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

[frenchlambda]

[quote=Eugene]
I don’t see anything here to suggest that ex-wife’s parents have the right to foreclose, as long as you’re paying as usual, unless there’s some kind of agreement between you and ex-wife’s parents that we were’t told about yet.[/quote]

After receiving the letter from their lawyer (informing me that they would foreclose if I fail to pay off the debt by September 2011), I called my ex-wife’s mom and she told me that the note clearly specifies that the $200K must be paid by September 3rd and that they gave us a 5-year loan.
The whole part in the “Straight (Balloon) Note” section of the note completely confuses me.

[frenchlambda]

[quote=Eugene]
I don’t see anything here to suggest that ex-wife’s parents have the right to foreclose, as long as you’re paying as usual, unless there’s some kind of agreement between you and ex-wife’s parents that we were’t told about yet.[/quote]

I forgot to mention the following clause as part of the promissory note:

“Should default be made in payment of principal and/or interest when due, the whole sum of principal and accrued interest shall become immediately due, without notice, at the option of the holder of this note.”

[frenchlambda]

[quote=Eugene]
I don’t see anything here to suggest that ex-wife’s parents have the right to foreclose, as long as you’re paying as usual, unless there’s some kind of agreement between you and ex-wife’s parents that we were’t told about yet.[/quote]

I forgot to mention the following clause as part of the promissory note:

“Should default be made in payment of principal and/or interest when due, the whole sum of principal and accrued interest shall become immediately due, without notice, at the option of the holder of this note.”

[frenchlambda]

[quote=Eugene]
I don’t see anything here to suggest that ex-wife’s parents have the right to foreclose, as long as you’re paying as usual, unless there’s some kind of agreement between you and ex-wife’s parents that we were’t told about yet.[/quote]

I forgot to mention the following clause as part of the promissory note:

“Should default be made in payment of principal and/or interest when due, the whole sum of principal and accrued interest shall become immediately due, without notice, at the option of the holder of this note.”

[frenchlambda]

[quote=Eugene]
I don’t see anything here to suggest that ex-wife’s parents have the right to foreclose, as long as you’re paying as usual, unless there’s some kind of agreement between you and ex-wife’s parents that we were’t told about yet.[/quote]

I forgot to mention the following clause as part of the promissory note:

“Should default be made in payment of principal and/or interest when due, the whole sum of principal and accrued interest shall become immediately due, without notice, at the option of the holder of this note.”

[frenchlambda]

[quote=Eugene]
I don’t see anything here to suggest that ex-wife’s parents have the right to foreclose, as long as you’re paying as usual, unless there’s some kind of agreement between you and ex-wife’s parents that we were’t told about yet.[/quote]

I forgot to mention the following clause as part of the promissory note:

“Should default be made in payment of principal and/or interest when due, the whole sum of principal and accrued interest shall become immediately due, without notice, at the option of the holder of this note.”

[Eugene]

[quote]3 Sept 2011 after date with interest payable MONTHLY[/quote]

That does not sound like real English to me. Did you reorder some words accidentally? And, in any case, it may have been / should have been superseded by the deed of trust.

Does the deed of trust also state that 3 Sept 2011 is the maturity date of the loan?

[quote]”Should default be made in payment of principal and/or interest when due, the whole sum of principal and accrued interest shall become immediately due, without notice, at the option of the holder of this note.”[/quote]

That’s pretty standard language, I think. You’re not in default yet, are you?

[quote]What exactly would make the note callable?
Doesn’t the deed of trust make it callable?
By the way, both my ex-wife and I signed the deed of trust. I refused to do so at the beginning because my wife was refusing to sign the “stipulation and order” document. [/quote]

The note isn’t callable unless it explicitly says that it’s callable.

However, if the loan matures on 9/3/2011, it’s irrelevant whether it’s callable or not. You have to pay up unless you can negotiate a refinancing, or you can bear the consequences of defaulting.

The difference between the original promissory note and the deed of trust is that the deed of trust makes the loan secured by the property. So now your in-laws have the right to foreclose on the condo. Whereas, without the deed of trust, they could “only” go after you (and your ex-wife) in civil court, seize your (and her) bank accounts, and garnish your (and her) wages.

And then the part where they could go after your ex-wife (even if they wanted to) went away because of the clause in the divorce agreement. So you got the full interest in condo, but in return you took full responsibility for loans on that condo.

[quote]”The parties acknowledge and agree Husband has a right to reimbursement for his separate property contributions of $85,824.49 as described above towards the acquisition of the family residence pursuant to California Family Code §2640.[/quote]

whoa. So you get the 100% ownership in the condo, AND your wife owes you $85,824.49 (or some part of it), do I get this right?

If your ex-wife owes you 86k or even 43k, that should be taken into consideration when you’re negotiating with her parents.

At this point you should really go and find a real estate attorney who can get through this tangled mess.

[Eugene]

[quote]3 Sept 2011 after date with interest payable MONTHLY[/quote]

That does not sound like real English to me. Did you reorder some words accidentally? And, in any case, it may have been / should have been superseded by the deed of trust.

Does the deed of trust also state that 3 Sept 2011 is the maturity date of the loan?

[quote]”Should default be made in payment of principal and/or interest when due, the whole sum of principal and accrued interest shall become immediately due, without notice, at the option of the holder of this note.”[/quote]

That’s pretty standard language, I think. You’re not in default yet, are you?

[quote]What exactly would make the note callable?
Doesn’t the deed of trust make it callable?
By the way, both my ex-wife and I signed the deed of trust. I refused to do so at the beginning because my wife was refusing to sign the “stipulation and order” document. [/quote]

The note isn’t callable unless it explicitly says that it’s callable.

However, if the loan matures on 9/3/2011, it’s irrelevant whether it’s callable or not. You have to pay up unless you can negotiate a refinancing, or you can bear the consequences of defaulting.

The difference between the original promissory note and the deed of trust is that the deed of trust makes the loan secured by the property. So now your in-laws have the right to foreclose on the condo. Whereas, without the deed of trust, they could “only” go after you (and your ex-wife) in civil court, seize your (and her) bank accounts, and garnish your (and her) wages.

And then the part where they could go after your ex-wife (even if they wanted to) went away because of the clause in the divorce agreement. So you got the full interest in condo, but in return you took full responsibility for loans on that condo.

[quote]”The parties acknowledge and agree Husband has a right to reimbursement for his separate property contributions of $85,824.49 as described above towards the acquisition of the family residence pursuant to California Family Code §2640.[/quote]

whoa. So you get the 100% ownership in the condo, AND your wife owes you $85,824.49 (or some part of it), do I get this right?

If your ex-wife owes you 86k or even 43k, that should be taken into consideration when you’re negotiating with her parents.

At this point you should really go and find a real estate attorney who can get through this tangled mess.

[Eugene]

[quote]3 Sept 2011 after date with interest payable MONTHLY[/quote]

That does not sound like real English to me. Did you reorder some words accidentally? And, in any case, it may have been / should have been superseded by the deed of trust.

Does the deed of trust also state that 3 Sept 2011 is the maturity date of the loan?

[quote]”Should default be made in payment of principal and/or interest when due, the whole sum of principal and accrued interest shall become immediately due, without notice, at the option of the holder of this note.”[/quote]

That’s pretty standard language, I think. You’re not in default yet, are you?

[quote]What exactly would make the note callable?
Doesn’t the deed of trust make it callable?
By the way, both my ex-wife and I signed the deed of trust. I refused to do so at the beginning because my wife was refusing to sign the “stipulation and order” document. [/quote]

The note isn’t callable unless it explicitly says that it’s callable.

However, if the loan matures on 9/3/2011, it’s irrelevant whether it’s callable or not. You have to pay up unless you can negotiate a refinancing, or you can bear the consequences of defaulting.

The difference between the original promissory note and the deed of trust is that the deed of trust makes the loan secured by the property. So now your in-laws have the right to foreclose on the condo. Whereas, without the deed of trust, they could “only” go after you (and your ex-wife) in civil court, seize your (and her) bank accounts, and garnish your (and her) wages.

And then the part where they could go after your ex-wife (even if they wanted to) went away because of the clause in the divorce agreement. So you got the full interest in condo, but in return you took full responsibility for loans on that condo.

[quote]”The parties acknowledge and agree Husband has a right to reimbursement for his separate property contributions of $85,824.49 as described above towards the acquisition of the family residence pursuant to California Family Code §2640.[/quote]

whoa. So you get the 100% ownership in the condo, AND your wife owes you $85,824.49 (or some part of it), do I get this right?

If your ex-wife owes you 86k or even 43k, that should be taken into consideration when you’re negotiating with her parents.

At this point you should really go and find a real estate attorney who can get through this tangled mess.

[Eugene]

[quote]3 Sept 2011 after date with interest payable MONTHLY[/quote]

That does not sound like real English to me. Did you reorder some words accidentally? And, in any case, it may have been / should have been superseded by the deed of trust.

Does the deed of trust also state that 3 Sept 2011 is the maturity date of the loan?

[quote]”Should default be made in payment of principal and/or interest when due, the whole sum of principal and accrued interest shall become immediately due, without notice, at the option of the holder of this note.”[/quote]

That’s pretty standard language, I think. You’re not in default yet, are you?

[quote]What exactly would make the note callable?
Doesn’t the deed of trust make it callable?
By the way, both my ex-wife and I signed the deed of trust. I refused to do so at the beginning because my wife was refusing to sign the “stipulation and order” document. [/quote]

The note isn’t callable unless it explicitly says that it’s callable.

However, if the loan matures on 9/3/2011, it’s irrelevant whether it’s callable or not. You have to pay up unless you can negotiate a refinancing, or you can bear the consequences of defaulting.

The difference between the original promissory note and the deed of trust is that the deed of trust makes the loan secured by the property. So now your in-laws have the right to foreclose on the condo. Whereas, without the deed of trust, they could “only” go after you (and your ex-wife) in civil court, seize your (and her) bank accounts, and garnish your (and her) wages.

And then the part where they could go after your ex-wife (even if they wanted to) went away because of the clause in the divorce agreement. So you got the full interest in condo, but in return you took full responsibility for loans on that condo.

[quote]”The parties acknowledge and agree Husband has a right to reimbursement for his separate property contributions of $85,824.49 as described above towards the acquisition of the family residence pursuant to California Family Code §2640.[/quote]

whoa. So you get the 100% ownership in the condo, AND your wife owes you $85,824.49 (or some part of it), do I get this right?

If your ex-wife owes you 86k or even 43k, that should be taken into consideration when you’re negotiating with her parents.

At this point you should really go and find a real estate attorney who can get through this tangled mess.

[Eugene]

[quote]3 Sept 2011 after date with interest payable MONTHLY[/quote]

That does not sound like real English to me. Did you reorder some words accidentally? And, in any case, it may have been / should have been superseded by the deed of trust.

Does the deed of trust also state that 3 Sept 2011 is the maturity date of the loan?

[quote]”Should default be made in payment of principal and/or interest when due, the whole sum of principal and accrued interest shall become immediately due, without notice, at the option of the holder of this note.”[/quote]

That’s pretty standard language, I think. You’re not in default yet, are you?

[quote]What exactly would make the note callable?
Doesn’t the deed of trust make it callable?
By the way, both my ex-wife and I signed the deed of trust. I refused to do so at the beginning because my wife was refusing to sign the “stipulation and order” document. [/quote]

The note isn’t callable unless it explicitly says that it’s callable.

However, if the loan matures on 9/3/2011, it’s irrelevant whether it’s callable or not. You have to pay up unless you can negotiate a refinancing, or you can bear the consequences of defaulting.

The difference between the original promissory note and the deed of trust is that the deed of trust makes the loan secured by the property. So now your in-laws have the right to foreclose on the condo. Whereas, without the deed of trust, they could “only” go after you (and your ex-wife) in civil court, seize your (and her) bank accounts, and garnish your (and her) wages.

And then the part where they could go after your ex-wife (even if they wanted to) went away because of the clause in the divorce agreement. So you got the full interest in condo, but in return you took full responsibility for loans on that condo.

[quote]”The parties acknowledge and agree Husband has a right to reimbursement for his separate property contributions of $85,824.49 as described above towards the acquisition of the family residence pursuant to California Family Code §2640.[/quote]

whoa. So you get the 100% ownership in the condo, AND your wife owes you $85,824.49 (or some part of it), do I get this right?

If your ex-wife owes you 86k or even 43k, that should be taken into consideration when you’re negotiating with her parents.

At this point you should really go and find a real estate attorney who can get through this tangled mess.

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]What exactly would make the note callable?
Doesn’t the deed of trust make it callable?[/quote]
Wording in the note stating that the lender can back out and demand their capital (outstanding balance including any outstanding interest due) at will and at any time. The deed of trust does not make it callable. It just makes the loan secured by the property.
[quote frenchlambda]By the way, both my ex-wife and I signed the deed of trust. I refused to do so at the beginning because my wife was refusing to sign the “stipulation and order” document. [/quote] Of course she would sign the trust deed.. It helps her and her parents. From what I have seen of the “marriage settlement” posted earlier, she dumped it all on you.. the underwater property and all of the liabilities. She should have shared in the liabilities because they were part of the community property.
[quote frenchlambda][quote ucodegen]Was the “stipulation and order” part of the divorce agreement?[/quote]No, it was not. And neither was the deed of trust. Before even reaching the final agreement, I signed the deed of trust while my ex signed the “stipulation and order”.[/quote]
It should have been, particularly with how much you spent on the whole proceedings, including the restraining order. Considering that you were divvying up the marriage assets, it all should have been part of the “marriage settlement”. The note associated with the deed of trust should have been modified by the minimum of the $85k.. resulting in an outstanding balance of $200,000 – $85,824.49 or $114175.31 — making refi much easier. Have you yet received the $85k?
[quote frenchlamda]I called my ex-wife’s mom and she told me that the note clearly specifies that the $200K must be paid by September 3rd and that they gave us a 5-year loan.
The whole part in the “Straight (Balloon) Note” section of the note completely confuses me.[/quote]
As your supposed exact copy of the note reads, it doesn’t. But this is one of those things were the wording is VERY important. One word added or omitted from the wording can change the meaning.
[quote frenchlamda]I forgot to mention the following clause as part of the promissory note:

“Should default be made in payment of principal and/or interest when due, the whole sum of principal and accrued interest shall become immediately due, without notice, at the option of the holder of this note.”[/quote]
VERY IMPORTANT – like I mentioned above, wording is critical. This makes the note callable on default. Notice that the wording states “shall become immediately due” with the condition of “Should default..”. Are you current in the payments to the ex-in-laws?

So far, I have found nothing that makes them able to foreclose, but I am concerned that you are omitting something… the paragraph you ‘forgot to mention’ is incredibly critical.

Is the mortgage document with the in-laws written in English or French?

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]What exactly would make the note callable?
Doesn’t the deed of trust make it callable?[/quote]
Wording in the note stating that the lender can back out and demand their capital (outstanding balance including any outstanding interest due) at will and at any time. The deed of trust does not make it callable. It just makes the loan secured by the property.
[quote frenchlambda]By the way, both my ex-wife and I signed the deed of trust. I refused to do so at the beginning because my wife was refusing to sign the “stipulation and order” document. [/quote] Of course she would sign the trust deed.. It helps her and her parents. From what I have seen of the “marriage settlement” posted earlier, she dumped it all on you.. the underwater property and all of the liabilities. She should have shared in the liabilities because they were part of the community property.
[quote frenchlambda][quote ucodegen]Was the “stipulation and order” part of the divorce agreement?[/quote]No, it was not. And neither was the deed of trust. Before even reaching the final agreement, I signed the deed of trust while my ex signed the “stipulation and order”.[/quote]
It should have been, particularly with how much you spent on the whole proceedings, including the restraining order. Considering that you were divvying up the marriage assets, it all should have been part of the “marriage settlement”. The note associated with the deed of trust should have been modified by the minimum of the $85k.. resulting in an outstanding balance of $200,000 – $85,824.49 or $114175.31 — making refi much easier. Have you yet received the $85k?
[quote frenchlamda]I called my ex-wife’s mom and she told me that the note clearly specifies that the $200K must be paid by September 3rd and that they gave us a 5-year loan.
The whole part in the “Straight (Balloon) Note” section of the note completely confuses me.[/quote]
As your supposed exact copy of the note reads, it doesn’t. But this is one of those things were the wording is VERY important. One word added or omitted from the wording can change the meaning.
[quote frenchlamda]I forgot to mention the following clause as part of the promissory note:

“Should default be made in payment of principal and/or interest when due, the whole sum of principal and accrued interest shall become immediately due, without notice, at the option of the holder of this note.”[/quote]
VERY IMPORTANT – like I mentioned above, wording is critical. This makes the note callable on default. Notice that the wording states “shall become immediately due” with the condition of “Should default..”. Are you current in the payments to the ex-in-laws?

So far, I have found nothing that makes them able to foreclose, but I am concerned that you are omitting something… the paragraph you ‘forgot to mention’ is incredibly critical.

Is the mortgage document with the in-laws written in English or French?

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]What exactly would make the note callable?
Doesn’t the deed of trust make it callable?[/quote]
Wording in the note stating that the lender can back out and demand their capital (outstanding balance including any outstanding interest due) at will and at any time. The deed of trust does not make it callable. It just makes the loan secured by the property.
[quote frenchlambda]By the way, both my ex-wife and I signed the deed of trust. I refused to do so at the beginning because my wife was refusing to sign the “stipulation and order” document. [/quote] Of course she would sign the trust deed.. It helps her and her parents. From what I have seen of the “marriage settlement” posted earlier, she dumped it all on you.. the underwater property and all of the liabilities. She should have shared in the liabilities because they were part of the community property.
[quote frenchlambda][quote ucodegen]Was the “stipulation and order” part of the divorce agreement?[/quote]No, it was not. And neither was the deed of trust. Before even reaching the final agreement, I signed the deed of trust while my ex signed the “stipulation and order”.[/quote]
It should have been, particularly with how much you spent on the whole proceedings, including the restraining order. Considering that you were divvying up the marriage assets, it all should have been part of the “marriage settlement”. The note associated with the deed of trust should have been modified by the minimum of the $85k.. resulting in an outstanding balance of $200,000 – $85,824.49 or $114175.31 — making refi much easier. Have you yet received the $85k?
[quote frenchlamda]I called my ex-wife’s mom and she told me that the note clearly specifies that the $200K must be paid by September 3rd and that they gave us a 5-year loan.
The whole part in the “Straight (Balloon) Note” section of the note completely confuses me.[/quote]
As your supposed exact copy of the note reads, it doesn’t. But this is one of those things were the wording is VERY important. One word added or omitted from the wording can change the meaning.
[quote frenchlamda]I forgot to mention the following clause as part of the promissory note:

“Should default be made in payment of principal and/or interest when due, the whole sum of principal and accrued interest shall become immediately due, without notice, at the option of the holder of this note.”[/quote]
VERY IMPORTANT – like I mentioned above, wording is critical. This makes the note callable on default. Notice that the wording states “shall become immediately due” with the condition of “Should default..”. Are you current in the payments to the ex-in-laws?

So far, I have found nothing that makes them able to foreclose, but I am concerned that you are omitting something… the paragraph you ‘forgot to mention’ is incredibly critical.

Is the mortgage document with the in-laws written in English or French?

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]What exactly would make the note callable?
Doesn’t the deed of trust make it callable?[/quote]
Wording in the note stating that the lender can back out and demand their capital (outstanding balance including any outstanding interest due) at will and at any time. The deed of trust does not make it callable. It just makes the loan secured by the property.
[quote frenchlambda]By the way, both my ex-wife and I signed the deed of trust. I refused to do so at the beginning because my wife was refusing to sign the “stipulation and order” document. [/quote] Of course she would sign the trust deed.. It helps her and her parents. From what I have seen of the “marriage settlement” posted earlier, she dumped it all on you.. the underwater property and all of the liabilities. She should have shared in the liabilities because they were part of the community property.
[quote frenchlambda][quote ucodegen]Was the “stipulation and order” part of the divorce agreement?[/quote]No, it was not. And neither was the deed of trust. Before even reaching the final agreement, I signed the deed of trust while my ex signed the “stipulation and order”.[/quote]
It should have been, particularly with how much you spent on the whole proceedings, including the restraining order. Considering that you were divvying up the marriage assets, it all should have been part of the “marriage settlement”. The note associated with the deed of trust should have been modified by the minimum of the $85k.. resulting in an outstanding balance of $200,000 – $85,824.49 or $114175.31 — making refi much easier. Have you yet received the $85k?
[quote frenchlamda]I called my ex-wife’s mom and she told me that the note clearly specifies that the $200K must be paid by September 3rd and that they gave us a 5-year loan.
The whole part in the “Straight (Balloon) Note” section of the note completely confuses me.[/quote]
As your supposed exact copy of the note reads, it doesn’t. But this is one of those things were the wording is VERY important. One word added or omitted from the wording can change the meaning.
[quote frenchlamda]I forgot to mention the following clause as part of the promissory note:

“Should default be made in payment of principal and/or interest when due, the whole sum of principal and accrued interest shall become immediately due, without notice, at the option of the holder of this note.”[/quote]
VERY IMPORTANT – like I mentioned above, wording is critical. This makes the note callable on default. Notice that the wording states “shall become immediately due” with the condition of “Should default..”. Are you current in the payments to the ex-in-laws?

So far, I have found nothing that makes them able to foreclose, but I am concerned that you are omitting something… the paragraph you ‘forgot to mention’ is incredibly critical.

Is the mortgage document with the in-laws written in English or French?

[Author]

Posts