[Eugene]

[quote]Frankly I am not sure why everyone here talks about these $85k.
First of all, my ex-parents have nothing to do with that.
Secondly, this is money that served as a down-payment and the equity in the house is gone.
If I had bought a $50k car for both myself and my wife with pre-marriage money and then crashed a car into a wall resulting in a total loss, would I get $50k back from my wife after divorce? Obviously not.
The loss of the car is an analogy to the loss of value in the real estate property. The value is gone so there is nothing for me to claim.[/quote]

What if you bought a $50k car with pre-marriage money and _she_ crashed a car, would you still be OK writing off that loss?

Loss of equity should be divided equally between you and your wife. But if you forget about those 85k, you lose your entire contribution towards down payment (115k) but your wife only loses 30k. Do you think it’s fair?

[Eugene]

[quote]Frankly I am not sure why everyone here talks about these $85k.
First of all, my ex-parents have nothing to do with that.
Secondly, this is money that served as a down-payment and the equity in the house is gone.
If I had bought a $50k car for both myself and my wife with pre-marriage money and then crashed a car into a wall resulting in a total loss, would I get $50k back from my wife after divorce? Obviously not.
The loss of the car is an analogy to the loss of value in the real estate property. The value is gone so there is nothing for me to claim.[/quote]

What if you bought a $50k car with pre-marriage money and _she_ crashed a car, would you still be OK writing off that loss?

Loss of equity should be divided equally between you and your wife. But if you forget about those 85k, you lose your entire contribution towards down payment (115k) but your wife only loses 30k. Do you think it’s fair?

[Eugene]

[quote]Frankly I am not sure why everyone here talks about these $85k.
First of all, my ex-parents have nothing to do with that.
Secondly, this is money that served as a down-payment and the equity in the house is gone.
If I had bought a $50k car for both myself and my wife with pre-marriage money and then crashed a car into a wall resulting in a total loss, would I get $50k back from my wife after divorce? Obviously not.
The loss of the car is an analogy to the loss of value in the real estate property. The value is gone so there is nothing for me to claim.[/quote]

What if you bought a $50k car with pre-marriage money and _she_ crashed a car, would you still be OK writing off that loss?

Loss of equity should be divided equally between you and your wife. But if you forget about those 85k, you lose your entire contribution towards down payment (115k) but your wife only loses 30k. Do you think it’s fair?

[Eugene]

[quote]Frankly I am not sure why everyone here talks about these $85k.
First of all, my ex-parents have nothing to do with that.
Secondly, this is money that served as a down-payment and the equity in the house is gone.
If I had bought a $50k car for both myself and my wife with pre-marriage money and then crashed a car into a wall resulting in a total loss, would I get $50k back from my wife after divorce? Obviously not.
The loss of the car is an analogy to the loss of value in the real estate property. The value is gone so there is nothing for me to claim.[/quote]

What if you bought a $50k car with pre-marriage money and _she_ crashed a car, would you still be OK writing off that loss?

Loss of equity should be divided equally between you and your wife. But if you forget about those 85k, you lose your entire contribution towards down payment (115k) but your wife only loses 30k. Do you think it’s fair?

[Eugene]

[quote]Frankly I am not sure why everyone here talks about these $85k.
First of all, my ex-parents have nothing to do with that.
Secondly, this is money that served as a down-payment and the equity in the house is gone.
If I had bought a $50k car for both myself and my wife with pre-marriage money and then crashed a car into a wall resulting in a total loss, would I get $50k back from my wife after divorce? Obviously not.
The loss of the car is an analogy to the loss of value in the real estate property. The value is gone so there is nothing for me to claim.[/quote]

What if you bought a $50k car with pre-marriage money and _she_ crashed a car, would you still be OK writing off that loss?

Loss of equity should be divided equally between you and your wife. But if you forget about those 85k, you lose your entire contribution towards down payment (115k) but your wife only loses 30k. Do you think it’s fair?

[Eugene]

I don’t think that “without offset” is a problem – it only means that no money has to change hands to offset the transfer of wife’s interest and liabilities to the husband.

A bigger concern is that California Family Code section 2640 only applies “…in the division of the community estate” in other words, during divorce proceedings. Since the divorce has been final for two months, it may be too late.

And there may have been some legal boilerplate in MSA that automatically waives all claims and rights to reimbursement that haven’t been addressed by MSA.

A real lawyer is needed here.

[Eugene]

I don’t think that “without offset” is a problem – it only means that no money has to change hands to offset the transfer of wife’s interest and liabilities to the husband.

A bigger concern is that California Family Code section 2640 only applies “…in the division of the community estate” in other words, during divorce proceedings. Since the divorce has been final for two months, it may be too late.

And there may have been some legal boilerplate in MSA that automatically waives all claims and rights to reimbursement that haven’t been addressed by MSA.

A real lawyer is needed here.

[Eugene]

I don’t think that “without offset” is a problem – it only means that no money has to change hands to offset the transfer of wife’s interest and liabilities to the husband.

A bigger concern is that California Family Code section 2640 only applies “…in the division of the community estate” in other words, during divorce proceedings. Since the divorce has been final for two months, it may be too late.

And there may have been some legal boilerplate in MSA that automatically waives all claims and rights to reimbursement that haven’t been addressed by MSA.

A real lawyer is needed here.

[Eugene]

I don’t think that “without offset” is a problem – it only means that no money has to change hands to offset the transfer of wife’s interest and liabilities to the husband.

A bigger concern is that California Family Code section 2640 only applies “…in the division of the community estate” in other words, during divorce proceedings. Since the divorce has been final for two months, it may be too late.

And there may have been some legal boilerplate in MSA that automatically waives all claims and rights to reimbursement that haven’t been addressed by MSA.

A real lawyer is needed here.

[Eugene]

I don’t think that “without offset” is a problem – it only means that no money has to change hands to offset the transfer of wife’s interest and liabilities to the husband.

A bigger concern is that California Family Code section 2640 only applies “…in the division of the community estate” in other words, during divorce proceedings. Since the divorce has been final for two months, it may be too late.

And there may have been some legal boilerplate in MSA that automatically waives all claims and rights to reimbursement that haven’t been addressed by MSA.

A real lawyer is needed here.

[Eugene]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=frenchlambda]The problem is that at the time of divorce, there was only $10K of equity in the house (appraised value: $340K; balance on the loans: $330K). In other words, pretty much my entire contribution to the down-payment disappeared in the loss of value of the property after 5 years.
All that I got was the right to keep the little of equity in the condo.[/quote]

In essence, what you did here was agree to pay back the $200K (half of which was your ex’s debt) for $10K in “equity.” This is not even enough to pay a RE commission to a broker to sell it![/quote]

That’s not how I see it.

He had 50% ownership of a $340k property and 50% responsibility for $330k of loans (of which $200k were unsecured). And he had 85k in contributions towards community property that he could get back when dividing property during divorce. Net value: $90k, assuming he does not intend to default on the unsecured note and bear the consequences.

When the dust settled, he had 100% ownership of the property, and 100% responsibility for the loans, and a stipulation from the ex-wife that he is in fact owed those 85k. Net value: $95k.

So, assuming that he didn’t sign away his right to 85k in MSA somehow, it’s not all bad.

[quote]The wording does not say mature, or mention a balloon payment date. Wording has to be specific. You can’t have the word “Balloon” and a date by it.[/quote]

I did some googling. This is a weird wording but it’s not dissimilar from some other balloon notes I found.

http://sec.edgar-online.com/ravenswood-winery-inc/sb-2-securities-registration-small-business/1999/02/04/section46.aspx

Any irregularities were probably normalized when this was converted into a deed of trust.

[Eugene]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=frenchlambda]The problem is that at the time of divorce, there was only $10K of equity in the house (appraised value: $340K; balance on the loans: $330K). In other words, pretty much my entire contribution to the down-payment disappeared in the loss of value of the property after 5 years.
All that I got was the right to keep the little of equity in the condo.[/quote]

In essence, what you did here was agree to pay back the $200K (half of which was your ex’s debt) for $10K in “equity.” This is not even enough to pay a RE commission to a broker to sell it![/quote]

That’s not how I see it.

He had 50% ownership of a $340k property and 50% responsibility for $330k of loans (of which $200k were unsecured). And he had 85k in contributions towards community property that he could get back when dividing property during divorce. Net value: $90k, assuming he does not intend to default on the unsecured note and bear the consequences.

When the dust settled, he had 100% ownership of the property, and 100% responsibility for the loans, and a stipulation from the ex-wife that he is in fact owed those 85k. Net value: $95k.

So, assuming that he didn’t sign away his right to 85k in MSA somehow, it’s not all bad.

[quote]The wording does not say mature, or mention a balloon payment date. Wording has to be specific. You can’t have the word “Balloon” and a date by it.[/quote]

I did some googling. This is a weird wording but it’s not dissimilar from some other balloon notes I found.

http://sec.edgar-online.com/ravenswood-winery-inc/sb-2-securities-registration-small-business/1999/02/04/section46.aspx

Any irregularities were probably normalized when this was converted into a deed of trust.

[Eugene]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=frenchlambda]The problem is that at the time of divorce, there was only $10K of equity in the house (appraised value: $340K; balance on the loans: $330K). In other words, pretty much my entire contribution to the down-payment disappeared in the loss of value of the property after 5 years.
All that I got was the right to keep the little of equity in the condo.[/quote]

In essence, what you did here was agree to pay back the $200K (half of which was your ex’s debt) for $10K in “equity.” This is not even enough to pay a RE commission to a broker to sell it![/quote]

That’s not how I see it.

He had 50% ownership of a $340k property and 50% responsibility for $330k of loans (of which $200k were unsecured). And he had 85k in contributions towards community property that he could get back when dividing property during divorce. Net value: $90k, assuming he does not intend to default on the unsecured note and bear the consequences.

When the dust settled, he had 100% ownership of the property, and 100% responsibility for the loans, and a stipulation from the ex-wife that he is in fact owed those 85k. Net value: $95k.

So, assuming that he didn’t sign away his right to 85k in MSA somehow, it’s not all bad.

[quote]The wording does not say mature, or mention a balloon payment date. Wording has to be specific. You can’t have the word “Balloon” and a date by it.[/quote]

I did some googling. This is a weird wording but it’s not dissimilar from some other balloon notes I found.

http://sec.edgar-online.com/ravenswood-winery-inc/sb-2-securities-registration-small-business/1999/02/04/section46.aspx

Any irregularities were probably normalized when this was converted into a deed of trust.

[Eugene]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=frenchlambda]The problem is that at the time of divorce, there was only $10K of equity in the house (appraised value: $340K; balance on the loans: $330K). In other words, pretty much my entire contribution to the down-payment disappeared in the loss of value of the property after 5 years.
All that I got was the right to keep the little of equity in the condo.[/quote]

In essence, what you did here was agree to pay back the $200K (half of which was your ex’s debt) for $10K in “equity.” This is not even enough to pay a RE commission to a broker to sell it![/quote]

That’s not how I see it.

He had 50% ownership of a $340k property and 50% responsibility for $330k of loans (of which $200k were unsecured). And he had 85k in contributions towards community property that he could get back when dividing property during divorce. Net value: $90k, assuming he does not intend to default on the unsecured note and bear the consequences.

When the dust settled, he had 100% ownership of the property, and 100% responsibility for the loans, and a stipulation from the ex-wife that he is in fact owed those 85k. Net value: $95k.

So, assuming that he didn’t sign away his right to 85k in MSA somehow, it’s not all bad.

[quote]The wording does not say mature, or mention a balloon payment date. Wording has to be specific. You can’t have the word “Balloon” and a date by it.[/quote]

I did some googling. This is a weird wording but it’s not dissimilar from some other balloon notes I found.

http://sec.edgar-online.com/ravenswood-winery-inc/sb-2-securities-registration-small-business/1999/02/04/section46.aspx

Any irregularities were probably normalized when this was converted into a deed of trust.

[Eugene]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=frenchlambda]The problem is that at the time of divorce, there was only $10K of equity in the house (appraised value: $340K; balance on the loans: $330K). In other words, pretty much my entire contribution to the down-payment disappeared in the loss of value of the property after 5 years.
All that I got was the right to keep the little of equity in the condo.[/quote]

In essence, what you did here was agree to pay back the $200K (half of which was your ex’s debt) for $10K in “equity.” This is not even enough to pay a RE commission to a broker to sell it![/quote]

That’s not how I see it.

He had 50% ownership of a $340k property and 50% responsibility for $330k of loans (of which $200k were unsecured). And he had 85k in contributions towards community property that he could get back when dividing property during divorce. Net value: $90k, assuming he does not intend to default on the unsecured note and bear the consequences.

When the dust settled, he had 100% ownership of the property, and 100% responsibility for the loans, and a stipulation from the ex-wife that he is in fact owed those 85k. Net value: $95k.

So, assuming that he didn’t sign away his right to 85k in MSA somehow, it’s not all bad.

[quote]The wording does not say mature, or mention a balloon payment date. Wording has to be specific. You can’t have the word “Balloon” and a date by it.[/quote]

I did some googling. This is a weird wording but it’s not dissimilar from some other balloon notes I found.

http://sec.edgar-online.com/ravenswood-winery-inc/sb-2-securities-registration-small-business/1999/02/04/section46.aspx

Any irregularities were probably normalized when this was converted into a deed of trust.

[Author]

Posts