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

[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).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ucodegen][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.[/quote]

Agreed. uco, I like your anal-retentive style :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ucodegen][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.[/quote]

Agreed. uco, I like your anal-retentive style :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ucodegen][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.[/quote]

Agreed. uco, I like your anal-retentive style :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ucodegen][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.[/quote]

Agreed. uco, I like your anal-retentive style :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ucodegen][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.[/quote]

Agreed. uco, I like your anal-retentive style :=]

[frenchlambda]

I think I am screwed.
I read the separation agreement again and found this:

22. REIMBURSEMENT AND OTHER MONETARY WAIVERS.
A. Except as may be specifically provided to the contrary in this Agreement,
as part of the division of the community property each party waives all rights of reimbursement
for the following:
(4) All rights of reimbursement pursuant to Family Code section 2640,
or otherwise, for separate property contributed to the acquisition, maintenance or
improvement of community property or the other party’s separate property;

[frenchlambda]

I think I am screwed.
I read the separation agreement again and found this:

22. REIMBURSEMENT AND OTHER MONETARY WAIVERS.
A. Except as may be specifically provided to the contrary in this Agreement,
as part of the division of the community property each party waives all rights of reimbursement
for the following:
(4) All rights of reimbursement pursuant to Family Code section 2640,
or otherwise, for separate property contributed to the acquisition, maintenance or
improvement of community property or the other party’s separate property;

[frenchlambda]

I think I am screwed.
I read the separation agreement again and found this:

22. REIMBURSEMENT AND OTHER MONETARY WAIVERS.
A. Except as may be specifically provided to the contrary in this Agreement,
as part of the division of the community property each party waives all rights of reimbursement
for the following:
(4) All rights of reimbursement pursuant to Family Code section 2640,
or otherwise, for separate property contributed to the acquisition, maintenance or
improvement of community property or the other party’s separate property;

[frenchlambda]

I think I am screwed.
I read the separation agreement again and found this:

22. REIMBURSEMENT AND OTHER MONETARY WAIVERS.
A. Except as may be specifically provided to the contrary in this Agreement,
as part of the division of the community property each party waives all rights of reimbursement
for the following:
(4) All rights of reimbursement pursuant to Family Code section 2640,
or otherwise, for separate property contributed to the acquisition, maintenance or
improvement of community property or the other party’s separate property;

[frenchlambda]

I think I am screwed.
I read the separation agreement again and found this:

22. REIMBURSEMENT AND OTHER MONETARY WAIVERS.
A. Except as may be specifically provided to the contrary in this Agreement,
as part of the division of the community property each party waives all rights of reimbursement
for the following:
(4) All rights of reimbursement pursuant to Family Code section 2640,
or otherwise, for separate property contributed to the acquisition, maintenance or
improvement of community property or the other party’s separate property;

[bearishgurl]

[quote=frenchlambda]I think I am screwed.
I read the separation agreement again and found this:

22. REIMBURSEMENT AND OTHER MONETARY WAIVERS.
A. Except as may be specifically provided to the contrary in this Agreement,
as part of the division of the community property each party waives all rights of reimbursement
for the following:
(4) All rights of reimbursement pursuant to Family Code section 2640,
or otherwise, for separate property contributed to the acquisition, maintenance or
improvement of community property or the other party’s separate property;
[/quote]

This may have the effect of negating your 2640 stipulation if the MSA was signed AFTER the stipulation. I would still want an atty to review it if I were you. I don’t think your ex is off the hook for the notes she signed with you, now both secured by (presumably) filed trust deeds.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=frenchlambda]I think I am screwed.
I read the separation agreement again and found this:

22. REIMBURSEMENT AND OTHER MONETARY WAIVERS.
A. Except as may be specifically provided to the contrary in this Agreement,
as part of the division of the community property each party waives all rights of reimbursement
for the following:
(4) All rights of reimbursement pursuant to Family Code section 2640,
or otherwise, for separate property contributed to the acquisition, maintenance or
improvement of community property or the other party’s separate property;
[/quote]

This may have the effect of negating your 2640 stipulation if the MSA was signed AFTER the stipulation. I would still want an atty to review it if I were you. I don’t think your ex is off the hook for the notes she signed with you, now both secured by (presumably) filed trust deeds.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=frenchlambda]I think I am screwed.
I read the separation agreement again and found this:

22. REIMBURSEMENT AND OTHER MONETARY WAIVERS.
A. Except as may be specifically provided to the contrary in this Agreement,
as part of the division of the community property each party waives all rights of reimbursement
for the following:
(4) All rights of reimbursement pursuant to Family Code section 2640,
or otherwise, for separate property contributed to the acquisition, maintenance or
improvement of community property or the other party’s separate property;
[/quote]

This may have the effect of negating your 2640 stipulation if the MSA was signed AFTER the stipulation. I would still want an atty to review it if I were you. I don’t think your ex is off the hook for the notes she signed with you, now both secured by (presumably) filed trust deeds.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=frenchlambda]I think I am screwed.
I read the separation agreement again and found this:

22. REIMBURSEMENT AND OTHER MONETARY WAIVERS.
A. Except as may be specifically provided to the contrary in this Agreement,
as part of the division of the community property each party waives all rights of reimbursement
for the following:
(4) All rights of reimbursement pursuant to Family Code section 2640,
or otherwise, for separate property contributed to the acquisition, maintenance or
improvement of community property or the other party’s separate property;
[/quote]

This may have the effect of negating your 2640 stipulation if the MSA was signed AFTER the stipulation. I would still want an atty to review it if I were you. I don’t think your ex is off the hook for the notes she signed with you, now both secured by (presumably) filed trust deeds.

[Author]

Posts