[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]… Also, not discussed here, but men aren’t the only ones who corner the market on cheating. I imagine the maid could’ve been afraid of retaliation, losing her job, etc, but she could’ve said no. It would seem she had no problem being w/a married man. Vows sometimes mean nothing to women, either…[/quote]

My understanding from one of those online gossip rags was that the maid in this case was married to another while bearing the guvenator’s child. She even told the hospital her husband was the father. The gossip rag posted a copy of this child’s (redacted) LA County birth certificate with the father and mother’s names on it. It also stated she was not a live-in maid. She lived with her husband and children at the time in LA County. The guvenator and his family also lived in LA County at the time.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]… Also, not discussed here, but men aren’t the only ones who corner the market on cheating. I imagine the maid could’ve been afraid of retaliation, losing her job, etc, but she could’ve said no. It would seem she had no problem being w/a married man. Vows sometimes mean nothing to women, either…[/quote]

My understanding from one of those online gossip rags was that the maid in this case was married to another while bearing the guvenator’s child. She even told the hospital her husband was the father. The gossip rag posted a copy of this child’s (redacted) LA County birth certificate with the father and mother’s names on it. It also stated she was not a live-in maid. She lived with her husband and children at the time in LA County. The guvenator and his family also lived in LA County at the time.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]… Also, not discussed here, but men aren’t the only ones who corner the market on cheating. I imagine the maid could’ve been afraid of retaliation, losing her job, etc, but she could’ve said no. It would seem she had no problem being w/a married man. Vows sometimes mean nothing to women, either…[/quote]

My understanding from one of those online gossip rags was that the maid in this case was married to another while bearing the guvenator’s child. She even told the hospital her husband was the father. The gossip rag posted a copy of this child’s (redacted) LA County birth certificate with the father and mother’s names on it. It also stated she was not a live-in maid. She lived with her husband and children at the time in LA County. The guvenator and his family also lived in LA County at the time.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=frenchlambda]My initial goal for starting this thread was to understand if my ex-in-laws have a legal right to proceed with foreclosing while I STILL make payments to them (as well as the first lender) EVERY MONTH.[/quote]

Without seeing the terms of your actual trust deed, no one can answer that. However, your question here SHOULD BE, what’s in it for them to do so??

Piggs, raise your hands if you, as a subordinate TD holder, would keep a regular and timely I/O borrower on the hook for $833 mo indefinitely who is not paying down any principal on his $200K encumbrance under these likely future scenarios:

(1)If your borrower decides to walk from the first TD tomorrow, you would have to come up with a min of $155K (incl arrearages and trustees fees) upon foreclosure to cure the 1st TD holder and then market the property in the =<$340 range (minus RE commission/closing costs) to obtain your $155K back and then whatever was left over would have to satisfy the $200K note; (2) If your borrower decides to walk on your TD, you can hire a trustee on the 90th delinquent day to initiate foreclosure proceedings. By the 120th day, you have successfully foreclosed and paid your trustee $4K to $8K (or more). Now you are receiving a letter from the 1st TD holder with payment coupons based upon a *new* loan amount with poss late charges thrown in (with whom you are now involuntarily taking on said debt "subject to"); (3) If your borrower decides to walk on BOTH loans, you and B of A can race each other to the podium. Any Pigg want to wager on who decides to foreclose first?? As a 2nd TD holder, what kind of deal would you make with this particular borrower under these circumstances if he approached you for some kind of "relief?" How much on the open market do you think you could get if you sold this trust deed? Is it marketable if TWO borrowers signed the promissory note, TWO borrowers signed the trust deed, but ONE borrower may have "quitclaimed" the property to the other??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=frenchlambda]My initial goal for starting this thread was to understand if my ex-in-laws have a legal right to proceed with foreclosing while I STILL make payments to them (as well as the first lender) EVERY MONTH.[/quote]

Without seeing the terms of your actual trust deed, no one can answer that. However, your question here SHOULD BE, what’s in it for them to do so??

Piggs, raise your hands if you, as a subordinate TD holder, would keep a regular and timely I/O borrower on the hook for $833 mo indefinitely who is not paying down any principal on his $200K encumbrance under these likely future scenarios:

(1)If your borrower decides to walk from the first TD tomorrow, you would have to come up with a min of $155K (incl arrearages and trustees fees) upon foreclosure to cure the 1st TD holder and then market the property in the =<$340 range (minus RE commission/closing costs) to obtain your $155K back and then whatever was left over would have to satisfy the $200K note; (2) If your borrower decides to walk on your TD, you can hire a trustee on the 90th delinquent day to initiate foreclosure proceedings. By the 120th day, you have successfully foreclosed and paid your trustee $4K to $8K (or more). Now you are receiving a letter from the 1st TD holder with payment coupons based upon a *new* loan amount with poss late charges thrown in (with whom you are now involuntarily taking on said debt "subject to"); (3) If your borrower decides to walk on BOTH loans, you and B of A can race each other to the podium. Any Pigg want to wager on who decides to foreclose first?? As a 2nd TD holder, what kind of deal would you make with this particular borrower under these circumstances if he approached you for some kind of "relief?" How much on the open market do you think you could get if you sold this trust deed? Is it marketable if TWO borrowers signed the promissory note, TWO borrowers signed the trust deed, but ONE borrower may have "quitclaimed" the property to the other??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=frenchlambda]My initial goal for starting this thread was to understand if my ex-in-laws have a legal right to proceed with foreclosing while I STILL make payments to them (as well as the first lender) EVERY MONTH.[/quote]

Without seeing the terms of your actual trust deed, no one can answer that. However, your question here SHOULD BE, what’s in it for them to do so??

Piggs, raise your hands if you, as a subordinate TD holder, would keep a regular and timely I/O borrower on the hook for $833 mo indefinitely who is not paying down any principal on his $200K encumbrance under these likely future scenarios:

(1)If your borrower decides to walk from the first TD tomorrow, you would have to come up with a min of $155K (incl arrearages and trustees fees) upon foreclosure to cure the 1st TD holder and then market the property in the =<$340 range (minus RE commission/closing costs) to obtain your $155K back and then whatever was left over would have to satisfy the $200K note; (2) If your borrower decides to walk on your TD, you can hire a trustee on the 90th delinquent day to initiate foreclosure proceedings. By the 120th day, you have successfully foreclosed and paid your trustee $4K to $8K (or more). Now you are receiving a letter from the 1st TD holder with payment coupons based upon a *new* loan amount with poss late charges thrown in (with whom you are now involuntarily taking on said debt "subject to"); (3) If your borrower decides to walk on BOTH loans, you and B of A can race each other to the podium. Any Pigg want to wager on who decides to foreclose first?? As a 2nd TD holder, what kind of deal would you make with this particular borrower under these circumstances if he approached you for some kind of "relief?" How much on the open market do you think you could get if you sold this trust deed? Is it marketable if TWO borrowers signed the promissory note, TWO borrowers signed the trust deed, but ONE borrower may have "quitclaimed" the property to the other??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=frenchlambda]My initial goal for starting this thread was to understand if my ex-in-laws have a legal right to proceed with foreclosing while I STILL make payments to them (as well as the first lender) EVERY MONTH.[/quote]

Without seeing the terms of your actual trust deed, no one can answer that. However, your question here SHOULD BE, what’s in it for them to do so??

Piggs, raise your hands if you, as a subordinate TD holder, would keep a regular and timely I/O borrower on the hook for $833 mo indefinitely who is not paying down any principal on his $200K encumbrance under these likely future scenarios:

(1)If your borrower decides to walk from the first TD tomorrow, you would have to come up with a min of $155K (incl arrearages and trustees fees) upon foreclosure to cure the 1st TD holder and then market the property in the =<$340 range (minus RE commission/closing costs) to obtain your $155K back and then whatever was left over would have to satisfy the $200K note; (2) If your borrower decides to walk on your TD, you can hire a trustee on the 90th delinquent day to initiate foreclosure proceedings. By the 120th day, you have successfully foreclosed and paid your trustee $4K to $8K (or more). Now you are receiving a letter from the 1st TD holder with payment coupons based upon a *new* loan amount with poss late charges thrown in (with whom you are now involuntarily taking on said debt "subject to"); (3) If your borrower decides to walk on BOTH loans, you and B of A can race each other to the podium. Any Pigg want to wager on who decides to foreclose first?? As a 2nd TD holder, what kind of deal would you make with this particular borrower under these circumstances if he approached you for some kind of "relief?" How much on the open market do you think you could get if you sold this trust deed? Is it marketable if TWO borrowers signed the promissory note, TWO borrowers signed the trust deed, but ONE borrower may have "quitclaimed" the property to the other??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=frenchlambda]My initial goal for starting this thread was to understand if my ex-in-laws have a legal right to proceed with foreclosing while I STILL make payments to them (as well as the first lender) EVERY MONTH.[/quote]

Without seeing the terms of your actual trust deed, no one can answer that. However, your question here SHOULD BE, what’s in it for them to do so??

Piggs, raise your hands if you, as a subordinate TD holder, would keep a regular and timely I/O borrower on the hook for $833 mo indefinitely who is not paying down any principal on his $200K encumbrance under these likely future scenarios:

(1)If your borrower decides to walk from the first TD tomorrow, you would have to come up with a min of $155K (incl arrearages and trustees fees) upon foreclosure to cure the 1st TD holder and then market the property in the =<$340 range (minus RE commission/closing costs) to obtain your $155K back and then whatever was left over would have to satisfy the $200K note; (2) If your borrower decides to walk on your TD, you can hire a trustee on the 90th delinquent day to initiate foreclosure proceedings. By the 120th day, you have successfully foreclosed and paid your trustee $4K to $8K (or more). Now you are receiving a letter from the 1st TD holder with payment coupons based upon a *new* loan amount with poss late charges thrown in (with whom you are now involuntarily taking on said debt "subject to"); (3) If your borrower decides to walk on BOTH loans, you and B of A can race each other to the podium. Any Pigg want to wager on who decides to foreclose first?? As a 2nd TD holder, what kind of deal would you make with this particular borrower under these circumstances if he approached you for some kind of "relief?" How much on the open market do you think you could get if you sold this trust deed? Is it marketable if TWO borrowers signed the promissory note, TWO borrowers signed the trust deed, but ONE borrower may have "quitclaimed" the property to the other??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=frenchlambda]I think I am screwed.
I read the separation agreement again and found this:

22. REIMBURSEMENT AND OTHER MONETARY WAIVERS.
A. Except as may be specifically provided to the contrary in this Agreement,
as part of the division of the community property each party waives all rights of reimbursement
for the following:
(4) All rights of reimbursement pursuant to Family Code section 2640,
or otherwise, for separate property contributed to the acquisition, maintenance or
improvement of community property or the other party’s separate property;
[/quote]

This may have the effect of negating your 2640 stipulation if the MSA was signed AFTER the stipulation. I would still want an atty to review it if I were you. I don’t think your ex is off the hook for the notes she signed with you, now both secured by (presumably) filed trust deeds.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=frenchlambda]I think I am screwed.
I read the separation agreement again and found this:

22. REIMBURSEMENT AND OTHER MONETARY WAIVERS.
A. Except as may be specifically provided to the contrary in this Agreement,
as part of the division of the community property each party waives all rights of reimbursement
for the following:
(4) All rights of reimbursement pursuant to Family Code section 2640,
or otherwise, for separate property contributed to the acquisition, maintenance or
improvement of community property or the other party’s separate property;
[/quote]

This may have the effect of negating your 2640 stipulation if the MSA was signed AFTER the stipulation. I would still want an atty to review it if I were you. I don’t think your ex is off the hook for the notes she signed with you, now both secured by (presumably) filed trust deeds.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=frenchlambda]I think I am screwed.
I read the separation agreement again and found this:

22. REIMBURSEMENT AND OTHER MONETARY WAIVERS.
A. Except as may be specifically provided to the contrary in this Agreement,
as part of the division of the community property each party waives all rights of reimbursement
for the following:
(4) All rights of reimbursement pursuant to Family Code section 2640,
or otherwise, for separate property contributed to the acquisition, maintenance or
improvement of community property or the other party’s separate property;
[/quote]

This may have the effect of negating your 2640 stipulation if the MSA was signed AFTER the stipulation. I would still want an atty to review it if I were you. I don’t think your ex is off the hook for the notes she signed with you, now both secured by (presumably) filed trust deeds.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=frenchlambda]I think I am screwed.
I read the separation agreement again and found this:

22. REIMBURSEMENT AND OTHER MONETARY WAIVERS.
A. Except as may be specifically provided to the contrary in this Agreement,
as part of the division of the community property each party waives all rights of reimbursement
for the following:
(4) All rights of reimbursement pursuant to Family Code section 2640,
or otherwise, for separate property contributed to the acquisition, maintenance or
improvement of community property or the other party’s separate property;
[/quote]

This may have the effect of negating your 2640 stipulation if the MSA was signed AFTER the stipulation. I would still want an atty to review it if I were you. I don’t think your ex is off the hook for the notes she signed with you, now both secured by (presumably) filed trust deeds.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=frenchlambda]I think I am screwed.
I read the separation agreement again and found this:

22. REIMBURSEMENT AND OTHER MONETARY WAIVERS.
A. Except as may be specifically provided to the contrary in this Agreement,
as part of the division of the community property each party waives all rights of reimbursement
for the following:
(4) All rights of reimbursement pursuant to Family Code section 2640,
or otherwise, for separate property contributed to the acquisition, maintenance or
improvement of community property or the other party’s separate property;
[/quote]

This may have the effect of negating your 2640 stipulation if the MSA was signed AFTER the stipulation. I would still want an atty to review it if I were you. I don’t think your ex is off the hook for the notes she signed with you, now both secured by (presumably) filed trust deeds.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ucodegen][quote frenchlambda]The “stipulation and order” with the $85k never made it to the final divorce agreement.
[/quote] That is correct, and that is what may save you. The required reimbursement under the “stipulation and order” does not go away by omission in the MSA. You just have to be careful of blanket statements in the MSA which can make it go away.

[quote Eugene]Whatever rights you have now, two months after the divorce has been finalized, and after countless signed papers, it’s really hard for me to say.[/quote]
My point too, though there is that outstanding $85K which may not have been addressed by the MSA. This is why I would have an attorney look at all of those, the sequence they were signed and why (show him all of the signed papers, leave nothing out). He gave up tangible value in the trust deed to receive a ‘promissory’ on the 85K. Unless the MSA addresses the ‘promissory’, it doesn’t unilaterally go away.[/quote]

Agreed. uco, I like your anal-retentive style :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ucodegen][quote frenchlambda]The “stipulation and order” with the $85k never made it to the final divorce agreement.
[/quote] That is correct, and that is what may save you. The required reimbursement under the “stipulation and order” does not go away by omission in the MSA. You just have to be careful of blanket statements in the MSA which can make it go away.

[quote Eugene]Whatever rights you have now, two months after the divorce has been finalized, and after countless signed papers, it’s really hard for me to say.[/quote]
My point too, though there is that outstanding $85K which may not have been addressed by the MSA. This is why I would have an attorney look at all of those, the sequence they were signed and why (show him all of the signed papers, leave nothing out). He gave up tangible value in the trust deed to receive a ‘promissory’ on the 85K. Unless the MSA addresses the ‘promissory’, it doesn’t unilaterally go away.[/quote]

Agreed. uco, I like your anal-retentive style :=]

[Author]

Posts