have the property part communal and part private (specific rooms or areas she can’t enter?). This means that when you unwind the assets of a marriage, you do appraisals of all properties to get equivalent values. You then extract the dollar amount of pre-marital contributions followed by divvying up what remains according to Community Property laws.

[quote frenchlambda]If I default on the loan from the ex-in-laws, then they do have a solid case for foreclosing.[/quote] Now that they have a loan secured by the property, you are correct. Before you signed over the trust deed, all they could do was complain.

[quote frenchlambda]The “stipulation and order” with the $85k never made it to the final divorce agreement.
[/quote] That is correct, and that is what may save you. The required reimbursement under the “stipulation and order” does not go away by omission in the MSA. You just have to be careful of blanket statements in the MSA which can make it go away.

[quote Eugene]Whatever rights you have now, two months after the divorce has been finalized, and after countless signed papers, it’s really hard for me to say.[/quote]
My point too, though there is that outstanding $85K which may not have been addressed by the MSA. This is why I would have an attorney look at all of those, the sequence they were signed and why (show him all of the signed papers, leave nothing out). He gave up tangible value in the trust deed to receive a ‘promissory’ on the 85K. Unless the MSA addresses the ‘promissory’, it doesn’t unilaterally go away.

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]It is actually a little more complex.
The purchase price of the condo including closing costs was about $490k.
We took a $145k loan with BofA, $200k with in-laws and $145k down payment.
The down-payment amount was “assembled” as follow:
– $85k came from me as pre-marriage money
– $60k came from our joint saving account
So theoretically I put $115k down and she put $30k
[/quote]
The math is basically the same, but the results would be more in your favor:
assets = $490K(in property, form of condo)
liability = $30K(wife’s pre-marriage contrib) + $115K(husband’s pre-marriage contrib) + $200K(from inlaws) + $145K(bank loan)
Property drops to $340K in value, shared loss is $150K. Because condo is community property – loss is shared equally 50/50 at $75K each. Balancing against pre-marital assets gives the wife $30K – $75K or a net negative $45K and the husband $115K – $75K or positive $40K.
[quote frenchlambda][quote ucodegen]There is an interesting quirk in the “stipulation and order” in that you may still have a right to have the $85K reimbursed.
The way it was written does not tie it to the value of the property(condo),[/quote]Sure the way it was written does not tie it the property. But when tracing this money, it becomes obvious that it was. [/quote]
The ‘tracing’ requirement is only on the remaining 16K or so. No such requirement on 85K for “stipulation and order”. This is why wording is so critical, and why making sure the wording match the intent with legal docs is so important. In this case, it might save you. Both parties accepted the 85K not tied to real estate.
[quote frenchlambda]If I had bought a $50k car for both myself and my wife with pre-marriage money and then crashed a car into a wall resulting in a total loss, would I get $50k back from my wife after divorce? Obviously not.[/quote]
WRONG! If the car was a personal asset, bought with money outside the marriage and the resulting personal asset was used by only you – this would be true. If the car was bought by money outside the marriage, but became an shared communal asset (California community property law) – this would be wrong. When transferring assets from outside marriage sources to communal, it does NOT matter what it is spent upon and the end value of the asset. The dollar amount matters. This is also why I said the gains on the real estate would have been communal unless specified with a prenup. Because your down was 75% does not mean you get 75% of the gain. Part of the problem is that though your down was 75% of the total down, it was about 25% of the total obligation. Both you and your ex-wife were party to the remaining balance, shared equally. You get your $115K back – net of the community property losses.

Take another example. Lets say your wife had a bit more money outside of the marriage and that her money was the down on the house. Your outside money bought the car. Now your wife trashed the car.. and now you are getting divorced. In the mean time the real estate value doubled. How would this be split?

[quote frenchlambda]My understanding was that whatever down-payment was used to purchase the property could only be recuperated from the equity that’s in it.[/quote]
Except for pre-marital assets. The property is communal. It is very hard to have the property part communal and part private (specific rooms or areas she can’t enter?). This means that when you unwind the assets of a marriage, you do appraisals of all properties to get equivalent values. You then extract the dollar amount of pre-marital contributions followed by divvying up what remains according to Community Property laws.

[quote frenchlambda]If I default on the loan from the ex-in-laws, then they do have a solid case for foreclosing.[/quote] Now that they have a loan secured by the property, you are correct. Before you signed over the trust deed, all they could do was complain.

[quote frenchlambda]The “stipulation and order” with the $85k never made it to the final divorce agreement.
[/quote] That is correct, and that is what may save you. The required reimbursement under the “stipulation and order” does not go away by omission in the MSA. You just have to be careful of blanket statements in the MSA which can make it go away.

[quote Eugene]Whatever rights you have now, two months after the divorce has been finalized, and after countless signed papers, it’s really hard for me to say.[/quote]
My point too, though there is that outstanding $85K which may not have been addressed by the MSA. This is why I would have an attorney look at all of those, the sequence they were signed and why (show him all of the signed papers, leave nothing out). He gave up tangible value in the trust deed to receive a ‘promissory’ on the 85K. Unless the MSA addresses the ‘promissory’, it doesn’t unilaterally go away.

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]It is actually a little more complex.
The purchase price of the condo including closing costs was about $490k.
We took a $145k loan with BofA, $200k with in-laws and $145k down payment.
The down-payment amount was “assembled” as follow:
– $85k came from me as pre-marriage money
– $60k came from our joint saving account
So theoretically I put $115k down and she put $30k
[/quote]
The math is basically the same, but the results would be more in your favor:
assets = $490K(in property, form of condo)
liability = $30K(wife’s pre-marriage contrib) + $115K(husband’s pre-marriage contrib) + $200K(from inlaws) + $145K(bank loan)
Property drops to $340K in value, shared loss is $150K. Because condo is community property – loss is shared equally 50/50 at $75K each. Balancing against pre-marital assets gives the wife $30K – $75K or a net negative $45K and the husband $115K – $75K or positive $40K.
[quote frenchlambda][quote ucodegen]There is an interesting quirk in the “stipulation and order” in that you may still have a right to have the $85K reimbursed.
The way it was written does not tie it to the value of the property(condo),[/quote]Sure the way it was written does not tie it the property. But when tracing this money, it becomes obvious that it was. [/quote]
The ‘tracing’ requirement is only on the remaining 16K or so. No such requirement on 85K for “stipulation and order”. This is why wording is so critical, and why making sure the wording match the intent with legal docs is so important. In this case, it might save you. Both parties accepted the 85K not tied to real estate.
[quote frenchlambda]If I had bought a $50k car for both myself and my wife with pre-marriage money and then crashed a car into a wall resulting in a total loss, would I get $50k back from my wife after divorce? Obviously not.[/quote]
WRONG! If the car was a personal asset, bought with money outside the marriage and the resulting personal asset was used by only you – this would be true. If the car was bought by money outside the marriage, but became an shared communal asset (California community property law) – this would be wrong. When transferring assets from outside marriage sources to communal, it does NOT matter what it is spent upon and the end value of the asset. The dollar amount matters. This is also why I said the gains on the real estate would have been communal unless specified with a prenup. Because your down was 75% does not mean you get 75% of the gain. Part of the problem is that though your down was 75% of the total down, it was about 25% of the total obligation. Both you and your ex-wife were party to the remaining balance, shared equally. You get your $115K back – net of the community property losses.

Take another example. Lets say your wife had a bit more money outside of the marriage and that her money was the down on the house. Your outside money bought the car. Now your wife trashed the car.. and now you are getting divorced. In the mean time the real estate value doubled. How would this be split?

[quote frenchlambda]My understanding was that whatever down-payment was used to purchase the property could only be recuperated from the equity that’s in it.[/quote]
Except for pre-marital assets. The property is communal. It is very hard to have the property part communal and part private (specific rooms or areas she can’t enter?). This means that when you unwind the assets of a marriage, you do appraisals of all properties to get equivalent values. You then extract the dollar amount of pre-marital contributions followed by divvying up what remains according to Community Property laws.

[quote frenchlambda]If I default on the loan from the ex-in-laws, then they do have a solid case for foreclosing.[/quote] Now that they have a loan secured by the property, you are correct. Before you signed over the trust deed, all they could do was complain.

[quote frenchlambda]The “stipulation and order” with the $85k never made it to the final divorce agreement.
[/quote] That is correct, and that is what may save you. The required reimbursement under the “stipulation and order” does not go away by omission in the MSA. You just have to be careful of blanket statements in the MSA which can make it go away.

[quote Eugene]Whatever rights you have now, two months after the divorce has been finalized, and after countless signed papers, it’s really hard for me to say.[/quote]
My point too, though there is that outstanding $85K which may not have been addressed by the MSA. This is why I would have an attorney look at all of those, the sequence they were signed and why (show him all of the signed papers, leave nothing out). He gave up tangible value in the trust deed to receive a ‘promissory’ on the 85K. Unless the MSA addresses the ‘promissory’, it doesn’t unilaterally go away.

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]It is actually a little more complex.
The purchase price of the condo including closing costs was about $490k.
We took a $145k loan with BofA, $200k with in-laws and $145k down payment.
The down-payment amount was “assembled” as follow:
– $85k came from me as pre-marriage money
– $60k came from our joint saving account
So theoretically I put $115k down and she put $30k
[/quote]
The math is basically the same, but the results would be more in your favor:
assets = $490K(in property, form of condo)
liability = $30K(wife’s pre-marriage contrib) + $115K(husband’s pre-marriage contrib) + $200K(from inlaws) + $145K(bank loan)
Property drops to $340K in value, shared loss is $150K. Because condo is community property – loss is shared equally 50/50 at $75K each. Balancing against pre-marital assets gives the wife $30K – $75K or a net negative $45K and the husband $115K – $75K or positive $40K.
[quote frenchlambda][quote ucodegen]There is an interesting quirk in the “stipulation and order” in that you may still have a right to have the $85K reimbursed.
The way it was written does not tie it to the value of the property(condo),[/quote]Sure the way it was written does not tie it the property. But when tracing this money, it becomes obvious that it was. [/quote]
The ‘tracing’ requirement is only on the remaining 16K or so. No such requirement on 85K for “stipulation and order”. This is why wording is so critical, and why making sure the wording match the intent with legal docs is so important. In this case, it might save you. Both parties accepted the 85K not tied to real estate.
[quote frenchlambda]If I had bought a $50k car for both myself and my wife with pre-marriage money and then crashed a car into a wall resulting in a total loss, would I get $50k back from my wife after divorce? Obviously not.[/quote]
WRONG! If the car was a personal asset, bought with money outside the marriage and the resulting personal asset was used by only you – this would be true. If the car was bought by money outside the marriage, but became an shared communal asset (California community property law) – this would be wrong. When transferring assets from outside marriage sources to communal, it does NOT matter what it is spent upon and the end value of the asset. The dollar amount matters. This is also why I said the gains on the real estate would have been communal unless specified with a prenup. Because your down was 75% does not mean you get 75% of the gain. Part of the problem is that though your down was 75% of the total down, it was about 25% of the total obligation. Both you and your ex-wife were party to the remaining balance, shared equally. You get your $115K back – net of the community property losses.

Take another example. Lets say your wife had a bit more money outside of the marriage and that her money was the down on the house. Your outside money bought the car. Now your wife trashed the car.. and now you are getting divorced. In the mean time the real estate value doubled. How would this be split?

[quote frenchlambda]My understanding was that whatever down-payment was used to purchase the property could only be recuperated from the equity that’s in it.[/quote]
Except for pre-marital assets. The property is communal. It is very hard to have the property part communal and part private (specific rooms or areas she can’t enter?). This means that when you unwind the assets of a marriage, you do appraisals of all properties to get equivalent values. You then extract the dollar amount of pre-marital contributions followed by divvying up what remains according to Community Property laws.

[quote frenchlambda]If I default on the loan from the ex-in-laws, then they do have a solid case for foreclosing.[/quote] Now that they have a loan secured by the property, you are correct. Before you signed over the trust deed, all they could do was complain.

[quote frenchlambda]The “stipulation and order” with the $85k never made it to the final divorce agreement.
[/quote] That is correct, and that is what may save you. The required reimbursement under the “stipulation and order” does not go away by omission in the MSA. You just have to be careful of blanket statements in the MSA which can make it go away.

[quote Eugene]Whatever rights you have now, two months after the divorce has been finalized, and after countless signed papers, it’s really hard for me to say.[/quote]
My point too, though there is that outstanding $85K which may not have been addressed by the MSA. This is why I would have an attorney look at all of those, the sequence they were signed and why (show him all of the signed papers, leave nothing out). He gave up tangible value in the trust deed to receive a ‘promissory’ on the 85K. Unless the MSA addresses the ‘promissory’, it doesn’t unilaterally go away.

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]It is actually a little more complex.
The purchase price of the condo including closing costs was about $490k.
We took a $145k loan with BofA, $200k with in-laws and $145k down payment.
The down-payment amount was “assembled” as follow:
– $85k came from me as pre-marriage money
– $60k came from our joint saving account
So theoretically I put $115k down and she put $30k
[/quote]
The math is basically the same, but the results would be more in your favor:
assets = $490K(in property, form of condo)
liability = $30K(wife’s pre-marriage contrib) + $115K(husband’s pre-marriage contrib) + $200K(from inlaws) + $145K(bank loan)
Property drops to $340K in value, shared loss is $150K. Because condo is community property – loss is shared equally 50/50 at $75K each. Balancing against pre-marital assets gives the wife $30K – $75K or a net negative $45K and the husband $115K – $75K or positive $40K.
[quote frenchlambda][quote ucodegen]There is an interesting quirk in the “stipulation and order” in that you may still have a right to have the $85K reimbursed.
The way it was written does not tie it to the value of the property(condo),[/quote]Sure the way it was written does not tie it the property. But when tracing this money, it becomes obvious that it was. [/quote]
The ‘tracing’ requirement is only on the remaining 16K or so. No such requirement on 85K for “stipulation and order”. This is why wording is so critical, and why making sure the wording match the intent with legal docs is so important. In this case, it might save you. Both parties accepted the 85K not tied to real estate.
[quote frenchlambda]If I had bought a $50k car for both myself and my wife with pre-marriage money and then crashed a car into a wall resulting in a total loss, would I get $50k back from my wife after divorce? Obviously not.[/quote]
WRONG! If the car was a personal asset, bought with money outside the marriage and the resulting personal asset was used by only you – this would be true. If the car was bought by money outside the marriage, but became an shared communal asset (California community property law) – this would be wrong. When transferring assets from outside marriage sources to communal, it does NOT matter what it is spent upon and the end value of the asset. The dollar amount matters. This is also why I said the gains on the real estate would have been communal unless specified with a prenup. Because your down was 75% does not mean you get 75% of the gain. Part of the problem is that though your down was 75% of the total down, it was about 25% of the total obligation. Both you and your ex-wife were party to the remaining balance, shared equally. You get your $115K back – net of the community property losses.

Take another example. Lets say your wife had a bit more money outside of the marriage and that her money was the down on the house. Your outside money bought the car. Now your wife trashed the car.. and now you are getting divorced. In the mean time the real estate value doubled. How would this be split?

[quote frenchlambda]My understanding was that whatever down-payment was used to purchase the property could only be recuperated from the equity that’s in it.[/quote]
Except for pre-marital assets. The property is communal. It is very hard to have the property part communal and part private (specific rooms or areas she can’t enter?). This means that when you unwind the assets of a marriage, you do appraisals of all properties to get equivalent values. You then extract the dollar amount of pre-marital contributions followed by divvying up what remains according to Community Property laws.

[quote frenchlambda]If I default on the loan from the ex-in-laws, then they do have a solid case for foreclosing.[/quote] Now that they have a loan secured by the property, you are correct. Before you signed over the trust deed, all they could do was complain.

[quote frenchlambda]The “stipulation and order” with the $85k never made it to the final divorce agreement.
[/quote] That is correct, and that is what may save you. The required reimbursement under the “stipulation and order” does not go away by omission in the MSA. You just have to be careful of blanket statements in the MSA which can make it go away.

[quote Eugene]Whatever rights you have now, two months after the divorce has been finalized, and after countless signed papers, it’s really hard for me to say.[/quote]
My point too, though there is that outstanding $85K which may not have been addressed by the MSA. This is why I would have an attorney look at all of those, the sequence they were signed and why (show him all of the signed papers, leave nothing out). He gave up tangible value in the trust deed to receive a ‘promissory’ on the 85K. Unless the MSA addresses the ‘promissory’, it doesn’t unilaterally go away.

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]My initial goal for starting this thread was to understand if my ex-in-laws have a legal right to proceed with foreclosing while I STILL make payments to them (as well as the first lender) EVERY MONTH.[/quote]
This is why the details are important. There isn’t a state or federal law that will specifically prevents your inlaws from doing this. It depends upon how the agreements were worded. Your being current and the note not being callable except in default indicates that they can’t foreclose. The specific wording of the loan seems to be odd. There is also a requirement for you to refi, making it possible that you would be in breach of that portion of the MSA. That still doesn’t mean that they could foreclose. The consequences of not refi’ing are not spelled out from the section of the MSA we saw.

I don’t know if there is a French equivalent to the following:

The Devil is in the details.

That said, there are other ways to ‘counter’ the foreclosure if it is legal. This was the other aspect that was being covered with respect to the 85K. When dealing with items like this, you don’t only look at one thing. What you may loose with your left hand, you might be able to gain with your right (provided you don’t forget that you have a right hand available).

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]My initial goal for starting this thread was to understand if my ex-in-laws have a legal right to proceed with foreclosing while I STILL make payments to them (as well as the first lender) EVERY MONTH.[/quote]
This is why the details are important. There isn’t a state or federal law that will specifically prevents your inlaws from doing this. It depends upon how the agreements were worded. Your being current and the note not being callable except in default indicates that they can’t foreclose. The specific wording of the loan seems to be odd. There is also a requirement for you to refi, making it possible that you would be in breach of that portion of the MSA. That still doesn’t mean that they could foreclose. The consequences of not refi’ing are not spelled out from the section of the MSA we saw.

I don’t know if there is a French equivalent to the following:

The Devil is in the details.

That said, there are other ways to ‘counter’ the foreclosure if it is legal. This was the other aspect that was being covered with respect to the 85K. When dealing with items like this, you don’t only look at one thing. What you may loose with your left hand, you might be able to gain with your right (provided you don’t forget that you have a right hand available).

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]My initial goal for starting this thread was to understand if my ex-in-laws have a legal right to proceed with foreclosing while I STILL make payments to them (as well as the first lender) EVERY MONTH.[/quote]
This is why the details are important. There isn’t a state or federal law that will specifically prevents your inlaws from doing this. It depends upon how the agreements were worded. Your being current and the note not being callable except in default indicates that they can’t foreclose. The specific wording of the loan seems to be odd. There is also a requirement for you to refi, making it possible that you would be in breach of that portion of the MSA. That still doesn’t mean that they could foreclose. The consequences of not refi’ing are not spelled out from the section of the MSA we saw.

I don’t know if there is a French equivalent to the following:

The Devil is in the details.

That said, there are other ways to ‘counter’ the foreclosure if it is legal. This was the other aspect that was being covered with respect to the 85K. When dealing with items like this, you don’t only look at one thing. What you may loose with your left hand, you might be able to gain with your right (provided you don’t forget that you have a right hand available).

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]My initial goal for starting this thread was to understand if my ex-in-laws have a legal right to proceed with foreclosing while I STILL make payments to them (as well as the first lender) EVERY MONTH.[/quote]
This is why the details are important. There isn’t a state or federal law that will specifically prevents your inlaws from doing this. It depends upon how the agreements were worded. Your being current and the note not being callable except in default indicates that they can’t foreclose. The specific wording of the loan seems to be odd. There is also a requirement for you to refi, making it possible that you would be in breach of that portion of the MSA. That still doesn’t mean that they could foreclose. The consequences of not refi’ing are not spelled out from the section of the MSA we saw.

I don’t know if there is a French equivalent to the following:

The Devil is in the details.

That said, there are other ways to ‘counter’ the foreclosure if it is legal. This was the other aspect that was being covered with respect to the 85K. When dealing with items like this, you don’t only look at one thing. What you may loose with your left hand, you might be able to gain with your right (provided you don’t forget that you have a right hand available).

[Author]

Posts