Own a house outright

[PCinSD]

An experienced collections attorney would probably give you the best advice, and that isn’t me. In any event, not sure if there’s anything you can do to effectively “hide” your assets from legitimate collections. But a proper answer depends on so many variables, and would be impossible to effectively address on this blog.

Are you in a line of work where this has you worried? At the very least, get plenty of insurance.

[kismetsdad]

If you are married, California is a community property state. Any judgment against you could only involve 1/2 of your house. A creditor owning 1/2 house is essentially useless since your wife (or husband) is unlikely to be very cooperative with their new partner. The creditor would then be liable for 1/2 taxes etc without any use of house. California is not as good as Florida but some protection nevertheless. This is not a substitute for legal advise but a little context. If you are not married different story.

[kismetsdad]

If you are married, California is a community property state. Any judgment against you could only involve 1/2 of your house. A creditor owning 1/2 house is essentially useless since your wife (or husband) is unlikely to be very cooperative with their new partner. The creditor would then be liable for 1/2 taxes etc without any use of house. California is not as good as Florida but some protection nevertheless. This is not a substitute for legal advise but a little context. If you are not married different story.

[kismetsdad]

If you are married, California is a community property state. Any judgment against you could only involve 1/2 of your house. A creditor owning 1/2 house is essentially useless since your wife (or husband) is unlikely to be very cooperative with their new partner. The creditor would then be liable for 1/2 taxes etc without any use of house. California is not as good as Florida but some protection nevertheless. This is not a substitute for legal advise but a little context. If you are not married different story.

[kismetsdad]

If you are married, California is a community property state. Any judgment against you could only involve 1/2 of your house. A creditor owning 1/2 house is essentially useless since your wife (or husband) is unlikely to be very cooperative with their new partner. The creditor would then be liable for 1/2 taxes etc without any use of house. California is not as good as Florida but some protection nevertheless. This is not a substitute for legal advise but a little context. If you are not married different story.

[kismetsdad]

If you are married, California is a community property state. Any judgment against you could only involve 1/2 of your house. A creditor owning 1/2 house is essentially useless since your wife (or husband) is unlikely to be very cooperative with their new partner. The creditor would then be liable for 1/2 taxes etc without any use of house. California is not as good as Florida but some protection nevertheless. This is not a substitute for legal advise but a little context. If you are not married different story.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=kismetsdad]If you are married, California is a community property state. Any judgment against you could only involve 1/2 of your house. A creditor owning 1/2 house is essentially useless since your wife (or husband) is unlikely to be very cooperative with their new partner. The creditor would then be liable for 1/2 taxes etc without any use of house. California is not as good as Florida but some protection nevertheless. This is not a substitute for legal advise but a little context. If you are not married different story.[/quote]

kismetsdad, a judgment creditor can foreclose his/her judgment lien on real property owned entirely or part by the judgment debtor. If a judgment debtor is married, in most cases this judgment will be the problem of both spouses if they own joint assets.

Under joint tenancy, a spouse is not entitled to their “half” of equity in real property unless there is a court order giving them that equity or a separation or settlement agreement on file with the court giving them that equity (making it a court order). Thus, all of the equity in a property titled in joint tenancy is available to satisfy any judgment liens of one or both spouses. The “community property” law you describe means all property acquired during the marriage belongs to both spouses. If there is no petition for dissolution filed, then the “community” is not divided. It is owned mutually, not severally. There are no “halves” of any one asset in a marital “community.”

I believe the scenario you are trying to describe here with is persons taking title as “tenants in common.” These persons are typically NOT married. A judgment debtor can still foreclose their lien on ONE tenant in common and take up to half the equity to fully or partially satisfy their judgment. The other tenant in common would theoretically receive their half from the judgment creditor (upon appraisal) or upon successful sale to a third party by the judgment creditor after foreclosure. One of the ways the non-debtor tenant could stop the foreclosure would be to get a quitclaim deed from the debtor tenant and refinance the property in his own name, paying off the debtor-tenant’s creditor himself, if the debtor tenants portion of equity is enough to do this. Otherwise, the non-debtor tenant would have no power to stop the foreclosure.

-This post should not be construed as legal advice and I am not an attorney-

[bearishgurl]

[quote=kismetsdad]If you are married, California is a community property state. Any judgment against you could only involve 1/2 of your house. A creditor owning 1/2 house is essentially useless since your wife (or husband) is unlikely to be very cooperative with their new partner. The creditor would then be liable for 1/2 taxes etc without any use of house. California is not as good as Florida but some protection nevertheless. This is not a substitute for legal advise but a little context. If you are not married different story.[/quote]

kismetsdad, a judgment creditor can foreclose his/her judgment lien on real property owned entirely or part by the judgment debtor. If a judgment debtor is married, in most cases this judgment will be the problem of both spouses if they own joint assets.

Under joint tenancy, a spouse is not entitled to their “half” of equity in real property unless there is a court order giving them that equity or a separation or settlement agreement on file with the court giving them that equity (making it a court order). Thus, all of the equity in a property titled in joint tenancy is available to satisfy any judgment liens of one or both spouses. The “community property” law you describe means all property acquired during the marriage belongs to both spouses. If there is no petition for dissolution filed, then the “community” is not divided. It is owned mutually, not severally. There are no “halves” of any one asset in a marital “community.”

I believe the scenario you are trying to describe here with is persons taking title as “tenants in common.” These persons are typically NOT married. A judgment debtor can still foreclose their lien on ONE tenant in common and take up to half the equity to fully or partially satisfy their judgment. The other tenant in common would theoretically receive their half from the judgment creditor (upon appraisal) or upon successful sale to a third party by the judgment creditor after foreclosure. One of the ways the non-debtor tenant could stop the foreclosure would be to get a quitclaim deed from the debtor tenant and refinance the property in his own name, paying off the debtor-tenant’s creditor himself, if the debtor tenants portion of equity is enough to do this. Otherwise, the non-debtor tenant would have no power to stop the foreclosure.

-This post should not be construed as legal advice and I am not an attorney-

[bearishgurl]

[quote=kismetsdad]If you are married, California is a community property state. Any judgment against you could only involve 1/2 of your house. A creditor owning 1/2 house is essentially useless since your wife (or husband) is unlikely to be very cooperative with their new partner. The creditor would then be liable for 1/2 taxes etc without any use of house. California is not as good as Florida but some protection nevertheless. This is not a substitute for legal advise but a little context. If you are not married different story.[/quote]

kismetsdad, a judgment creditor can foreclose his/her judgment lien on real property owned entirely or part by the judgment debtor. If a judgment debtor is married, in most cases this judgment will be the problem of both spouses if they own joint assets.

Under joint tenancy, a spouse is not entitled to their “half” of equity in real property unless there is a court order giving them that equity or a separation or settlement agreement on file with the court giving them that equity (making it a court order). Thus, all of the equity in a property titled in joint tenancy is available to satisfy any judgment liens of one or both spouses. The “community property” law you describe means all property acquired during the marriage belongs to both spouses. If there is no petition for dissolution filed, then the “community” is not divided. It is owned mutually, not severally. There are no “halves” of any one asset in a marital “community.”

I believe the scenario you are trying to describe here with is persons taking title as “tenants in common.” These persons are typically NOT married. A judgment debtor can still foreclose their lien on ONE tenant in common and take up to half the equity to fully or partially satisfy their judgment. The other tenant in common would theoretically receive their half from the judgment creditor (upon appraisal) or upon successful sale to a third party by the judgment creditor after foreclosure. One of the ways the non-debtor tenant could stop the foreclosure would be to get a quitclaim deed from the debtor tenant and refinance the property in his own name, paying off the debtor-tenant’s creditor himself, if the debtor tenants portion of equity is enough to do this. Otherwise, the non-debtor tenant would have no power to stop the foreclosure.

-This post should not be construed as legal advice and I am not an attorney-

[bearishgurl]

[quote=kismetsdad]If you are married, California is a community property state. Any judgment against you could only involve 1/2 of your house. A creditor owning 1/2 house is essentially useless since your wife (or husband) is unlikely to be very cooperative with their new partner. The creditor would then be liable for 1/2 taxes etc without any use of house. California is not as good as Florida but some protection nevertheless. This is not a substitute for legal advise but a little context. If you are not married different story.[/quote]

kismetsdad, a judgment creditor can foreclose his/her judgment lien on real property owned entirely or part by the judgment debtor. If a judgment debtor is married, in most cases this judgment will be the problem of both spouses if they own joint assets.

Under joint tenancy, a spouse is not entitled to their “half” of equity in real property unless there is a court order giving them that equity or a separation or settlement agreement on file with the court giving them that equity (making it a court order). Thus, all of the equity in a property titled in joint tenancy is available to satisfy any judgment liens of one or both spouses. The “community property” law you describe means all property acquired during the marriage belongs to both spouses. If there is no petition for dissolution filed, then the “community” is not divided. It is owned mutually, not severally. There are no “halves” of any one asset in a marital “community.”

I believe the scenario you are trying to describe here with is persons taking title as “tenants in common.” These persons are typically NOT married. A judgment debtor can still foreclose their lien on ONE tenant in common and take up to half the equity to fully or partially satisfy their judgment. The other tenant in common would theoretically receive their half from the judgment creditor (upon appraisal) or upon successful sale to a third party by the judgment creditor after foreclosure. One of the ways the non-debtor tenant could stop the foreclosure would be to get a quitclaim deed from the debtor tenant and refinance the property in his own name, paying off the debtor-tenant’s creditor himself, if the debtor tenants portion of equity is enough to do this. Otherwise, the non-debtor tenant would have no power to stop the foreclosure.

-This post should not be construed as legal advice and I am not an attorney-

[bearishgurl]

[quote=kismetsdad]If you are married, California is a community property state. Any judgment against you could only involve 1/2 of your house. A creditor owning 1/2 house is essentially useless since your wife (or husband) is unlikely to be very cooperative with their new partner. The creditor would then be liable for 1/2 taxes etc without any use of house. California is not as good as Florida but some protection nevertheless. This is not a substitute for legal advise but a little context. If you are not married different story.[/quote]

kismetsdad, a judgment creditor can foreclose his/her judgment lien on real property owned entirely or part by the judgment debtor. If a judgment debtor is married, in most cases this judgment will be the problem of both spouses if they own joint assets.

Under joint tenancy, a spouse is not entitled to their “half” of equity in real property unless there is a court order giving them that equity or a separation or settlement agreement on file with the court giving them that equity (making it a court order). Thus, all of the equity in a property titled in joint tenancy is available to satisfy any judgment liens of one or both spouses. The “community property” law you describe means all property acquired during the marriage belongs to both spouses. If there is no petition for dissolution filed, then the “community” is not divided. It is owned mutually, not severally. There are no “halves” of any one asset in a marital “community.”

I believe the scenario you are trying to describe here with is persons taking title as “tenants in common.” These persons are typically NOT married. A judgment debtor can still foreclose their lien on ONE tenant in common and take up to half the equity to fully or partially satisfy their judgment. The other tenant in common would theoretically receive their half from the judgment creditor (upon appraisal) or upon successful sale to a third party by the judgment creditor after foreclosure. One of the ways the non-debtor tenant could stop the foreclosure would be to get a quitclaim deed from the debtor tenant and refinance the property in his own name, paying off the debtor-tenant’s creditor himself, if the debtor tenants portion of equity is enough to do this. Otherwise, the non-debtor tenant would have no power to stop the foreclosure.

-This post should not be construed as legal advice and I am not an attorney-

[dwh92563]

This has been really helpful. No, not trying to hide it or anything like that. I bought this a few months ago and its a large chunk of my assets and am just trying to protect it. I know its not the smartest investment for my age, but I like the scenario of it all. I am thinking about doing a homestead on it. That should be adequate protection. I guess I’ve always thought there was some way of opening a trust or something along those lines to protect your nest egg.

[dwh92563]

This has been really helpful. No, not trying to hide it or anything like that. I bought this a few months ago and its a large chunk of my assets and am just trying to protect it. I know its not the smartest investment for my age, but I like the scenario of it all. I am thinking about doing a homestead on it. That should be adequate protection. I guess I’ve always thought there was some way of opening a trust or something along those lines to protect your nest egg.

[dwh92563]

This has been really helpful. No, not trying to hide it or anything like that. I bought this a few months ago and its a large chunk of my assets and am just trying to protect it. I know its not the smartest investment for my age, but I like the scenario of it all. I am thinking about doing a homestead on it. That should be adequate protection. I guess I’ve always thought there was some way of opening a trust or something along those lines to protect your nest egg.

[dwh92563]

This has been really helpful. No, not trying to hide it or anything like that. I bought this a few months ago and its a large chunk of my assets and am just trying to protect it. I know its not the smartest investment for my age, but I like the scenario of it all. I am thinking about doing a homestead on it. That should be adequate protection. I guess I’ve always thought there was some way of opening a trust or something along those lines to protect your nest egg.

[Author]

Posts