[ucodegen]

67 years old. Did you not have a retirement plan? Was she that bad of a mom that the kids don’t want to help her? She has no other family, brother, sister, aunt? Can’t she worse case, move to Phoenix and work at a Starbucks for $10 an hour. Again – poor choices.

Its kind of strange, I have some familiarity with people who end up going this way. My father used and/or screwed over anyone who was associated with him or tried to help him. After a while, people just stayed away. He was never there for the kids. He quit a well paying job to do stock speculating. Because of the noise of the kids, he insisted on buying another house. He did not do that well at investing, but insisted on continuing (and not going back to the 9 to 5, in spite of responsibilities of a family). He didn’t want anyone to be his boss. My mom ended up carrying the cost of the first house and part of the second.. which she later found out he was using as a love-nest.. in a shit hits the fan moment.

In the divorce, he basically got both houses because my mom wanted her income and retirement to be free and clear of him. She took the kids and raised them. The end result was that my mom prospered and he sort of floated along, alienating everyone who tried to help. He also ended up with very little money to his name.

Moral of this is that when you seem something like what has happened to that 67 year old woman, it is probably Karma doing its payback. Another thing to realize is that one bad decision doesn’t take someone and put them on the street like this. It takes a succession of decisions, their consequences and not learning from them.

PS: 67 is old enough to draw Social Security…

@bsrsharma
I am weak on family law; does the law not provide for alimony for someone in her situation, especially if her ex-spouse is well off? If she spent her life as a homemaker, she deserves that in any sane society.

Alimony, not necessarily.. BUT she gets half of all assets in most community property states. After the divorce, the two are essentially separate individuals. It is tricky to go back and have additional monies levied because one of the two made a series of bad decisions after the divorce. In many ways, you don’t even want to open the door to that. It would also open the door to being sued for support because someone you once dated and lived with is now having financial problems. NOTE: she could have been one of those women who divorced the husband and took him to the cleaners. People saw what she was doing and it left a bad taste.

There are so many variables.. but I do know that in general, if you do good to others, it comes back to you in times of need (Karma).

[ucodegen]

67 years old. Did you not have a retirement plan? Was she that bad of a mom that the kids don’t want to help her? She has no other family, brother, sister, aunt? Can’t she worse case, move to Phoenix and work at a Starbucks for $10 an hour. Again – poor choices.

Its kind of strange, I have some familiarity with people who end up going this way. My father used and/or screwed over anyone who was associated with him or tried to help him. After a while, people just stayed away. He was never there for the kids. He quit a well paying job to do stock speculating. Because of the noise of the kids, he insisted on buying another house. He did not do that well at investing, but insisted on continuing (and not going back to the 9 to 5, in spite of responsibilities of a family). He didn’t want anyone to be his boss. My mom ended up carrying the cost of the first house and part of the second.. which she later found out he was using as a love-nest.. in a shit hits the fan moment.

In the divorce, he basically got both houses because my mom wanted her income and retirement to be free and clear of him. She took the kids and raised them. The end result was that my mom prospered and he sort of floated along, alienating everyone who tried to help. He also ended up with very little money to his name.

Moral of this is that when you seem something like what has happened to that 67 year old woman, it is probably Karma doing its payback. Another thing to realize is that one bad decision doesn’t take someone and put them on the street like this. It takes a succession of decisions, their consequences and not learning from them.

PS: 67 is old enough to draw Social Security…

@bsrsharma
I am weak on family law; does the law not provide for alimony for someone in her situation, especially if her ex-spouse is well off? If she spent her life as a homemaker, she deserves that in any sane society.

Alimony, not necessarily.. BUT she gets half of all assets in most community property states. After the divorce, the two are essentially separate individuals. It is tricky to go back and have additional monies levied because one of the two made a series of bad decisions after the divorce. In many ways, you don’t even want to open the door to that. It would also open the door to being sued for support because someone you once dated and lived with is now having financial problems. NOTE: she could have been one of those women who divorced the husband and took him to the cleaners. People saw what she was doing and it left a bad taste.

There are so many variables.. but I do know that in general, if you do good to others, it comes back to you in times of need (Karma).

[ucodegen]

67 years old. Did you not have a retirement plan? Was she that bad of a mom that the kids don’t want to help her? She has no other family, brother, sister, aunt? Can’t she worse case, move to Phoenix and work at a Starbucks for $10 an hour. Again – poor choices.

Its kind of strange, I have some familiarity with people who end up going this way. My father used and/or screwed over anyone who was associated with him or tried to help him. After a while, people just stayed away. He was never there for the kids. He quit a well paying job to do stock speculating. Because of the noise of the kids, he insisted on buying another house. He did not do that well at investing, but insisted on continuing (and not going back to the 9 to 5, in spite of responsibilities of a family). He didn’t want anyone to be his boss. My mom ended up carrying the cost of the first house and part of the second.. which she later found out he was using as a love-nest.. in a shit hits the fan moment.

In the divorce, he basically got both houses because my mom wanted her income and retirement to be free and clear of him. She took the kids and raised them. The end result was that my mom prospered and he sort of floated along, alienating everyone who tried to help. He also ended up with very little money to his name.

Moral of this is that when you seem something like what has happened to that 67 year old woman, it is probably Karma doing its payback. Another thing to realize is that one bad decision doesn’t take someone and put them on the street like this. It takes a succession of decisions, their consequences and not learning from them.

PS: 67 is old enough to draw Social Security…

@bsrsharma
I am weak on family law; does the law not provide for alimony for someone in her situation, especially if her ex-spouse is well off? If she spent her life as a homemaker, she deserves that in any sane society.

Alimony, not necessarily.. BUT she gets half of all assets in most community property states. After the divorce, the two are essentially separate individuals. It is tricky to go back and have additional monies levied because one of the two made a series of bad decisions after the divorce. In many ways, you don’t even want to open the door to that. It would also open the door to being sued for support because someone you once dated and lived with is now having financial problems. NOTE: she could have been one of those women who divorced the husband and took him to the cleaners. People saw what she was doing and it left a bad taste.

There are so many variables.. but I do know that in general, if you do good to others, it comes back to you in times of need (Karma).

[ucodegen]

This graph is nice to know in Jan 2007, but I have a feeling a lot of people who area already underwater and will give up anyways when time comes, will stop paying much earlier than their reset date.

I think what he is trying to hint at is the second ‘bulge’ of resets on neg-ams/option-arms that will be happening starting 2009. People are underwater on these, but they can make the current payment which is probably less than renting. They have the walk&rent vs. pay into the sinkhole and hope for a congressional bailout of underwater buyers syndrome. We are at line 17 in that graph right now.. but the peak foreclosure sales from NOD/NOTs have not yet made it through the system.. factor in close to 9 months for such a thing to occur. That means we are looking at the results of resets from line number 8 and earlier right now.

In reply to “schizo2buyORnot”, the data is badly structured, though the graphs are pretty. We have already covered that ‘median’ or any raw priced based comparison is meaningless. For the real comparison, you want something closer to price per square foot.. If you look at the graphs, we already know that the drops in price per square foot are more significant than the drop shown in your graphs. Effectively, people are paying a little bit less, but getting a lot more of a house at the same time.

One thing to realize about inventory, is that as inventory is taken down, so are the number of available and qualified home buyers (they bought their house, don’t need to buy another). This is part of why the sales numbers are not so great. The other problem with the inventory numbers is that the numbers may be skewed by “hidden” inventory making its way through the NOD/NOT/REO process. Some of the inventory may have been people trying to get out from under with a sale, but are now getting foreclosed upon. Because banks were slow on short-sales, many of those listed were probably not true short-sales (short was not approved by the bank/lienholder).

[ucodegen]

This graph is nice to know in Jan 2007, but I have a feeling a lot of people who area already underwater and will give up anyways when time comes, will stop paying much earlier than their reset date.

I think what he is trying to hint at is the second ‘bulge’ of resets on neg-ams/option-arms that will be happening starting 2009. People are underwater on these, but they can make the current payment which is probably less than renting. They have the walk&rent vs. pay into the sinkhole and hope for a congressional bailout of underwater buyers syndrome. We are at line 17 in that graph right now.. but the peak foreclosure sales from NOD/NOTs have not yet made it through the system.. factor in close to 9 months for such a thing to occur. That means we are looking at the results of resets from line number 8 and earlier right now.

In reply to “schizo2buyORnot”, the data is badly structured, though the graphs are pretty. We have already covered that ‘median’ or any raw priced based comparison is meaningless. For the real comparison, you want something closer to price per square foot.. If you look at the graphs, we already know that the drops in price per square foot are more significant than the drop shown in your graphs. Effectively, people are paying a little bit less, but getting a lot more of a house at the same time.

One thing to realize about inventory, is that as inventory is taken down, so are the number of available and qualified home buyers (they bought their house, don’t need to buy another). This is part of why the sales numbers are not so great. The other problem with the inventory numbers is that the numbers may be skewed by “hidden” inventory making its way through the NOD/NOT/REO process. Some of the inventory may have been people trying to get out from under with a sale, but are now getting foreclosed upon. Because banks were slow on short-sales, many of those listed were probably not true short-sales (short was not approved by the bank/lienholder).

[ucodegen]

This graph is nice to know in Jan 2007, but I have a feeling a lot of people who area already underwater and will give up anyways when time comes, will stop paying much earlier than their reset date.

I think what he is trying to hint at is the second ‘bulge’ of resets on neg-ams/option-arms that will be happening starting 2009. People are underwater on these, but they can make the current payment which is probably less than renting. They have the walk&rent vs. pay into the sinkhole and hope for a congressional bailout of underwater buyers syndrome. We are at line 17 in that graph right now.. but the peak foreclosure sales from NOD/NOTs have not yet made it through the system.. factor in close to 9 months for such a thing to occur. That means we are looking at the results of resets from line number 8 and earlier right now.

In reply to “schizo2buyORnot”, the data is badly structured, though the graphs are pretty. We have already covered that ‘median’ or any raw priced based comparison is meaningless. For the real comparison, you want something closer to price per square foot.. If you look at the graphs, we already know that the drops in price per square foot are more significant than the drop shown in your graphs. Effectively, people are paying a little bit less, but getting a lot more of a house at the same time.

One thing to realize about inventory, is that as inventory is taken down, so are the number of available and qualified home buyers (they bought their house, don’t need to buy another). This is part of why the sales numbers are not so great. The other problem with the inventory numbers is that the numbers may be skewed by “hidden” inventory making its way through the NOD/NOT/REO process. Some of the inventory may have been people trying to get out from under with a sale, but are now getting foreclosed upon. Because banks were slow on short-sales, many of those listed were probably not true short-sales (short was not approved by the bank/lienholder).

[ucodegen]

This graph is nice to know in Jan 2007, but I have a feeling a lot of people who area already underwater and will give up anyways when time comes, will stop paying much earlier than their reset date.

I think what he is trying to hint at is the second ‘bulge’ of resets on neg-ams/option-arms that will be happening starting 2009. People are underwater on these, but they can make the current payment which is probably less than renting. They have the walk&rent vs. pay into the sinkhole and hope for a congressional bailout of underwater buyers syndrome. We are at line 17 in that graph right now.. but the peak foreclosure sales from NOD/NOTs have not yet made it through the system.. factor in close to 9 months for such a thing to occur. That means we are looking at the results of resets from line number 8 and earlier right now.

In reply to “schizo2buyORnot”, the data is badly structured, though the graphs are pretty. We have already covered that ‘median’ or any raw priced based comparison is meaningless. For the real comparison, you want something closer to price per square foot.. If you look at the graphs, we already know that the drops in price per square foot are more significant than the drop shown in your graphs. Effectively, people are paying a little bit less, but getting a lot more of a house at the same time.

One thing to realize about inventory, is that as inventory is taken down, so are the number of available and qualified home buyers (they bought their house, don’t need to buy another). This is part of why the sales numbers are not so great. The other problem with the inventory numbers is that the numbers may be skewed by “hidden” inventory making its way through the NOD/NOT/REO process. Some of the inventory may have been people trying to get out from under with a sale, but are now getting foreclosed upon. Because banks were slow on short-sales, many of those listed were probably not true short-sales (short was not approved by the bank/lienholder).

[ucodegen]

This graph is nice to know in Jan 2007, but I have a feeling a lot of people who area already underwater and will give up anyways when time comes, will stop paying much earlier than their reset date.

I think what he is trying to hint at is the second ‘bulge’ of resets on neg-ams/option-arms that will be happening starting 2009. People are underwater on these, but they can make the current payment which is probably less than renting. They have the walk&rent vs. pay into the sinkhole and hope for a congressional bailout of underwater buyers syndrome. We are at line 17 in that graph right now.. but the peak foreclosure sales from NOD/NOTs have not yet made it through the system.. factor in close to 9 months for such a thing to occur. That means we are looking at the results of resets from line number 8 and earlier right now.

In reply to “schizo2buyORnot”, the data is badly structured, though the graphs are pretty. We have already covered that ‘median’ or any raw priced based comparison is meaningless. For the real comparison, you want something closer to price per square foot.. If you look at the graphs, we already know that the drops in price per square foot are more significant than the drop shown in your graphs. Effectively, people are paying a little bit less, but getting a lot more of a house at the same time.

One thing to realize about inventory, is that as inventory is taken down, so are the number of available and qualified home buyers (they bought their house, don’t need to buy another). This is part of why the sales numbers are not so great. The other problem with the inventory numbers is that the numbers may be skewed by “hidden” inventory making its way through the NOD/NOT/REO process. Some of the inventory may have been people trying to get out from under with a sale, but are now getting foreclosed upon. Because banks were slow on short-sales, many of those listed were probably not true short-sales (short was not approved by the bank/lienholder).

[ucodegen]

I would second “fat_lazy_union_…” statement that you really shouldn’t ever try to get serious legal advice on a blog.” That being said, I am going to wade in for a little.

First: Investing in an house for your mom will not offset some of the amount your sister’s husband would get in separation. The assets used to purchase or as part of the purchase are considered assets owned in common in a marriage. That means he will get ‘consideration’ for the amount used in that purchase. This could me a greater share of your sister’s pediatric dental practice.

I assume that your sister wants to get free and clear of her soon to be ex-husband, in particular when it comes to financial dealings. If not, I would recommend trying to separate the businesses as much as possible, so that she retains her business wholly. I am assuming that both businesses are operated as a separate registered legal entity, and that both businesses were formed when they were married. If it is, and they were, his using the HELOC from the house to meet payroll could be a legal issue (blurring the separation be entities)… might be useful.

My suggestion would be to treat the separation/divorce as a separation of businesses. Considering that hers is doing better and is probably valued more than his business, she should expect to have to sacrifice something else to maintain sole ownership (which she should try to do). First establish a value on both businesses by themselves (do not consider any loans/HELOCs etc at this point). You can’t get into his missed opportunities at this point either because that can become a go-nowhere situation. Once the respective values are established, the $55K loan from the sister’s business should be shown as a value owed the sister’s business from the husbands business. This may help offset the greater valuation of the sister’s business. Likewise deal with the HELOC being used to meet his payroll. That money is owed back to the marriage by the business. It may help to also offset the greater valuation of her business. The sister may have to eat the $55k owed her business and her portion of the HELOC that he took out, in order to preserve her sole ownership of her pediatric dental practice upon divorce. She may also have to sacrifice part of other shared assets, to preserve the sole ownership, but I would recommend that she strive to maintain the sole ownership. Having shared ownership in a business with someone who sounds as financially irresponsible as he, is not a very pleasant experience. This is where the missed opportunities on his side etc can be used to justify why she wants sole ownership of the business she created.

[ucodegen]

I would second “fat_lazy_union_…” statement that you really shouldn’t ever try to get serious legal advice on a blog.” That being said, I am going to wade in for a little.

First: Investing in an house for your mom will not offset some of the amount your sister’s husband would get in separation. The assets used to purchase or as part of the purchase are considered assets owned in common in a marriage. That means he will get ‘consideration’ for the amount used in that purchase. This could me a greater share of your sister’s pediatric dental practice.

I assume that your sister wants to get free and clear of her soon to be ex-husband, in particular when it comes to financial dealings. If not, I would recommend trying to separate the businesses as much as possible, so that she retains her business wholly. I am assuming that both businesses are operated as a separate registered legal entity, and that both businesses were formed when they were married. If it is, and they were, his using the HELOC from the house to meet payroll could be a legal issue (blurring the separation be entities)… might be useful.

My suggestion would be to treat the separation/divorce as a separation of businesses. Considering that hers is doing better and is probably valued more than his business, she should expect to have to sacrifice something else to maintain sole ownership (which she should try to do). First establish a value on both businesses by themselves (do not consider any loans/HELOCs etc at this point). You can’t get into his missed opportunities at this point either because that can become a go-nowhere situation. Once the respective values are established, the $55K loan from the sister’s business should be shown as a value owed the sister’s business from the husbands business. This may help offset the greater valuation of the sister’s business. Likewise deal with the HELOC being used to meet his payroll. That money is owed back to the marriage by the business. It may help to also offset the greater valuation of her business. The sister may have to eat the $55k owed her business and her portion of the HELOC that he took out, in order to preserve her sole ownership of her pediatric dental practice upon divorce. She may also have to sacrifice part of other shared assets, to preserve the sole ownership, but I would recommend that she strive to maintain the sole ownership. Having shared ownership in a business with someone who sounds as financially irresponsible as he, is not a very pleasant experience. This is where the missed opportunities on his side etc can be used to justify why she wants sole ownership of the business she created.

[ucodegen]

I would second “fat_lazy_union_…” statement that you really shouldn’t ever try to get serious legal advice on a blog.” That being said, I am going to wade in for a little.

First: Investing in an house for your mom will not offset some of the amount your sister’s husband would get in separation. The assets used to purchase or as part of the purchase are considered assets owned in common in a marriage. That means he will get ‘consideration’ for the amount used in that purchase. This could me a greater share of your sister’s pediatric dental practice.

I assume that your sister wants to get free and clear of her soon to be ex-husband, in particular when it comes to financial dealings. If not, I would recommend trying to separate the businesses as much as possible, so that she retains her business wholly. I am assuming that both businesses are operated as a separate registered legal entity, and that both businesses were formed when they were married. If it is, and they were, his using the HELOC from the house to meet payroll could be a legal issue (blurring the separation be entities)… might be useful.

My suggestion would be to treat the separation/divorce as a separation of businesses. Considering that hers is doing better and is probably valued more than his business, she should expect to have to sacrifice something else to maintain sole ownership (which she should try to do). First establish a value on both businesses by themselves (do not consider any loans/HELOCs etc at this point). You can’t get into his missed opportunities at this point either because that can become a go-nowhere situation. Once the respective values are established, the $55K loan from the sister’s business should be shown as a value owed the sister’s business from the husbands business. This may help offset the greater valuation of the sister’s business. Likewise deal with the HELOC being used to meet his payroll. That money is owed back to the marriage by the business. It may help to also offset the greater valuation of her business. The sister may have to eat the $55k owed her business and her portion of the HELOC that he took out, in order to preserve her sole ownership of her pediatric dental practice upon divorce. She may also have to sacrifice part of other shared assets, to preserve the sole ownership, but I would recommend that she strive to maintain the sole ownership. Having shared ownership in a business with someone who sounds as financially irresponsible as he, is not a very pleasant experience. This is where the missed opportunities on his side etc can be used to justify why she wants sole ownership of the business she created.

[ucodegen]

I would second “fat_lazy_union_…” statement that you really shouldn’t ever try to get serious legal advice on a blog.” That being said, I am going to wade in for a little.

First: Investing in an house for your mom will not offset some of the amount your sister’s husband would get in separation. The assets used to purchase or as part of the purchase are considered assets owned in common in a marriage. That means he will get ‘consideration’ for the amount used in that purchase. This could me a greater share of your sister’s pediatric dental practice.

I assume that your sister wants to get free and clear of her soon to be ex-husband, in particular when it comes to financial dealings. If not, I would recommend trying to separate the businesses as much as possible, so that she retains her business wholly. I am assuming that both businesses are operated as a separate registered legal entity, and that both businesses were formed when they were married. If it is, and they were, his using the HELOC from the house to meet payroll could be a legal issue (blurring the separation be entities)… might be useful.

My suggestion would be to treat the separation/divorce as a separation of businesses. Considering that hers is doing better and is probably valued more than his business, she should expect to have to sacrifice something else to maintain sole ownership (which she should try to do). First establish a value on both businesses by themselves (do not consider any loans/HELOCs etc at this point). You can’t get into his missed opportunities at this point either because that can become a go-nowhere situation. Once the respective values are established, the $55K loan from the sister’s business should be shown as a value owed the sister’s business from the husbands business. This may help offset the greater valuation of the sister’s business. Likewise deal with the HELOC being used to meet his payroll. That money is owed back to the marriage by the business. It may help to also offset the greater valuation of her business. The sister may have to eat the $55k owed her business and her portion of the HELOC that he took out, in order to preserve her sole ownership of her pediatric dental practice upon divorce. She may also have to sacrifice part of other shared assets, to preserve the sole ownership, but I would recommend that she strive to maintain the sole ownership. Having shared ownership in a business with someone who sounds as financially irresponsible as he, is not a very pleasant experience. This is where the missed opportunities on his side etc can be used to justify why she wants sole ownership of the business she created.

[ucodegen]

I would second “fat_lazy_union_…” statement that you really shouldn’t ever try to get serious legal advice on a blog.” That being said, I am going to wade in for a little.

First: Investing in an house for your mom will not offset some of the amount your sister’s husband would get in separation. The assets used to purchase or as part of the purchase are considered assets owned in common in a marriage. That means he will get ‘consideration’ for the amount used in that purchase. This could me a greater share of your sister’s pediatric dental practice.

I assume that your sister wants to get free and clear of her soon to be ex-husband, in particular when it comes to financial dealings. If not, I would recommend trying to separate the businesses as much as possible, so that she retains her business wholly. I am assuming that both businesses are operated as a separate registered legal entity, and that both businesses were formed when they were married. If it is, and they were, his using the HELOC from the house to meet payroll could be a legal issue (blurring the separation be entities)… might be useful.

My suggestion would be to treat the separation/divorce as a separation of businesses. Considering that hers is doing better and is probably valued more than his business, she should expect to have to sacrifice something else to maintain sole ownership (which she should try to do). First establish a value on both businesses by themselves (do not consider any loans/HELOCs etc at this point). You can’t get into his missed opportunities at this point either because that can become a go-nowhere situation. Once the respective values are established, the $55K loan from the sister’s business should be shown as a value owed the sister’s business from the husbands business. This may help offset the greater valuation of the sister’s business. Likewise deal with the HELOC being used to meet his payroll. That money is owed back to the marriage by the business. It may help to also offset the greater valuation of her business. The sister may have to eat the $55k owed her business and her portion of the HELOC that he took out, in order to preserve her sole ownership of her pediatric dental practice upon divorce. She may also have to sacrifice part of other shared assets, to preserve the sole ownership, but I would recommend that she strive to maintain the sole ownership. Having shared ownership in a business with someone who sounds as financially irresponsible as he, is not a very pleasant experience. This is where the missed opportunities on his side etc can be used to justify why she wants sole ownership of the business she created.

[ucodegen]

The statement:
Amortization is simply the fact that you are paying down the loan principal, not the type of interest calculation used (as opposed to, for instance, an interest only loan where you only pay interest, without reducing the principal for a number of years).

is correct. There are different ways of doing the calculations. One way would be to pay a fixed % of the principle each month and all interest on principle for 1 one month period. The problem with this is that payments will be highest at the beginning of the mortgage and would drop over time.

Most people’s wages increase over time (not decrease, and maybe not increase in real terms but the same inflation that kills your salary reduces the dollar value of the balance on the mortgage). The other approach, and more common (ie. standard fixed rate amortizing loan), is to calculate a constant monthly payment that would pay off the mortgage by the end of the term and cover any accrued interest on remaining balance over the life of the mortgage. The calculations to figure this out are a little more involved. I can put the formula up (though there are also mortgage calculators that do the same thing)

[ucodegen]

The statement:
Amortization is simply the fact that you are paying down the loan principal, not the type of interest calculation used (as opposed to, for instance, an interest only loan where you only pay interest, without reducing the principal for a number of years).

is correct. There are different ways of doing the calculations. One way would be to pay a fixed % of the principle each month and all interest on principle for 1 one month period. The problem with this is that payments will be highest at the beginning of the mortgage and would drop over time.

Most people’s wages increase over time (not decrease, and maybe not increase in real terms but the same inflation that kills your salary reduces the dollar value of the balance on the mortgage). The other approach, and more common (ie. standard fixed rate amortizing loan), is to calculate a constant monthly payment that would pay off the mortgage by the end of the term and cover any accrued interest on remaining balance over the life of the mortgage. The calculations to figure this out are a little more involved. I can put the formula up (though there are also mortgage calculators that do the same thing)

[Author]

Posts