- This topic has 390 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by
scaredyclassic.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 19, 2011 at 5:47 PM #698314May 19, 2011 at 5:48 PM #697131
Eugene
Participant[quote]a good attorney (not the attorney who did the divorce though).[/quote]
+1 on that. The attorney who forgot about the stipulation and allowed frenchlambda to sign a waiver of CFC 2640 reimbursement should not get another penny.
May 19, 2011 at 5:48 PM #697220Participant[quote]a good attorney (not the attorney who did the divorce though).[/quote]
+1 on that. The attorney who forgot about the stipulation and allowed frenchlambda to sign a waiver of CFC 2640 reimbursement should not get another penny.
May 19, 2011 at 5:48 PM #697817Participant[quote]a good attorney (not the attorney who did the divorce though).[/quote]
+1 on that. The attorney who forgot about the stipulation and allowed frenchlambda to sign a waiver of CFC 2640 reimbursement should not get another penny.
May 19, 2011 at 5:48 PM #697963Participant[quote]a good attorney (not the attorney who did the divorce though).[/quote]
+1 on that. The attorney who forgot about the stipulation and allowed frenchlambda to sign a waiver of CFC 2640 reimbursement should not get another penny.
May 19, 2011 at 5:48 PM #698319Participant[quote]a good attorney (not the attorney who did the divorce though).[/quote]
+1 on that. The attorney who forgot about the stipulation and allowed frenchlambda to sign a waiver of CFC 2640 reimbursement should not get another penny.
May 19, 2011 at 6:03 PM #697161ucodegen
Participant[quote=waiting hawk]Not wanting to jack the thread but I must say there are some smart gals/guys on here. Really good read.[/quote]
We practice lawsuits, legal challenges, etc on each other. Drives the San Diego Judicial district nuts…— just joking.
May 19, 2011 at 6:03 PM #697250Participant[quote=waiting hawk]Not wanting to jack the thread but I must say there are some smart gals/guys on here. Really good read.[/quote]
We practice lawsuits, legal challenges, etc on each other. Drives the San Diego Judicial district nuts…— just joking.
May 19, 2011 at 6:03 PM #697847Participant[quote=waiting hawk]Not wanting to jack the thread but I must say there are some smart gals/guys on here. Really good read.[/quote]
We practice lawsuits, legal challenges, etc on each other. Drives the San Diego Judicial district nuts…— just joking.
May 19, 2011 at 6:03 PM #697993Participant[quote=waiting hawk]Not wanting to jack the thread but I must say there are some smart gals/guys on here. Really good read.[/quote]
We practice lawsuits, legal challenges, etc on each other. Drives the San Diego Judicial district nuts…— just joking.
May 19, 2011 at 6:03 PM #698349Participant[quote=waiting hawk]Not wanting to jack the thread but I must say there are some smart gals/guys on here. Really good read.[/quote]
We practice lawsuits, legal challenges, etc on each other. Drives the San Diego Judicial district nuts…— just joking.
May 19, 2011 at 6:07 PM #697156Participant[quote=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.[/quote]
This is the type of wording I was worried about. It is a blanket statement. The problem is that the MSA transferred the assets in the term of property to him and section 18.B ( http://piggington.com/exinlaws_3rd_party_creditors_want_to_foreclosed_on_my_condo#comment-185278 ) had him remove her from liability. What is starting to irritate me is that his divorce attorney knew he signed over the trust deed to get the 85K reimbursement, and that same attorney allowed clause 22.A.4 to occur w/o including that “stipulation and order” to the list of items “specifically provided to the contrary”. This is why I mentioned never do anything outside of the MSA. The MSA can negate it. Attorneys often use boilerplate MSA and some don’t pay attention. ‘frenchlambda’ needs to see if the “stipulation and order” is explicitly included under items “specifically provided to the contrary” or that the 85K is called out as being reimbursed somewhere. –really shaking my head now.. I’m getting dizzy. :-Q…Effectively it looks like he gave up the trust deed to get something that was immediately removed through the MSA. He really needs to go through the MSA with a fine tooth comb. Leverage is needed, badly. Section 18.B also made sure the parents were reimbursed, so there was no real need for the trust deed unless they intended to screw him over.
The only other thing right now, is the loan agreement and how it is worded and a real good attorney to see if the ‘stipulation order’ can still be enforced.
— and read documents thoroughly before signing.May 19, 2011 at 6:07 PM #697245Participant[quote=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.[/quote]
This is the type of wording I was worried about. It is a blanket statement. The problem is that the MSA transferred the assets in the term of property to him and section 18.B ( http://piggington.com/exinlaws_3rd_party_creditors_want_to_foreclosed_on_my_condo#comment-185278 ) had him remove her from liability. What is starting to irritate me is that his divorce attorney knew he signed over the trust deed to get the 85K reimbursement, and that same attorney allowed clause 22.A.4 to occur w/o including that “stipulation and order” to the list of items “specifically provided to the contrary”. This is why I mentioned never do anything outside of the MSA. The MSA can negate it. Attorneys often use boilerplate MSA and some don’t pay attention. ‘frenchlambda’ needs to see if the “stipulation and order” is explicitly included under items “specifically provided to the contrary” or that the 85K is called out as being reimbursed somewhere. –really shaking my head now.. I’m getting dizzy. :-Q…Effectively it looks like he gave up the trust deed to get something that was immediately removed through the MSA. He really needs to go through the MSA with a fine tooth comb. Leverage is needed, badly. Section 18.B also made sure the parents were reimbursed, so there was no real need for the trust deed unless they intended to screw him over.
The only other thing right now, is the loan agreement and how it is worded and a real good attorney to see if the ‘stipulation order’ can still be enforced.
— and read documents thoroughly before signing.May 19, 2011 at 6:07 PM #697842Participant[quote=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.[/quote]
This is the type of wording I was worried about. It is a blanket statement. The problem is that the MSA transferred the assets in the term of property to him and section 18.B ( http://piggington.com/exinlaws_3rd_party_creditors_want_to_foreclosed_on_my_condo#comment-185278 ) had him remove her from liability. What is starting to irritate me is that his divorce attorney knew he signed over the trust deed to get the 85K reimbursement, and that same attorney allowed clause 22.A.4 to occur w/o including that “stipulation and order” to the list of items “specifically provided to the contrary”. This is why I mentioned never do anything outside of the MSA. The MSA can negate it. Attorneys often use boilerplate MSA and some don’t pay attention. ‘frenchlambda’ needs to see if the “stipulation and order” is explicitly included under items “specifically provided to the contrary” or that the 85K is called out as being reimbursed somewhere. –really shaking my head now.. I’m getting dizzy. :-Q…Effectively it looks like he gave up the trust deed to get something that was immediately removed through the MSA. He really needs to go through the MSA with a fine tooth comb. Leverage is needed, badly. Section 18.B also made sure the parents were reimbursed, so there was no real need for the trust deed unless they intended to screw him over.
The only other thing right now, is the loan agreement and how it is worded and a real good attorney to see if the ‘stipulation order’ can still be enforced.
— and read documents thoroughly before signing.May 19, 2011 at 6:07 PM #697988Participant[quote=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.[/quote]
This is the type of wording I was worried about. It is a blanket statement. The problem is that the MSA transferred the assets in the term of property to him and section 18.B ( http://piggington.com/exinlaws_3rd_party_creditors_want_to_foreclosed_on_my_condo#comment-185278 ) had him remove her from liability. What is starting to irritate me is that his divorce attorney knew he signed over the trust deed to get the 85K reimbursement, and that same attorney allowed clause 22.A.4 to occur w/o including that “stipulation and order” to the list of items “specifically provided to the contrary”. This is why I mentioned never do anything outside of the MSA. The MSA can negate it. Attorneys often use boilerplate MSA and some don’t pay attention. ‘frenchlambda’ needs to see if the “stipulation and order” is explicitly included under items “specifically provided to the contrary” or that the 85K is called out as being reimbursed somewhere. –really shaking my head now.. I’m getting dizzy. :-Q…Effectively it looks like he gave up the trust deed to get something that was immediately removed through the MSA. He really needs to go through the MSA with a fine tooth comb. Leverage is needed, badly. Section 18.B also made sure the parents were reimbursed, so there was no real need for the trust deed unless they intended to screw him over.
The only other thing right now, is the loan agreement and how it is worded and a real good attorney to see if the ‘stipulation order’ can still be enforced.
— and read documents thoroughly before signing. -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.