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

[ucodegen]

First things first:
[quote frenchlambda]- a few months ago, while my then wife and I were trying to reach an agreement, her parents freaked out about the loan they gave us. They hired an attorney who threatened me to take legal action against me if I refused to sign a deed of trust for the benefit of his clients.
– at this time, my wife was refusing to sign a “stipulation and order” that showed that I was entitled to some other reimbursement
– so we worked out a deal. I signed the deed of trust and my wife signed the “stipulation and order” document.[/quote]
This is where you screwed up. Did you have an attorney representing you at the time? If not, and considering that coercion/duress was used by their attorney (under threat of legal action but w/o legal representation), it could invalidate the deed of trust (signatures under coercion are often not enforceable – more so if the counter party is not represented by an attorney, even more so if the threat from the counter party or counter party’s attorney contains the implied — “if you get an attorney to check this, then we will definitely sue”). The reason why they threatened here is that they didn’t have a leg to stand on w/ respect to the loan. With the deed, they now do.
NOTE: It might have been useful to offset the loan owed to parents by the amounts under consideration under the “stipulation and order”, thereby reducing your payments and loan amount — and making it easier to refi the ex-inlaw portion. But now you may have to take the effort to make sure the “stipulation and order” is enforced.

What this signature did, was convert an unsecured loan into a secured loan. This is a huge benefit to your wife and parents. From what I am seeing so far, the loan still looks open-ended though, so they aren’t really able to foreclose. The note was not callable as was written, unless you also signed something that changed the loan into something callable.

Was the divorce proceedings done through court or arbitration? $13K sounds like court(but not drawn out). Was the “stipulation and order” part of the divorce agreement? If it was a court divorce proceedings AND was part of the agreement AND she then refused, she could be in contempt of court. What was in the “stipulation and order”?
[quote frenchlambda]I was nice enough to offer her shared child custody when my attorney recommended full custody for me.[/quote]
Should have listened to your attorney. Shared custody is hard enough when both parties are healthy and of fit mind. They are a nightmare if one is addicted, pathological or has revenge in mind. Until she is 100% clean for a period of time, it should have been visitation with supervision- for the sake of your daughter. Once she is 100% clean for a period of time, it is always possible to go back and amend to give her more rights/shared custody. It is hard to take back or re-establish custody once given though.

[quote frenchlambda]I think that it would be extremely disruptive to my daughter if I move.[/quote]
Moving is less disruptive to kids than it is to parents. Kids adapt a lot faster than their parents – just look how fast they can learn and pick up on new things.. ie technology.

[quote frenchlambda]I guess I will have no other choice than taking $30K from my 401(k). Is it even possible to do so? What are the costs associated with taking money from a 401(k)? Will I have to pay a huge tax next year?[/quote]
There is a way to use 401k money for real-estate purchases. I am not up 100% on how. Someone on the board may be. The problem may be that it can(maybe) only be used on original purchase, not refinance.
http://www.ehow.com/how_2075559_purchase-home-using-401k.html
http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/24/tapping-retirement-funds-ira-401k-personal-finance-house-downpayment.html
http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/04/ira-401k-hardship-personal-finance-retirement-ten-percent-penalty.html

And I am stressing again, when they bring an attorney to the table, make sure you have one too.. otherwise, you are the one getting screwed. Their attorney is only there to protect their rights, assets, wishes.. not yours. Considering that you tried to help their daughter and now they want the money immediately, this thing has already gone ‘adversarial’. No point in trying to ‘be nice’. Just deal with the facts.

For the IRA withdrawal, check w/ Accountant/IRS before committing.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ucodegen]First things first:
[quote frenchlambda]- a few months ago, while my then wife and I were trying to reach an agreement, her parents freaked out about the loan they gave us. They hired an attorney who threatened me to take legal action against me if I refused to sign a deed of trust for the benefit of his clients.
– at this time, my wife was refusing to sign a “stipulation and order” that showed that I was entitled to some other reimbursement
– so we worked out a deal. I signed the deed of trust and my wife signed the “stipulation and order” document.[/quote]
This is where you screwed up. Did you have an attorney representing you at the time? If not, and considering that coercion/duress was used by their attorney (under threat of legal action but w/o legal representation), it could invalidate the deed of trust (signatures under coercion are often not enforceable – more so if the counter party is not represented by an attorney, even more so if the threat from the counter party or counter party’s attorney contains the implied — “if you get an attorney to check this, then we will definitely sue”). The reason why they threatened here is that they didn’t have a leg to stand on w/ respect to the loan. With the deed, they now do.
NOTE: It might have been useful to offset the loan owed to parents by the amounts under consideration under the “stipulation and order”, thereby reducing your payments and loan amount — and making it easier to refi the ex-inlaw portion. But now you may have to take the effort to make sure the “stipulation and order” is enforced.

What this signature did, was convert an unsecured loan into a secured loan. This is a huge benefit to your wife and parents. From what I am seeing so far, the loan still looks open-ended though, so they aren’t really able to foreclose. The note was not callable as was written, unless you also signed something that changed the loan into something callable.

Was the divorce proceedings done through court or arbitration? $13K sounds like court(but not drawn out). Was the “stipulation and order” part of the divorce agreement? If it was a court divorce proceedings AND was part of the agreement AND she then refused, she could be in contempt of court. What was in the “stipulation and order”?
[quote frenchlambda]I was nice enough to offer her shared child custody when my attorney recommended full custody for me.[/quote]
Should have listened to your attorney. Shared custody is hard enough when both parties are healthy and of fit mind. They are a nightmare if one is addicted, pathological or has revenge in mind. Until she is 100% clean for a period of time, it should have been visitation with supervision- for the sake of your daughter. Once she is 100% clean for a period of time, it is always possible to go back and amend to give her more rights/shared custody. It is hard to take back or re-establish custody once given though.

[quote frenchlambda]I think that it would be extremely disruptive to my daughter if I move.[/quote]
Moving is less disruptive to kids than it is to parents. Kids adapt a lot faster than their parents – just look how fast they can learn and pick up on new things.. ie technology.

[quote frenchlambda]I guess I will have no other choice than taking $30K from my 401(k). Is it even possible to do so? What are the costs associated with taking money from a 401(k)? Will I have to pay a huge tax next year?[/quote]
There is a way to use 401k money for real-estate purchases. I am not up 100% on how. Someone on the board may be. The problem may be that it can(maybe) only be used on original purchase, not refinance.
http://www.ehow.com/how_2075559_purchase-home-using-401k.html
http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/24/tapping-retirement-funds-ira-401k-personal-finance-house-downpayment.html
http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/04/ira-401k-hardship-personal-finance-retirement-ten-percent-penalty.html

And I am stressing again, when they bring an attorney to the table, make sure you have one too.. otherwise, you are the one getting screwed. Their attorney is only there to protect their rights, assets, wishes.. not yours. Considering that you tried to help their daughter and now they want the money immediately, this thing has already gone ‘adversarial’. No point in trying to ‘be nice’. Just deal with the facts.

For the IRA withdrawal, check w/ Accountant/IRS before committing.[/quote]

Fantastic post, ucodegen! I have a REALLY hard time with TWO parties signing a (albeit poorly written) promissory note, yet only ONE ends up being responsible for it by signing the related trust deed encumbering real property in CA (obviously under duress). There’s something terribly, terribly WRONG with that picture. I’m not completely certain, but I don’t understand how ONLY ONE party out of two who signed a note can back out of the related TD obligation. I don’t think a State judge would have jurisdiction over this joint debt.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ucodegen]First things first:
[quote frenchlambda]- a few months ago, while my then wife and I were trying to reach an agreement, her parents freaked out about the loan they gave us. They hired an attorney who threatened me to take legal action against me if I refused to sign a deed of trust for the benefit of his clients.
– at this time, my wife was refusing to sign a “stipulation and order” that showed that I was entitled to some other reimbursement
– so we worked out a deal. I signed the deed of trust and my wife signed the “stipulation and order” document.[/quote]
This is where you screwed up. Did you have an attorney representing you at the time? If not, and considering that coercion/duress was used by their attorney (under threat of legal action but w/o legal representation), it could invalidate the deed of trust (signatures under coercion are often not enforceable – more so if the counter party is not represented by an attorney, even more so if the threat from the counter party or counter party’s attorney contains the implied — “if you get an attorney to check this, then we will definitely sue”). The reason why they threatened here is that they didn’t have a leg to stand on w/ respect to the loan. With the deed, they now do.
NOTE: It might have been useful to offset the loan owed to parents by the amounts under consideration under the “stipulation and order”, thereby reducing your payments and loan amount — and making it easier to refi the ex-inlaw portion. But now you may have to take the effort to make sure the “stipulation and order” is enforced.

What this signature did, was convert an unsecured loan into a secured loan. This is a huge benefit to your wife and parents. From what I am seeing so far, the loan still looks open-ended though, so they aren’t really able to foreclose. The note was not callable as was written, unless you also signed something that changed the loan into something callable.

Was the divorce proceedings done through court or arbitration? $13K sounds like court(but not drawn out). Was the “stipulation and order” part of the divorce agreement? If it was a court divorce proceedings AND was part of the agreement AND she then refused, she could be in contempt of court. What was in the “stipulation and order”?
[quote frenchlambda]I was nice enough to offer her shared child custody when my attorney recommended full custody for me.[/quote]
Should have listened to your attorney. Shared custody is hard enough when both parties are healthy and of fit mind. They are a nightmare if one is addicted, pathological or has revenge in mind. Until she is 100% clean for a period of time, it should have been visitation with supervision- for the sake of your daughter. Once she is 100% clean for a period of time, it is always possible to go back and amend to give her more rights/shared custody. It is hard to take back or re-establish custody once given though.

[quote frenchlambda]I think that it would be extremely disruptive to my daughter if I move.[/quote]
Moving is less disruptive to kids than it is to parents. Kids adapt a lot faster than their parents – just look how fast they can learn and pick up on new things.. ie technology.

[quote frenchlambda]I guess I will have no other choice than taking $30K from my 401(k). Is it even possible to do so? What are the costs associated with taking money from a 401(k)? Will I have to pay a huge tax next year?[/quote]
There is a way to use 401k money for real-estate purchases. I am not up 100% on how. Someone on the board may be. The problem may be that it can(maybe) only be used on original purchase, not refinance.
http://www.ehow.com/how_2075559_purchase-home-using-401k.html
http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/24/tapping-retirement-funds-ira-401k-personal-finance-house-downpayment.html
http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/04/ira-401k-hardship-personal-finance-retirement-ten-percent-penalty.html

And I am stressing again, when they bring an attorney to the table, make sure you have one too.. otherwise, you are the one getting screwed. Their attorney is only there to protect their rights, assets, wishes.. not yours. Considering that you tried to help their daughter and now they want the money immediately, this thing has already gone ‘adversarial’. No point in trying to ‘be nice’. Just deal with the facts.

For the IRA withdrawal, check w/ Accountant/IRS before committing.[/quote]

Fantastic post, ucodegen! I have a REALLY hard time with TWO parties signing a (albeit poorly written) promissory note, yet only ONE ends up being responsible for it by signing the related trust deed encumbering real property in CA (obviously under duress). There’s something terribly, terribly WRONG with that picture. I’m not completely certain, but I don’t understand how ONLY ONE party out of two who signed a note can back out of the related TD obligation. I don’t think a State judge would have jurisdiction over this joint debt.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ucodegen]First things first:
[quote frenchlambda]- a few months ago, while my then wife and I were trying to reach an agreement, her parents freaked out about the loan they gave us. They hired an attorney who threatened me to take legal action against me if I refused to sign a deed of trust for the benefit of his clients.
– at this time, my wife was refusing to sign a “stipulation and order” that showed that I was entitled to some other reimbursement
– so we worked out a deal. I signed the deed of trust and my wife signed the “stipulation and order” document.[/quote]
This is where you screwed up. Did you have an attorney representing you at the time? If not, and considering that coercion/duress was used by their attorney (under threat of legal action but w/o legal representation), it could invalidate the deed of trust (signatures under coercion are often not enforceable – more so if the counter party is not represented by an attorney, even more so if the threat from the counter party or counter party’s attorney contains the implied — “if you get an attorney to check this, then we will definitely sue”). The reason why they threatened here is that they didn’t have a leg to stand on w/ respect to the loan. With the deed, they now do.
NOTE: It might have been useful to offset the loan owed to parents by the amounts under consideration under the “stipulation and order”, thereby reducing your payments and loan amount — and making it easier to refi the ex-inlaw portion. But now you may have to take the effort to make sure the “stipulation and order” is enforced.

What this signature did, was convert an unsecured loan into a secured loan. This is a huge benefit to your wife and parents. From what I am seeing so far, the loan still looks open-ended though, so they aren’t really able to foreclose. The note was not callable as was written, unless you also signed something that changed the loan into something callable.

Was the divorce proceedings done through court or arbitration? $13K sounds like court(but not drawn out). Was the “stipulation and order” part of the divorce agreement? If it was a court divorce proceedings AND was part of the agreement AND she then refused, she could be in contempt of court. What was in the “stipulation and order”?
[quote frenchlambda]I was nice enough to offer her shared child custody when my attorney recommended full custody for me.[/quote]
Should have listened to your attorney. Shared custody is hard enough when both parties are healthy and of fit mind. They are a nightmare if one is addicted, pathological or has revenge in mind. Until she is 100% clean for a period of time, it should have been visitation with supervision- for the sake of your daughter. Once she is 100% clean for a period of time, it is always possible to go back and amend to give her more rights/shared custody. It is hard to take back or re-establish custody once given though.

[quote frenchlambda]I think that it would be extremely disruptive to my daughter if I move.[/quote]
Moving is less disruptive to kids than it is to parents. Kids adapt a lot faster than their parents – just look how fast they can learn and pick up on new things.. ie technology.

[quote frenchlambda]I guess I will have no other choice than taking $30K from my 401(k). Is it even possible to do so? What are the costs associated with taking money from a 401(k)? Will I have to pay a huge tax next year?[/quote]
There is a way to use 401k money for real-estate purchases. I am not up 100% on how. Someone on the board may be. The problem may be that it can(maybe) only be used on original purchase, not refinance.
http://www.ehow.com/how_2075559_purchase-home-using-401k.html
http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/24/tapping-retirement-funds-ira-401k-personal-finance-house-downpayment.html
http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/04/ira-401k-hardship-personal-finance-retirement-ten-percent-penalty.html

And I am stressing again, when they bring an attorney to the table, make sure you have one too.. otherwise, you are the one getting screwed. Their attorney is only there to protect their rights, assets, wishes.. not yours. Considering that you tried to help their daughter and now they want the money immediately, this thing has already gone ‘adversarial’. No point in trying to ‘be nice’. Just deal with the facts.

For the IRA withdrawal, check w/ Accountant/IRS before committing.[/quote]

Fantastic post, ucodegen! I have a REALLY hard time with TWO parties signing a (albeit poorly written) promissory note, yet only ONE ends up being responsible for it by signing the related trust deed encumbering real property in CA (obviously under duress). There’s something terribly, terribly WRONG with that picture. I’m not completely certain, but I don’t understand how ONLY ONE party out of two who signed a note can back out of the related TD obligation. I don’t think a State judge would have jurisdiction over this joint debt.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ucodegen]First things first:
[quote frenchlambda]- a few months ago, while my then wife and I were trying to reach an agreement, her parents freaked out about the loan they gave us. They hired an attorney who threatened me to take legal action against me if I refused to sign a deed of trust for the benefit of his clients.
– at this time, my wife was refusing to sign a “stipulation and order” that showed that I was entitled to some other reimbursement
– so we worked out a deal. I signed the deed of trust and my wife signed the “stipulation and order” document.[/quote]
This is where you screwed up. Did you have an attorney representing you at the time? If not, and considering that coercion/duress was used by their attorney (under threat of legal action but w/o legal representation), it could invalidate the deed of trust (signatures under coercion are often not enforceable – more so if the counter party is not represented by an attorney, even more so if the threat from the counter party or counter party’s attorney contains the implied — “if you get an attorney to check this, then we will definitely sue”). The reason why they threatened here is that they didn’t have a leg to stand on w/ respect to the loan. With the deed, they now do.
NOTE: It might have been useful to offset the loan owed to parents by the amounts under consideration under the “stipulation and order”, thereby reducing your payments and loan amount — and making it easier to refi the ex-inlaw portion. But now you may have to take the effort to make sure the “stipulation and order” is enforced.

What this signature did, was convert an unsecured loan into a secured loan. This is a huge benefit to your wife and parents. From what I am seeing so far, the loan still looks open-ended though, so they aren’t really able to foreclose. The note was not callable as was written, unless you also signed something that changed the loan into something callable.

Was the divorce proceedings done through court or arbitration? $13K sounds like court(but not drawn out). Was the “stipulation and order” part of the divorce agreement? If it was a court divorce proceedings AND was part of the agreement AND she then refused, she could be in contempt of court. What was in the “stipulation and order”?
[quote frenchlambda]I was nice enough to offer her shared child custody when my attorney recommended full custody for me.[/quote]
Should have listened to your attorney. Shared custody is hard enough when both parties are healthy and of fit mind. They are a nightmare if one is addicted, pathological or has revenge in mind. Until she is 100% clean for a period of time, it should have been visitation with supervision- for the sake of your daughter. Once she is 100% clean for a period of time, it is always possible to go back and amend to give her more rights/shared custody. It is hard to take back or re-establish custody once given though.

[quote frenchlambda]I think that it would be extremely disruptive to my daughter if I move.[/quote]
Moving is less disruptive to kids than it is to parents. Kids adapt a lot faster than their parents – just look how fast they can learn and pick up on new things.. ie technology.

[quote frenchlambda]I guess I will have no other choice than taking $30K from my 401(k). Is it even possible to do so? What are the costs associated with taking money from a 401(k)? Will I have to pay a huge tax next year?[/quote]
There is a way to use 401k money for real-estate purchases. I am not up 100% on how. Someone on the board may be. The problem may be that it can(maybe) only be used on original purchase, not refinance.
http://www.ehow.com/how_2075559_purchase-home-using-401k.html
http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/24/tapping-retirement-funds-ira-401k-personal-finance-house-downpayment.html
http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/04/ira-401k-hardship-personal-finance-retirement-ten-percent-penalty.html

And I am stressing again, when they bring an attorney to the table, make sure you have one too.. otherwise, you are the one getting screwed. Their attorney is only there to protect their rights, assets, wishes.. not yours. Considering that you tried to help their daughter and now they want the money immediately, this thing has already gone ‘adversarial’. No point in trying to ‘be nice’. Just deal with the facts.

For the IRA withdrawal, check w/ Accountant/IRS before committing.[/quote]

Fantastic post, ucodegen! I have a REALLY hard time with TWO parties signing a (albeit poorly written) promissory note, yet only ONE ends up being responsible for it by signing the related trust deed encumbering real property in CA (obviously under duress). There’s something terribly, terribly WRONG with that picture. I’m not completely certain, but I don’t understand how ONLY ONE party out of two who signed a note can back out of the related TD obligation. I don’t think a State judge would have jurisdiction over this joint debt.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ucodegen]First things first:
[quote frenchlambda]- a few months ago, while my then wife and I were trying to reach an agreement, her parents freaked out about the loan they gave us. They hired an attorney who threatened me to take legal action against me if I refused to sign a deed of trust for the benefit of his clients.
– at this time, my wife was refusing to sign a “stipulation and order” that showed that I was entitled to some other reimbursement
– so we worked out a deal. I signed the deed of trust and my wife signed the “stipulation and order” document.[/quote]
This is where you screwed up. Did you have an attorney representing you at the time? If not, and considering that coercion/duress was used by their attorney (under threat of legal action but w/o legal representation), it could invalidate the deed of trust (signatures under coercion are often not enforceable – more so if the counter party is not represented by an attorney, even more so if the threat from the counter party or counter party’s attorney contains the implied — “if you get an attorney to check this, then we will definitely sue”). The reason why they threatened here is that they didn’t have a leg to stand on w/ respect to the loan. With the deed, they now do.
NOTE: It might have been useful to offset the loan owed to parents by the amounts under consideration under the “stipulation and order”, thereby reducing your payments and loan amount — and making it easier to refi the ex-inlaw portion. But now you may have to take the effort to make sure the “stipulation and order” is enforced.

What this signature did, was convert an unsecured loan into a secured loan. This is a huge benefit to your wife and parents. From what I am seeing so far, the loan still looks open-ended though, so they aren’t really able to foreclose. The note was not callable as was written, unless you also signed something that changed the loan into something callable.

Was the divorce proceedings done through court or arbitration? $13K sounds like court(but not drawn out). Was the “stipulation and order” part of the divorce agreement? If it was a court divorce proceedings AND was part of the agreement AND she then refused, she could be in contempt of court. What was in the “stipulation and order”?
[quote frenchlambda]I was nice enough to offer her shared child custody when my attorney recommended full custody for me.[/quote]
Should have listened to your attorney. Shared custody is hard enough when both parties are healthy and of fit mind. They are a nightmare if one is addicted, pathological or has revenge in mind. Until she is 100% clean for a period of time, it should have been visitation with supervision- for the sake of your daughter. Once she is 100% clean for a period of time, it is always possible to go back and amend to give her more rights/shared custody. It is hard to take back or re-establish custody once given though.

[quote frenchlambda]I think that it would be extremely disruptive to my daughter if I move.[/quote]
Moving is less disruptive to kids than it is to parents. Kids adapt a lot faster than their parents – just look how fast they can learn and pick up on new things.. ie technology.

[quote frenchlambda]I guess I will have no other choice than taking $30K from my 401(k). Is it even possible to do so? What are the costs associated with taking money from a 401(k)? Will I have to pay a huge tax next year?[/quote]
There is a way to use 401k money for real-estate purchases. I am not up 100% on how. Someone on the board may be. The problem may be that it can(maybe) only be used on original purchase, not refinance.
http://www.ehow.com/how_2075559_purchase-home-using-401k.html
http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/24/tapping-retirement-funds-ira-401k-personal-finance-house-downpayment.html
http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/04/ira-401k-hardship-personal-finance-retirement-ten-percent-penalty.html

And I am stressing again, when they bring an attorney to the table, make sure you have one too.. otherwise, you are the one getting screwed. Their attorney is only there to protect their rights, assets, wishes.. not yours. Considering that you tried to help their daughter and now they want the money immediately, this thing has already gone ‘adversarial’. No point in trying to ‘be nice’. Just deal with the facts.

For the IRA withdrawal, check w/ Accountant/IRS before committing.[/quote]

Fantastic post, ucodegen! I have a REALLY hard time with TWO parties signing a (albeit poorly written) promissory note, yet only ONE ends up being responsible for it by signing the related trust deed encumbering real property in CA (obviously under duress). There’s something terribly, terribly WRONG with that picture. I’m not completely certain, but I don’t understand how ONLY ONE party out of two who signed a note can back out of the related TD obligation. I don’t think a State judge would have jurisdiction over this joint debt.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=frenchlambda]
– a few months ago, while my then wife and I were trying to reach an agreement, her parents freaked out about the loan they gave us. They hired an attorney who threatened me to take legal action against me if I refused to sign a deed of trust for the benefit of his clients.
– at this time, my wife was refusing to sign a “stipulation and order” that showed that I was entitled to some other reimbursement
– so we worked out a deal. I signed the deed of trust and my wife signed the “stipulation and order” document.[/quote]

To me, this is the red flag here, frenchlambda. You must know you could have taken a myriad of actions to ensure your rights to the “other reimbursement” you feel that you alone were entitled to. Instead of calling her bluff, you fell for your ex-wife’s legal shenanigans all the while making a deal with the devil in order to be “done.” Now you are “done” but at what price??

In addition, your ex-wife’s presumed “child-endangerment” charge from being arrested while driving could have been used for your benefit in a child-custody proceeding … but you (prematurely) gave it away.

You cannot become “personally involved” if your legal opponent (and this is, ostensibly, what your in-laws were at that time) decides to “freak out.” You shouldn’t care about this.

Blood is always thicker than water, no matter WHAT the circumstances. I’ve seen this time and time again and it played out the same in the situation you described here. What else would you expect??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=frenchlambda]
– a few months ago, while my then wife and I were trying to reach an agreement, her parents freaked out about the loan they gave us. They hired an attorney who threatened me to take legal action against me if I refused to sign a deed of trust for the benefit of his clients.
– at this time, my wife was refusing to sign a “stipulation and order” that showed that I was entitled to some other reimbursement
– so we worked out a deal. I signed the deed of trust and my wife signed the “stipulation and order” document.[/quote]

To me, this is the red flag here, frenchlambda. You must know you could have taken a myriad of actions to ensure your rights to the “other reimbursement” you feel that you alone were entitled to. Instead of calling her bluff, you fell for your ex-wife’s legal shenanigans all the while making a deal with the devil in order to be “done.” Now you are “done” but at what price??

In addition, your ex-wife’s presumed “child-endangerment” charge from being arrested while driving could have been used for your benefit in a child-custody proceeding … but you (prematurely) gave it away.

You cannot become “personally involved” if your legal opponent (and this is, ostensibly, what your in-laws were at that time) decides to “freak out.” You shouldn’t care about this.

Blood is always thicker than water, no matter WHAT the circumstances. I’ve seen this time and time again and it played out the same in the situation you described here. What else would you expect??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=frenchlambda]
– a few months ago, while my then wife and I were trying to reach an agreement, her parents freaked out about the loan they gave us. They hired an attorney who threatened me to take legal action against me if I refused to sign a deed of trust for the benefit of his clients.
– at this time, my wife was refusing to sign a “stipulation and order” that showed that I was entitled to some other reimbursement
– so we worked out a deal. I signed the deed of trust and my wife signed the “stipulation and order” document.[/quote]

To me, this is the red flag here, frenchlambda. You must know you could have taken a myriad of actions to ensure your rights to the “other reimbursement” you feel that you alone were entitled to. Instead of calling her bluff, you fell for your ex-wife’s legal shenanigans all the while making a deal with the devil in order to be “done.” Now you are “done” but at what price??

In addition, your ex-wife’s presumed “child-endangerment” charge from being arrested while driving could have been used for your benefit in a child-custody proceeding … but you (prematurely) gave it away.

You cannot become “personally involved” if your legal opponent (and this is, ostensibly, what your in-laws were at that time) decides to “freak out.” You shouldn’t care about this.

Blood is always thicker than water, no matter WHAT the circumstances. I’ve seen this time and time again and it played out the same in the situation you described here. What else would you expect??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=frenchlambda]
– a few months ago, while my then wife and I were trying to reach an agreement, her parents freaked out about the loan they gave us. They hired an attorney who threatened me to take legal action against me if I refused to sign a deed of trust for the benefit of his clients.
– at this time, my wife was refusing to sign a “stipulation and order” that showed that I was entitled to some other reimbursement
– so we worked out a deal. I signed the deed of trust and my wife signed the “stipulation and order” document.[/quote]

To me, this is the red flag here, frenchlambda. You must know you could have taken a myriad of actions to ensure your rights to the “other reimbursement” you feel that you alone were entitled to. Instead of calling her bluff, you fell for your ex-wife’s legal shenanigans all the while making a deal with the devil in order to be “done.” Now you are “done” but at what price??

In addition, your ex-wife’s presumed “child-endangerment” charge from being arrested while driving could have been used for your benefit in a child-custody proceeding … but you (prematurely) gave it away.

You cannot become “personally involved” if your legal opponent (and this is, ostensibly, what your in-laws were at that time) decides to “freak out.” You shouldn’t care about this.

Blood is always thicker than water, no matter WHAT the circumstances. I’ve seen this time and time again and it played out the same in the situation you described here. What else would you expect??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=frenchlambda]
– a few months ago, while my then wife and I were trying to reach an agreement, her parents freaked out about the loan they gave us. They hired an attorney who threatened me to take legal action against me if I refused to sign a deed of trust for the benefit of his clients.
– at this time, my wife was refusing to sign a “stipulation and order” that showed that I was entitled to some other reimbursement
– so we worked out a deal. I signed the deed of trust and my wife signed the “stipulation and order” document.[/quote]

To me, this is the red flag here, frenchlambda. You must know you could have taken a myriad of actions to ensure your rights to the “other reimbursement” you feel that you alone were entitled to. Instead of calling her bluff, you fell for your ex-wife’s legal shenanigans all the while making a deal with the devil in order to be “done.” Now you are “done” but at what price??

In addition, your ex-wife’s presumed “child-endangerment” charge from being arrested while driving could have been used for your benefit in a child-custody proceeding … but you (prematurely) gave it away.

You cannot become “personally involved” if your legal opponent (and this is, ostensibly, what your in-laws were at that time) decides to “freak out.” You shouldn’t care about this.

Blood is always thicker than water, no matter WHAT the circumstances. I’ve seen this time and time again and it played out the same in the situation you described here. What else would you expect??

[Eugene]

Without disputing what others said above about the fishiness of deed of trust, and that it has to be challenged/voided in court, I have to say that so far everyone missed one important point.

What exactly is the language of the divorce agreement where you agree to refinance the condo?

Also:

Are your ex-in-laws aware that the property was appraised for 340k?

Do they fully realize that, in the event that they go through with foreclosure and try to sell the condo, they’ll have to pay off the first loan, the lawyer, the realtor, property tax, mello-roos, HOA, etc. etc., and in the end they’ll end up getting 170k (if that), whereas allowing you to keep paying will improve their chances of getting full 200k?

If they are concerned about getting something rather than nothing, would they be open to an agreement where you somehow refinance, say, 150k out of their 200k:

– Right now you owe 135k to the bank and 200k to them;
– Instead, you get a new mortgage for 272k, they get 137k from the new lender and 13k from your savings, and they get a secured note for the remaining 50k at 6% for 10 years. (Since you expect to be able to save 25,000 in 2 years, you could, in principle, pay off that note in 4.)

This would involve some nontrivial loan juggling by the mortgage broker (I think), but in the end everyone should be better off.

[Eugene]

Without disputing what others said above about the fishiness of deed of trust, and that it has to be challenged/voided in court, I have to say that so far everyone missed one important point.

What exactly is the language of the divorce agreement where you agree to refinance the condo?

Also:

Are your ex-in-laws aware that the property was appraised for 340k?

Do they fully realize that, in the event that they go through with foreclosure and try to sell the condo, they’ll have to pay off the first loan, the lawyer, the realtor, property tax, mello-roos, HOA, etc. etc., and in the end they’ll end up getting 170k (if that), whereas allowing you to keep paying will improve their chances of getting full 200k?

If they are concerned about getting something rather than nothing, would they be open to an agreement where you somehow refinance, say, 150k out of their 200k:

– Right now you owe 135k to the bank and 200k to them;
– Instead, you get a new mortgage for 272k, they get 137k from the new lender and 13k from your savings, and they get a secured note for the remaining 50k at 6% for 10 years. (Since you expect to be able to save 25,000 in 2 years, you could, in principle, pay off that note in 4.)

This would involve some nontrivial loan juggling by the mortgage broker (I think), but in the end everyone should be better off.

[Eugene]

Without disputing what others said above about the fishiness of deed of trust, and that it has to be challenged/voided in court, I have to say that so far everyone missed one important point.

What exactly is the language of the divorce agreement where you agree to refinance the condo?

Also:

Are your ex-in-laws aware that the property was appraised for 340k?

Do they fully realize that, in the event that they go through with foreclosure and try to sell the condo, they’ll have to pay off the first loan, the lawyer, the realtor, property tax, mello-roos, HOA, etc. etc., and in the end they’ll end up getting 170k (if that), whereas allowing you to keep paying will improve their chances of getting full 200k?

If they are concerned about getting something rather than nothing, would they be open to an agreement where you somehow refinance, say, 150k out of their 200k:

– Right now you owe 135k to the bank and 200k to them;
– Instead, you get a new mortgage for 272k, they get 137k from the new lender and 13k from your savings, and they get a secured note for the remaining 50k at 6% for 10 years. (Since you expect to be able to save 25,000 in 2 years, you could, in principle, pay off that note in 4.)

This would involve some nontrivial loan juggling by the mortgage broker (I think), but in the end everyone should be better off.

[Eugene]

Without disputing what others said above about the fishiness of deed of trust, and that it has to be challenged/voided in court, I have to say that so far everyone missed one important point.

What exactly is the language of the divorce agreement where you agree to refinance the condo?

Also:

Are your ex-in-laws aware that the property was appraised for 340k?

Do they fully realize that, in the event that they go through with foreclosure and try to sell the condo, they’ll have to pay off the first loan, the lawyer, the realtor, property tax, mello-roos, HOA, etc. etc., and in the end they’ll end up getting 170k (if that), whereas allowing you to keep paying will improve their chances of getting full 200k?

If they are concerned about getting something rather than nothing, would they be open to an agreement where you somehow refinance, say, 150k out of their 200k:

– Right now you owe 135k to the bank and 200k to them;
– Instead, you get a new mortgage for 272k, they get 137k from the new lender and 13k from your savings, and they get a secured note for the remaining 50k at 6% for 10 years. (Since you expect to be able to save 25,000 in 2 years, you could, in principle, pay off that note in 4.)

This would involve some nontrivial loan juggling by the mortgage broker (I think), but in the end everyone should be better off.

[Author]

Posts