[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Thanks ucodegen for taking the time to reply.

[quote=ucodegen]
This is where you screwed up. Did you have an attorney representing you at the time?
[/quote]
I did have a divorce/family law attorney. Regarding the loan with my ex-in-laws, he recommended hiring a separate real-estate attorney but I didn’t do so.

[quote=ucodegen]
From what I am seeing so far, the loan still looks open-ended though, so they aren’t really able to foreclose. The note was not callable as was written, unless you also signed something that changed the loan into something callable.
[/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.

Regarding the note not being callable, what about the following that is written on the note?
3 Sept 2011 after date with interest payable MONTHLY and continuing until said principal has been fully paid. Should interest not be paid when due, it shall thereafter bear the like interest as principal.

[quote=ucodegen]
Was the divorce proceedings done through court or arbitration? $13K sounds like court(but not drawn out).
[/quote]
The divorce proceedings were done though arbitration. We never went to court except to finalize the agreement on the very last day before it took effect.
$13K included the restraining order.

[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”.
The “stipulation and order” included a entitlement to a reimbursement in the community residence by virtue of the money I brought as a down-payment and that I had acquire outside the marriage.
I found the document and it states the following:

“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. The parties agree that the Court Stipulation and Order
shall reserve jurisdiction over Husband’s right to reimbursement for the remaining $16,697.08
subject to tracing.”

[frenchlambda]

Thanks ucodegen for taking the time to reply.

[quote=ucodegen]
This is where you screwed up. Did you have an attorney representing you at the time?
[/quote]
I did have a divorce/family law attorney. Regarding the loan with my ex-in-laws, he recommended hiring a separate real-estate attorney but I didn’t do so.

[quote=ucodegen]
From what I am seeing so far, the loan still looks open-ended though, so they aren’t really able to foreclose. The note was not callable as was written, unless you also signed something that changed the loan into something callable.
[/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.

Regarding the note not being callable, what about the following that is written on the note?
3 Sept 2011 after date with interest payable MONTHLY and continuing until said principal has been fully paid. Should interest not be paid when due, it shall thereafter bear the like interest as principal.

[quote=ucodegen]
Was the divorce proceedings done through court or arbitration? $13K sounds like court(but not drawn out).
[/quote]
The divorce proceedings were done though arbitration. We never went to court except to finalize the agreement on the very last day before it took effect.
$13K included the restraining order.

[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”.
The “stipulation and order” included a entitlement to a reimbursement in the community residence by virtue of the money I brought as a down-payment and that I had acquire outside the marriage.
I found the document and it states the following:

“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. The parties agree that the Court Stipulation and Order
shall reserve jurisdiction over Husband’s right to reimbursement for the remaining $16,697.08
subject to tracing.”

[frenchlambda]

Thanks ucodegen for taking the time to reply.

[quote=ucodegen]
This is where you screwed up. Did you have an attorney representing you at the time?
[/quote]
I did have a divorce/family law attorney. Regarding the loan with my ex-in-laws, he recommended hiring a separate real-estate attorney but I didn’t do so.

[quote=ucodegen]
From what I am seeing so far, the loan still looks open-ended though, so they aren’t really able to foreclose. The note was not callable as was written, unless you also signed something that changed the loan into something callable.
[/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.

Regarding the note not being callable, what about the following that is written on the note?
3 Sept 2011 after date with interest payable MONTHLY and continuing until said principal has been fully paid. Should interest not be paid when due, it shall thereafter bear the like interest as principal.

[quote=ucodegen]
Was the divorce proceedings done through court or arbitration? $13K sounds like court(but not drawn out).
[/quote]
The divorce proceedings were done though arbitration. We never went to court except to finalize the agreement on the very last day before it took effect.
$13K included the restraining order.

[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”.
The “stipulation and order” included a entitlement to a reimbursement in the community residence by virtue of the money I brought as a down-payment and that I had acquire outside the marriage.
I found the document and it states the following:

“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. The parties agree that the Court Stipulation and Order
shall reserve jurisdiction over Husband’s right to reimbursement for the remaining $16,697.08
subject to tracing.”

[frenchlambda]

Thanks ucodegen for taking the time to reply.

[quote=ucodegen]
This is where you screwed up. Did you have an attorney representing you at the time?
[/quote]
I did have a divorce/family law attorney. Regarding the loan with my ex-in-laws, he recommended hiring a separate real-estate attorney but I didn’t do so.

[quote=ucodegen]
From what I am seeing so far, the loan still looks open-ended though, so they aren’t really able to foreclose. The note was not callable as was written, unless you also signed something that changed the loan into something callable.
[/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.

Regarding the note not being callable, what about the following that is written on the note?
3 Sept 2011 after date with interest payable MONTHLY and continuing until said principal has been fully paid. Should interest not be paid when due, it shall thereafter bear the like interest as principal.

[quote=ucodegen]
Was the divorce proceedings done through court or arbitration? $13K sounds like court(but not drawn out).
[/quote]
The divorce proceedings were done though arbitration. We never went to court except to finalize the agreement on the very last day before it took effect.
$13K included the restraining order.

[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”.
The “stipulation and order” included a entitlement to a reimbursement in the community residence by virtue of the money I brought as a down-payment and that I had acquire outside the marriage.
I found the document and it states the following:

“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. The parties agree that the Court Stipulation and Order
shall reserve jurisdiction over Husband’s right to reimbursement for the remaining $16,697.08
subject to tracing.”

[frenchlambda]

Thanks ucodegen for taking the time to reply.

[quote=ucodegen]
This is where you screwed up. Did you have an attorney representing you at the time?
[/quote]
I did have a divorce/family law attorney. Regarding the loan with my ex-in-laws, he recommended hiring a separate real-estate attorney but I didn’t do so.

[quote=ucodegen]
From what I am seeing so far, the loan still looks open-ended though, so they aren’t really able to foreclose. The note was not callable as was written, unless you also signed something that changed the loan into something callable.
[/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.

Regarding the note not being callable, what about the following that is written on the note?
3 Sept 2011 after date with interest payable MONTHLY and continuing until said principal has been fully paid. Should interest not be paid when due, it shall thereafter bear the like interest as principal.

[quote=ucodegen]
Was the divorce proceedings done through court or arbitration? $13K sounds like court(but not drawn out).
[/quote]
The divorce proceedings were done though arbitration. We never went to court except to finalize the agreement on the very last day before it took effect.
$13K included the restraining order.

[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”.
The “stipulation and order” included a entitlement to a reimbursement in the community residence by virtue of the money I brought as a down-payment and that I had acquire outside the marriage.
I found the document and it states the following:

“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. The parties agree that the Court Stipulation and Order
shall reserve jurisdiction over Husband’s right to reimbursement for the remaining $16,697.08
subject to tracing.”

[frenchlambda]

[quote=bearishgurl]
In addition, your ex-wife’s presumed “child-endangerment” charge from being arrested while driving could have been used for your benefit in a child-custody proceeding … but you (prematurely) gave it away.
[/quote]

I am fully aware of that and I now regret my decision.
However at the time I made this decision, I didn’t have much choice, again for practical reason.
At this time, I was working in Orange County and commuting 80 miles each way daily.
There was no way I could be on time to pick up my daughter at daycare 5 days a week.
I had to work out a special schedule with my company so that I could take care of my daughter 3 days in the work week. But there was still 2 days out of the week where I had to leave for work at 5.30am and return home no sooner than 7.00pm.
As I mentioned before, I am a French expat and have no family here whatsoever which makes my job as a single father even more difficult.

[frenchlambda]

[quote=bearishgurl]
In addition, your ex-wife’s presumed “child-endangerment” charge from being arrested while driving could have been used for your benefit in a child-custody proceeding … but you (prematurely) gave it away.
[/quote]

I am fully aware of that and I now regret my decision.
However at the time I made this decision, I didn’t have much choice, again for practical reason.
At this time, I was working in Orange County and commuting 80 miles each way daily.
There was no way I could be on time to pick up my daughter at daycare 5 days a week.
I had to work out a special schedule with my company so that I could take care of my daughter 3 days in the work week. But there was still 2 days out of the week where I had to leave for work at 5.30am and return home no sooner than 7.00pm.
As I mentioned before, I am a French expat and have no family here whatsoever which makes my job as a single father even more difficult.

[frenchlambda]

[quote=bearishgurl]
In addition, your ex-wife’s presumed “child-endangerment” charge from being arrested while driving could have been used for your benefit in a child-custody proceeding … but you (prematurely) gave it away.
[/quote]

I am fully aware of that and I now regret my decision.
However at the time I made this decision, I didn’t have much choice, again for practical reason.
At this time, I was working in Orange County and commuting 80 miles each way daily.
There was no way I could be on time to pick up my daughter at daycare 5 days a week.
I had to work out a special schedule with my company so that I could take care of my daughter 3 days in the work week. But there was still 2 days out of the week where I had to leave for work at 5.30am and return home no sooner than 7.00pm.
As I mentioned before, I am a French expat and have no family here whatsoever which makes my job as a single father even more difficult.

[frenchlambda]

[quote=bearishgurl]
In addition, your ex-wife’s presumed “child-endangerment” charge from being arrested while driving could have been used for your benefit in a child-custody proceeding … but you (prematurely) gave it away.
[/quote]

I am fully aware of that and I now regret my decision.
However at the time I made this decision, I didn’t have much choice, again for practical reason.
At this time, I was working in Orange County and commuting 80 miles each way daily.
There was no way I could be on time to pick up my daughter at daycare 5 days a week.
I had to work out a special schedule with my company so that I could take care of my daughter 3 days in the work week. But there was still 2 days out of the week where I had to leave for work at 5.30am and return home no sooner than 7.00pm.
As I mentioned before, I am a French expat and have no family here whatsoever which makes my job as a single father even more difficult.

[frenchlambda]

[quote=bearishgurl]
In addition, your ex-wife’s presumed “child-endangerment” charge from being arrested while driving could have been used for your benefit in a child-custody proceeding … but you (prematurely) gave it away.
[/quote]

I am fully aware of that and I now regret my decision.
However at the time I made this decision, I didn’t have much choice, again for practical reason.
At this time, I was working in Orange County and commuting 80 miles each way daily.
There was no way I could be on time to pick up my daughter at daycare 5 days a week.
I had to work out a special schedule with my company so that I could take care of my daughter 3 days in the work week. But there was still 2 days out of the week where I had to leave for work at 5.30am and return home no sooner than 7.00pm.
As I mentioned before, I am a French expat and have no family here whatsoever which makes my job as a single father even more difficult.

[Author]

Posts