[ucodegen]

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

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

This may have the effect of negating your 2640 stipulation if the MSA was signed AFTER the stipulation. I would still want an atty to review it if I were you. I don’t think your ex is off the hook for the notes she signed with you, now both secured by (presumably) filed trust deeds.[/quote]
This is the type of wording I was worried about. It is a blanket statement. The problem is that the MSA transferred the assets in the term of property to him and section 18.B ( http://piggington.com/exinlaws_3rd_party_creditors_want_to_foreclosed_on_my_condo#comment-185278 ) had him remove her from liability. What is starting to irritate me is that his divorce attorney knew he signed over the trust deed to get the 85K reimbursement, and that same attorney allowed clause 22.A.4 to occur w/o including that “stipulation and order” to the list of items “specifically provided to the contrary”. This is why I mentioned never do anything outside of the MSA. The MSA can negate it. Attorneys often use boilerplate MSA and some don’t pay attention. ‘frenchlambda’ needs to see if the “stipulation and order” is explicitly included under items “specifically provided to the contrary” or that the 85K is called out as being reimbursed somewhere. –really shaking my head now.. I’m getting dizzy. :-Q…

Effectively it looks like he gave up the trust deed to get something that was immediately removed through the MSA. He really needs to go through the MSA with a fine tooth comb. Leverage is needed, badly. Section 18.B also made sure the parents were reimbursed, so there was no real need for the trust deed unless they intended to screw him over.

The only other thing right now, is the loan agreement and how it is worded and a real good attorney to see if the ‘stipulation order’ can still be enforced.
— and read documents thoroughly before signing.

[ucodegen]

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

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

This may have the effect of negating your 2640 stipulation if the MSA was signed AFTER the stipulation. I would still want an atty to review it if I were you. I don’t think your ex is off the hook for the notes she signed with you, now both secured by (presumably) filed trust deeds.[/quote]
This is the type of wording I was worried about. It is a blanket statement. The problem is that the MSA transferred the assets in the term of property to him and section 18.B ( http://piggington.com/exinlaws_3rd_party_creditors_want_to_foreclosed_on_my_condo#comment-185278 ) had him remove her from liability. What is starting to irritate me is that his divorce attorney knew he signed over the trust deed to get the 85K reimbursement, and that same attorney allowed clause 22.A.4 to occur w/o including that “stipulation and order” to the list of items “specifically provided to the contrary”. This is why I mentioned never do anything outside of the MSA. The MSA can negate it. Attorneys often use boilerplate MSA and some don’t pay attention. ‘frenchlambda’ needs to see if the “stipulation and order” is explicitly included under items “specifically provided to the contrary” or that the 85K is called out as being reimbursed somewhere. –really shaking my head now.. I’m getting dizzy. :-Q…

Effectively it looks like he gave up the trust deed to get something that was immediately removed through the MSA. He really needs to go through the MSA with a fine tooth comb. Leverage is needed, badly. Section 18.B also made sure the parents were reimbursed, so there was no real need for the trust deed unless they intended to screw him over.

The only other thing right now, is the loan agreement and how it is worded and a real good attorney to see if the ‘stipulation order’ can still be enforced.
— and read documents thoroughly before signing.

[ucodegen]

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

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

This may have the effect of negating your 2640 stipulation if the MSA was signed AFTER the stipulation. I would still want an atty to review it if I were you. I don’t think your ex is off the hook for the notes she signed with you, now both secured by (presumably) filed trust deeds.[/quote]
This is the type of wording I was worried about. It is a blanket statement. The problem is that the MSA transferred the assets in the term of property to him and section 18.B ( http://piggington.com/exinlaws_3rd_party_creditors_want_to_foreclosed_on_my_condo#comment-185278 ) had him remove her from liability. What is starting to irritate me is that his divorce attorney knew he signed over the trust deed to get the 85K reimbursement, and that same attorney allowed clause 22.A.4 to occur w/o including that “stipulation and order” to the list of items “specifically provided to the contrary”. This is why I mentioned never do anything outside of the MSA. The MSA can negate it. Attorneys often use boilerplate MSA and some don’t pay attention. ‘frenchlambda’ needs to see if the “stipulation and order” is explicitly included under items “specifically provided to the contrary” or that the 85K is called out as being reimbursed somewhere. –really shaking my head now.. I’m getting dizzy. :-Q…

Effectively it looks like he gave up the trust deed to get something that was immediately removed through the MSA. He really needs to go through the MSA with a fine tooth comb. Leverage is needed, badly. Section 18.B also made sure the parents were reimbursed, so there was no real need for the trust deed unless they intended to screw him over.

The only other thing right now, is the loan agreement and how it is worded and a real good attorney to see if the ‘stipulation order’ can still be enforced.
— and read documents thoroughly before signing.

[ucodegen]

[quote=waiting hawk]Not wanting to jack the thread but I must say there are some smart gals/guys on here. Really good read.[/quote]
We practice lawsuits, legal challenges, etc on each other. Drives the San Diego Judicial district nuts…

— just joking.

[ucodegen]

[quote=waiting hawk]Not wanting to jack the thread but I must say there are some smart gals/guys on here. Really good read.[/quote]
We practice lawsuits, legal challenges, etc on each other. Drives the San Diego Judicial district nuts…

— just joking.

[ucodegen]

[quote=waiting hawk]Not wanting to jack the thread but I must say there are some smart gals/guys on here. Really good read.[/quote]
We practice lawsuits, legal challenges, etc on each other. Drives the San Diego Judicial district nuts…

— just joking.

[ucodegen]

[quote=waiting hawk]Not wanting to jack the thread but I must say there are some smart gals/guys on here. Really good read.[/quote]
We practice lawsuits, legal challenges, etc on each other. Drives the San Diego Judicial district nuts…

— just joking.

[ucodegen]

[quote=waiting hawk]Not wanting to jack the thread but I must say there are some smart gals/guys on here. Really good read.[/quote]
We practice lawsuits, legal challenges, etc on each other. Drives the San Diego Judicial district nuts…

— just joking.

[ucodegen]

[quote bearishgurl]Agreed. uco, I like your anal-retentive style :=][/quote]
Thanks. I have learned to be scarily anal-retentive (I hope there are not any physical side effects). I am an EECE by trade and schooling, currently mostly software, but my relatives on the father side are all attorneys. My SO is a corporate paralegal… I AM SURROUNDED.

Currently, having been laid off, and then brought back ‘hourly’ or PTOC but doing full time hours. I have been toying with the idea of either getting the MBA or going the legal route. Some of the games I am seeing being played out there, are pushing me to the legal route. It is almost like a ‘self defense’ reaction.

I really think that “frenchlambda” needs to see a good attorney (not the attorney who did the divorce though).

[ucodegen]

[quote bearishgurl]Agreed. uco, I like your anal-retentive style :=][/quote]
Thanks. I have learned to be scarily anal-retentive (I hope there are not any physical side effects). I am an EECE by trade and schooling, currently mostly software, but my relatives on the father side are all attorneys. My SO is a corporate paralegal… I AM SURROUNDED.

Currently, having been laid off, and then brought back ‘hourly’ or PTOC but doing full time hours. I have been toying with the idea of either getting the MBA or going the legal route. Some of the games I am seeing being played out there, are pushing me to the legal route. It is almost like a ‘self defense’ reaction.

I really think that “frenchlambda” needs to see a good attorney (not the attorney who did the divorce though).

[ucodegen]

[quote bearishgurl]Agreed. uco, I like your anal-retentive style :=][/quote]
Thanks. I have learned to be scarily anal-retentive (I hope there are not any physical side effects). I am an EECE by trade and schooling, currently mostly software, but my relatives on the father side are all attorneys. My SO is a corporate paralegal… I AM SURROUNDED.

Currently, having been laid off, and then brought back ‘hourly’ or PTOC but doing full time hours. I have been toying with the idea of either getting the MBA or going the legal route. Some of the games I am seeing being played out there, are pushing me to the legal route. It is almost like a ‘self defense’ reaction.

I really think that “frenchlambda” needs to see a good attorney (not the attorney who did the divorce though).

[ucodegen]

[quote bearishgurl]Agreed. uco, I like your anal-retentive style :=][/quote]
Thanks. I have learned to be scarily anal-retentive (I hope there are not any physical side effects). I am an EECE by trade and schooling, currently mostly software, but my relatives on the father side are all attorneys. My SO is a corporate paralegal… I AM SURROUNDED.

Currently, having been laid off, and then brought back ‘hourly’ or PTOC but doing full time hours. I have been toying with the idea of either getting the MBA or going the legal route. Some of the games I am seeing being played out there, are pushing me to the legal route. It is almost like a ‘self defense’ reaction.

I really think that “frenchlambda” needs to see a good attorney (not the attorney who did the divorce though).

[ucodegen]

[quote bearishgurl]Agreed. uco, I like your anal-retentive style :=][/quote]
Thanks. I have learned to be scarily anal-retentive (I hope there are not any physical side effects). I am an EECE by trade and schooling, currently mostly software, but my relatives on the father side are all attorneys. My SO is a corporate paralegal… I AM SURROUNDED.

Currently, having been laid off, and then brought back ‘hourly’ or PTOC but doing full time hours. I have been toying with the idea of either getting the MBA or going the legal route. Some of the games I am seeing being played out there, are pushing me to the legal route. It is almost like a ‘self defense’ reaction.

I really think that “frenchlambda” needs to see a good attorney (not the attorney who did the divorce though).

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]My initial goal for starting this thread was to understand if my ex-in-laws have a legal right to proceed with foreclosing while I STILL make payments to them (as well as the first lender) EVERY MONTH.[/quote]
This is why the details are important. There isn’t a state or federal law that will specifically prevents your inlaws from doing this. It depends upon how the agreements were worded. Your being current and the note not being callable except in default indicates that they can’t foreclose. The specific wording of the loan seems to be odd. There is also a requirement for you to refi, making it possible that you would be in breach of that portion of the MSA. That still doesn’t mean that they could foreclose. The consequences of not refi’ing are not spelled out from the section of the MSA we saw.

I don’t know if there is a French equivalent to the following:

The Devil is in the details.

That said, there are other ways to ‘counter’ the foreclosure if it is legal. This was the other aspect that was being covered with respect to the 85K. When dealing with items like this, you don’t only look at one thing. What you may loose with your left hand, you might be able to gain with your right (provided you don’t forget that you have a right hand available).

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]My initial goal for starting this thread was to understand if my ex-in-laws have a legal right to proceed with foreclosing while I STILL make payments to them (as well as the first lender) EVERY MONTH.[/quote]
This is why the details are important. There isn’t a state or federal law that will specifically prevents your inlaws from doing this. It depends upon how the agreements were worded. Your being current and the note not being callable except in default indicates that they can’t foreclose. The specific wording of the loan seems to be odd. There is also a requirement for you to refi, making it possible that you would be in breach of that portion of the MSA. That still doesn’t mean that they could foreclose. The consequences of not refi’ing are not spelled out from the section of the MSA we saw.

I don’t know if there is a French equivalent to the following:

The Devil is in the details.

That said, there are other ways to ‘counter’ the foreclosure if it is legal. This was the other aspect that was being covered with respect to the 85K. When dealing with items like this, you don’t only look at one thing. What you may loose with your left hand, you might be able to gain with your right (provided you don’t forget that you have a right hand available).

[Author]

Posts