[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 And, in any case, it may have been / should have been superseded by the deed of trust.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.

[Eugene]

[quote=frenchlambda]
Here is exactly what the marital settlement agreement says:

18. COMMUNITY RESIDENCE
A. Husband shall be awarded, without offset, his separate, Wife’s separate and the community’s interest in the residence located at (address), subject to any and all encumbrances, including but not limited to the interest held by (ex-wife’s parents).
B. Within 60 days of the effective date of this agreement, Husband shall refinance property so that Wife is no longer liable for any debt associated with the residence. Wife shall cooperate with the refinance process, signing any documents necessary, or convenient, to facilitate the refinance. If Husband is unable to extinguish all loans through the refinance, he shall be solely responsible for the debts associated with the residence. Husband shall indemnify Wife, and hold Wife harmless, against any action brought for enforcement by any and all creditors claiming an interest in the residence. Husband will assure that (ex-wife’s parents) are paid in full pursuant the terms established between Husband and the (ex-wife’s parents).
[/quote]

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.

[Eugene]

[quote=frenchlambda]
Here is exactly what the marital settlement agreement says:

18. COMMUNITY RESIDENCE
A. Husband shall be awarded, without offset, his separate, Wife’s separate and the community’s interest in the residence located at (address), subject to any and all encumbrances, including but not limited to the interest held by (ex-wife’s parents).
B. Within 60 days of the effective date of this agreement, Husband shall refinance property so that Wife is no longer liable for any debt associated with the residence. Wife shall cooperate with the refinance process, signing any documents necessary, or convenient, to facilitate the refinance. If Husband is unable to extinguish all loans through the refinance, he shall be solely responsible for the debts associated with the residence. Husband shall indemnify Wife, and hold Wife harmless, against any action brought for enforcement by any and all creditors claiming an interest in the residence. Husband will assure that (ex-wife’s parents) are paid in full pursuant the terms established between Husband and the (ex-wife’s parents).
[/quote]

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.

[Eugene]

[quote=frenchlambda]
Here is exactly what the marital settlement agreement says:

18. COMMUNITY RESIDENCE
A. Husband shall be awarded, without offset, his separate, Wife’s separate and the community’s interest in the residence located at (address), subject to any and all encumbrances, including but not limited to the interest held by (ex-wife’s parents).
B. Within 60 days of the effective date of this agreement, Husband shall refinance property so that Wife is no longer liable for any debt associated with the residence. Wife shall cooperate with the refinance process, signing any documents necessary, or convenient, to facilitate the refinance. If Husband is unable to extinguish all loans through the refinance, he shall be solely responsible for the debts associated with the residence. Husband shall indemnify Wife, and hold Wife harmless, against any action brought for enforcement by any and all creditors claiming an interest in the residence. Husband will assure that (ex-wife’s parents) are paid in full pursuant the terms established between Husband and the (ex-wife’s parents).
[/quote]

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.

[Eugene]

[quote=frenchlambda]
Here is exactly what the marital settlement agreement says:

18. COMMUNITY RESIDENCE
A. Husband shall be awarded, without offset, his separate, Wife’s separate and the community’s interest in the residence located at (address), subject to any and all encumbrances, including but not limited to the interest held by (ex-wife’s parents).
B. Within 60 days of the effective date of this agreement, Husband shall refinance property so that Wife is no longer liable for any debt associated with the residence. Wife shall cooperate with the refinance process, signing any documents necessary, or convenient, to facilitate the refinance. If Husband is unable to extinguish all loans through the refinance, he shall be solely responsible for the debts associated with the residence. Husband shall indemnify Wife, and hold Wife harmless, against any action brought for enforcement by any and all creditors claiming an interest in the residence. Husband will assure that (ex-wife’s parents) are paid in full pursuant the terms established between Husband and the (ex-wife’s parents).
[/quote]

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.

[Eugene]

[quote=frenchlambda]
Here is exactly what the marital settlement agreement says:

18. COMMUNITY RESIDENCE
A. Husband shall be awarded, without offset, his separate, Wife’s separate and the community’s interest in the residence located at (address), subject to any and all encumbrances, including but not limited to the interest held by (ex-wife’s parents).
B. Within 60 days of the effective date of this agreement, Husband shall refinance property so that Wife is no longer liable for any debt associated with the residence. Wife shall cooperate with the refinance process, signing any documents necessary, or convenient, to facilitate the refinance. If Husband is unable to extinguish all loans through the refinance, he shall be solely responsible for the debts associated with the residence. Husband shall indemnify Wife, and hold Wife harmless, against any action brought for enforcement by any and all creditors claiming an interest in the residence. Husband will assure that (ex-wife’s parents) are paid in full pursuant the terms established between Husband and the (ex-wife’s parents).
[/quote]

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.

[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.

[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