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

[Scarlett]

Well said, TG. I second that. very good points.
I have a coworker recently divorced with a 3 yr old son, he initially wanted to keep their old place (she moved to be closer to work); turned out he felt much better after he moved.

[Eugene]

After some more googling, I found this

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/354934/Law-School–Outline–Community-Property-v2-Ted-Finamore%5B1%5D

“Net value is value the property would sell for after satisfaction of all encumbrances”

In other words, if this reading is accurate, frenchlambda is correct that any reimbursement under CFC 2640 is limited by the amount of equity in the property, which is currently $5k. So even if he didn’t sign the waiver, he would’ve only been eligible to $5k.

This is the danger of asking questions in an internet forum vs. going to a real lawyer: presumably a real lawyer would’ve been able to give a correct interpretation of “net value of the property” without spending a day fretting over those 85k.

But there’s also an interesting conclusion.

Before the deed of trust & the stipulation were signed, the promissory note was not an encumbrance, it was just an unsecured loan. In other words, the “net value of the property” was 205k and frenchlambda had every right to demand his 85k (actually 43k) back.

Then he was asked to sign a deed of trust (which reduced “net value” from 205k to 5k) and simultaneously he was offered a stipulation by the wife that “has a right to reimbursement … pursuant to California Family Code §2640” where “pursuant to California Family Code §2640” means that reimbursement is capped by net value of the property, which just went down to 5k.

This transaction seems to be treading the fine line between legal trickery and fraud to me.

And then the whole thing was sealed by a waiver in MSA.

He was taken advantage of by a wily lawyer and I’m not sure how much of this can be reversed.

[Eugene]

After some more googling, I found this

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/354934/Law-School–Outline–Community-Property-v2-Ted-Finamore%5B1%5D

“Net value is value the property would sell for after satisfaction of all encumbrances”

In other words, if this reading is accurate, frenchlambda is correct that any reimbursement under CFC 2640 is limited by the amount of equity in the property, which is currently $5k. So even if he didn’t sign the waiver, he would’ve only been eligible to $5k.

This is the danger of asking questions in an internet forum vs. going to a real lawyer: presumably a real lawyer would’ve been able to give a correct interpretation of “net value of the property” without spending a day fretting over those 85k.

But there’s also an interesting conclusion.

Before the deed of trust & the stipulation were signed, the promissory note was not an encumbrance, it was just an unsecured loan. In other words, the “net value of the property” was 205k and frenchlambda had every right to demand his 85k (actually 43k) back.

Then he was asked to sign a deed of trust (which reduced “net value” from 205k to 5k) and simultaneously he was offered a stipulation by the wife that “has a right to reimbursement … pursuant to California Family Code §2640” where “pursuant to California Family Code §2640” means that reimbursement is capped by net value of the property, which just went down to 5k.

This transaction seems to be treading the fine line between legal trickery and fraud to me.

And then the whole thing was sealed by a waiver in MSA.

He was taken advantage of by a wily lawyer and I’m not sure how much of this can be reversed.

[Eugene]

After some more googling, I found this

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/354934/Law-School–Outline–Community-Property-v2-Ted-Finamore%5B1%5D

“Net value is value the property would sell for after satisfaction of all encumbrances”

In other words, if this reading is accurate, frenchlambda is correct that any reimbursement under CFC 2640 is limited by the amount of equity in the property, which is currently $5k. So even if he didn’t sign the waiver, he would’ve only been eligible to $5k.

This is the danger of asking questions in an internet forum vs. going to a real lawyer: presumably a real lawyer would’ve been able to give a correct interpretation of “net value of the property” without spending a day fretting over those 85k.

But there’s also an interesting conclusion.

Before the deed of trust & the stipulation were signed, the promissory note was not an encumbrance, it was just an unsecured loan. In other words, the “net value of the property” was 205k and frenchlambda had every right to demand his 85k (actually 43k) back.

Then he was asked to sign a deed of trust (which reduced “net value” from 205k to 5k) and simultaneously he was offered a stipulation by the wife that “has a right to reimbursement … pursuant to California Family Code §2640” where “pursuant to California Family Code §2640” means that reimbursement is capped by net value of the property, which just went down to 5k.

This transaction seems to be treading the fine line between legal trickery and fraud to me.

And then the whole thing was sealed by a waiver in MSA.

He was taken advantage of by a wily lawyer and I’m not sure how much of this can be reversed.

[Eugene]

After some more googling, I found this

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/354934/Law-School–Outline–Community-Property-v2-Ted-Finamore%5B1%5D

“Net value is value the property would sell for after satisfaction of all encumbrances”

In other words, if this reading is accurate, frenchlambda is correct that any reimbursement under CFC 2640 is limited by the amount of equity in the property, which is currently $5k. So even if he didn’t sign the waiver, he would’ve only been eligible to $5k.

This is the danger of asking questions in an internet forum vs. going to a real lawyer: presumably a real lawyer would’ve been able to give a correct interpretation of “net value of the property” without spending a day fretting over those 85k.

But there’s also an interesting conclusion.

Before the deed of trust & the stipulation were signed, the promissory note was not an encumbrance, it was just an unsecured loan. In other words, the “net value of the property” was 205k and frenchlambda had every right to demand his 85k (actually 43k) back.

Then he was asked to sign a deed of trust (which reduced “net value” from 205k to 5k) and simultaneously he was offered a stipulation by the wife that “has a right to reimbursement … pursuant to California Family Code §2640” where “pursuant to California Family Code §2640” means that reimbursement is capped by net value of the property, which just went down to 5k.

This transaction seems to be treading the fine line between legal trickery and fraud to me.

And then the whole thing was sealed by a waiver in MSA.

He was taken advantage of by a wily lawyer and I’m not sure how much of this can be reversed.

[Eugene]

After some more googling, I found this

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/354934/Law-School–Outline–Community-Property-v2-Ted-Finamore%5B1%5D

“Net value is value the property would sell for after satisfaction of all encumbrances”

In other words, if this reading is accurate, frenchlambda is correct that any reimbursement under CFC 2640 is limited by the amount of equity in the property, which is currently $5k. So even if he didn’t sign the waiver, he would’ve only been eligible to $5k.

This is the danger of asking questions in an internet forum vs. going to a real lawyer: presumably a real lawyer would’ve been able to give a correct interpretation of “net value of the property” without spending a day fretting over those 85k.

But there’s also an interesting conclusion.

Before the deed of trust & the stipulation were signed, the promissory note was not an encumbrance, it was just an unsecured loan. In other words, the “net value of the property” was 205k and frenchlambda had every right to demand his 85k (actually 43k) back.

Then he was asked to sign a deed of trust (which reduced “net value” from 205k to 5k) and simultaneously he was offered a stipulation by the wife that “has a right to reimbursement … pursuant to California Family Code §2640” where “pursuant to California Family Code §2640” means that reimbursement is capped by net value of the property, which just went down to 5k.

This transaction seems to be treading the fine line between legal trickery and fraud to me.

And then the whole thing was sealed by a waiver in MSA.

He was taken advantage of by a wily lawyer and I’m not sure how much of this can be reversed.

[zzz]

Get a lawyer, internet forum advice is not enough. If I were you, ask Rich to delete this thread, what if your ex or in laws are reading this thread, do you want them suing you for libel over what you wrote about your ex online? I’m not saying they would win, but anyone can sue and they don’t seem shy about threatening.

Since you are in the 92127 area, here is a lawyer. I know many people who have worked with him, he is reputable.

http://wintonlarson.com/attorneys/peter-k-solecki-of-counsel/

[zzz]

Get a lawyer, internet forum advice is not enough. If I were you, ask Rich to delete this thread, what if your ex or in laws are reading this thread, do you want them suing you for libel over what you wrote about your ex online? I’m not saying they would win, but anyone can sue and they don’t seem shy about threatening.

Since you are in the 92127 area, here is a lawyer. I know many people who have worked with him, he is reputable.

http://wintonlarson.com/attorneys/peter-k-solecki-of-counsel/

[zzz]

Get a lawyer, internet forum advice is not enough. If I were you, ask Rich to delete this thread, what if your ex or in laws are reading this thread, do you want them suing you for libel over what you wrote about your ex online? I’m not saying they would win, but anyone can sue and they don’t seem shy about threatening.

Since you are in the 92127 area, here is a lawyer. I know many people who have worked with him, he is reputable.

http://wintonlarson.com/attorneys/peter-k-solecki-of-counsel/

[zzz]

Get a lawyer, internet forum advice is not enough. If I were you, ask Rich to delete this thread, what if your ex or in laws are reading this thread, do you want them suing you for libel over what you wrote about your ex online? I’m not saying they would win, but anyone can sue and they don’t seem shy about threatening.

Since you are in the 92127 area, here is a lawyer. I know many people who have worked with him, he is reputable.

http://wintonlarson.com/attorneys/peter-k-solecki-of-counsel/

[zzz]

Get a lawyer, internet forum advice is not enough. If I were you, ask Rich to delete this thread, what if your ex or in laws are reading this thread, do you want them suing you for libel over what you wrote about your ex online? I’m not saying they would win, but anyone can sue and they don’t seem shy about threatening.

Since you are in the 92127 area, here is a lawyer. I know many people who have worked with him, he is reputable.

http://wintonlarson.com/attorneys/peter-k-solecki-of-counsel/

[Eugene]

[quote]If I were you, ask Rich to delete this thread,[/quote]

+1

[Eugene]

[quote]If I were you, ask Rich to delete this thread,[/quote]

+1

[Eugene]

[quote]If I were you, ask Rich to delete this thread,[/quote]

+1

[Eugene]

[quote]If I were you, ask Rich to delete this thread,[/quote]

+1

[Author]

Posts