[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).

[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]It is actually a little more complex.
The purchase price of the condo including closing costs was about $490k.
We took a $145k loan with BofA, $200k with in-laws and $145k down payment.
The down-payment amount was “assembled” as follow:
– $85k came from me as pre-marriage money
– $60k came from our joint saving account
So theoretically I put $115k down and she put $30k
[/quote]
The math is basically the same, but the results would be more in your favor:
assets = $490K(in property, form of condo)
liability = $30K(wife’s pre-marriage contrib) + $115K(husband’s pre-marriage contrib) + $200K(from inlaws) + $145K(bank loan)
Property drops to $340K in value, shared loss is $150K. Because condo is community property – loss is shared equally 50/50 at $75K each. Balancing against pre-marital assets gives the wife $30K – $75K or a net negative $45K and the husband $115K – $75K or positive $40K.
[quote frenchlambda][quote ucodegen]There is an interesting quirk in the “stipulation and order” in that you may still have a right to have the $85K reimbursed.
The way it was written does not tie it to the value of the property(condo),[/quote]Sure the way it was written does not tie it the property. But when tracing this money, it becomes obvious that it was. [/quote]
The ‘tracing’ requirement is only on the remaining 16K or so. No such requirement on 85K for “stipulation and order”. This is why wording is so critical, and why making sure the wording match the intent with legal docs is so important. In this case, it might save you. Both parties accepted the 85K not tied to real estate.
[quote frenchlambda]If I had bought a $50k car for both myself and my wife with pre-marriage money and then crashed a car into a wall resulting in a total loss, would I get $50k back from my wife after divorce? Obviously not.[/quote]
WRONG! If the car was a personal asset, bought with money outside the marriage and the resulting personal asset was used by only you – this would be true. If the car was bought by money outside the marriage, but became an shared communal asset (California community property law) – this would be wrong. When transferring assets from outside marriage sources to communal, it does NOT matter what it is spent upon and the end value of the asset. The dollar amount matters. This is also why I said the gains on the real estate would have been communal unless specified with a prenup. Because your down was 75% does not mean you get 75% of the gain. Part of the problem is that though your down was 75% of the total down, it was about 25% of the total obligation. Both you and your ex-wife were party to the remaining balance, shared equally. You get your $115K back – net of the community property losses.

Take another example. Lets say your wife had a bit more money outside of the marriage and that her money was the down on the house. Your outside money bought the car. Now your wife trashed the car.. and now you are getting divorced. In the mean time the real estate value doubled. How would this be split?

[quote frenchlambda]My understanding was that whatever down-payment was used to purchase the property could only be recuperated from the equity that’s in it.[/quote]
Except for pre-marital assets. The property is communal. It is very hard to have the property part communal and part private (specific rooms or areas she can’t enter?). This means that when you unwind the assets of a marriage, you do appraisals of all properties to get equivalent values. You then extract the dollar amount of pre-marital contributions followed by divvying up what remains according to Community Property laws.

[quote frenchlambda]If I default on the loan from the ex-in-laws, then they do have a solid case for foreclosing.[/quote] Now that they have a loan secured by the property, you are correct. Before you signed over the trust deed, all they could do was complain.

[quote frenchlambda]The “stipulation and order” with the $85k never made it to the final divorce agreement.
[/quote] That is correct, and that is what may save you. The required reimbursement under the “stipulation and order” does not go away by omission in the MSA. You just have to be careful of blanket statements in the MSA which can make it go away.

[quote Eugene]Whatever rights you have now, two months after the divorce has been finalized, and after countless signed papers, it’s really hard for me to say.[/quote]
My point too, though there is that outstanding $85K which may not have been addressed by the MSA. This is why I would have an attorney look at all of those, the sequence they were signed and why (show him all of the signed papers, leave nothing out). He gave up tangible value in the trust deed to receive a ‘promissory’ on the 85K. Unless the MSA addresses the ‘promissory’, it doesn’t unilaterally go away.

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]It is actually a little more complex.
The purchase price of the condo including closing costs was about $490k.
We took a $145k loan with BofA, $200k with in-laws and $145k down payment.
The down-payment amount was “assembled” as follow:
– $85k came from me as pre-marriage money
– $60k came from our joint saving account
So theoretically I put $115k down and she put $30k
[/quote]
The math is basically the same, but the results would be more in your favor:
assets = $490K(in property, form of condo)
liability = $30K(wife’s pre-marriage contrib) + $115K(husband’s pre-marriage contrib) + $200K(from inlaws) + $145K(bank loan)
Property drops to $340K in value, shared loss is $150K. Because condo is community property – loss is shared equally 50/50 at $75K each. Balancing against pre-marital assets gives the wife $30K – $75K or a net negative $45K and the husband $115K – $75K or positive $40K.
[quote frenchlambda][quote ucodegen]There is an interesting quirk in the “stipulation and order” in that you may still have a right to have the $85K reimbursed.
The way it was written does not tie it to the value of the property(condo),[/quote]Sure the way it was written does not tie it the property. But when tracing this money, it becomes obvious that it was. [/quote]
The ‘tracing’ requirement is only on the remaining 16K or so. No such requirement on 85K for “stipulation and order”. This is why wording is so critical, and why making sure the wording match the intent with legal docs is so important. In this case, it might save you. Both parties accepted the 85K not tied to real estate.
[quote frenchlambda]If I had bought a $50k car for both myself and my wife with pre-marriage money and then crashed a car into a wall resulting in a total loss, would I get $50k back from my wife after divorce? Obviously not.[/quote]
WRONG! If the car was a personal asset, bought with money outside the marriage and the resulting personal asset was used by only you – this would be true. If the car was bought by money outside the marriage, but became an shared communal asset (California community property law) – this would be wrong. When transferring assets from outside marriage sources to communal, it does NOT matter what it is spent upon and the end value of the asset. The dollar amount matters. This is also why I said the gains on the real estate would have been communal unless specified with a prenup. Because your down was 75% does not mean you get 75% of the gain. Part of the problem is that though your down was 75% of the total down, it was about 25% of the total obligation. Both you and your ex-wife were party to the remaining balance, shared equally. You get your $115K back – net of the community property losses.

Take another example. Lets say your wife had a bit more money outside of the marriage and that her money was the down on the house. Your outside money bought the car. Now your wife trashed the car.. and now you are getting divorced. In the mean time the real estate value doubled. How would this be split?

[quote frenchlambda]My understanding was that whatever down-payment was used to purchase the property could only be recuperated from the equity that’s in it.[/quote]
Except for pre-marital assets. The property is communal. It is very hard to have the property part communal and part private (specific rooms or areas she can’t enter?). This means that when you unwind the assets of a marriage, you do appraisals of all properties to get equivalent values. You then extract the dollar amount of pre-marital contributions followed by divvying up what remains according to Community Property laws.

[quote frenchlambda]If I default on the loan from the ex-in-laws, then they do have a solid case for foreclosing.[/quote] Now that they have a loan secured by the property, you are correct. Before you signed over the trust deed, all they could do was complain.

[quote frenchlambda]The “stipulation and order” with the $85k never made it to the final divorce agreement.
[/quote] That is correct, and that is what may save you. The required reimbursement under the “stipulation and order” does not go away by omission in the MSA. You just have to be careful of blanket statements in the MSA which can make it go away.

[quote Eugene]Whatever rights you have now, two months after the divorce has been finalized, and after countless signed papers, it’s really hard for me to say.[/quote]
My point too, though there is that outstanding $85K which may not have been addressed by the MSA. This is why I would have an attorney look at all of those, the sequence they were signed and why (show him all of the signed papers, leave nothing out). He gave up tangible value in the trust deed to receive a ‘promissory’ on the 85K. Unless the MSA addresses the ‘promissory’, it doesn’t unilaterally go away.

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]It is actually a little more complex.
The purchase price of the condo including closing costs was about $490k.
We took a $145k loan with BofA, $200k with in-laws and $145k down payment.
The down-payment amount was “assembled” as follow:
– $85k came from me as pre-marriage money
– $60k came from our joint saving account
So theoretically I put $115k down and she put $30k
[/quote]
The math is basically the same, but the results would be more in your favor:
assets = $490K(in property, form of condo)
liability = $30K(wife’s pre-marriage contrib) + $115K(husband’s pre-marriage contrib) + $200K(from inlaws) + $145K(bank loan)
Property drops to $340K in value, shared loss is $150K. Because condo is community property – loss is shared equally 50/50 at $75K each. Balancing against pre-marital assets gives the wife $30K – $75K or a net negative $45K and the husband $115K – $75K or positive $40K.
[quote frenchlambda][quote ucodegen]There is an interesting quirk in the “stipulation and order” in that you may still have a right to have the $85K reimbursed.
The way it was written does not tie it to the value of the property(condo),[/quote]Sure the way it was written does not tie it the property. But when tracing this money, it becomes obvious that it was. [/quote]
The ‘tracing’ requirement is only on the remaining 16K or so. No such requirement on 85K for “stipulation and order”. This is why wording is so critical, and why making sure the wording match the intent with legal docs is so important. In this case, it might save you. Both parties accepted the 85K not tied to real estate.
[quote frenchlambda]If I had bought a $50k car for both myself and my wife with pre-marriage money and then crashed a car into a wall resulting in a total loss, would I get $50k back from my wife after divorce? Obviously not.[/quote]
WRONG! If the car was a personal asset, bought with money outside the marriage and the resulting personal asset was used by only you – this would be true. If the car was bought by money outside the marriage, but became an shared communal asset (California community property law) – this would be wrong. When transferring assets from outside marriage sources to communal, it does NOT matter what it is spent upon and the end value of the asset. The dollar amount matters. This is also why I said the gains on the real estate would have been communal unless specified with a prenup. Because your down was 75% does not mean you get 75% of the gain. Part of the problem is that though your down was 75% of the total down, it was about 25% of the total obligation. Both you and your ex-wife were party to the remaining balance, shared equally. You get your $115K back – net of the community property losses.

Take another example. Lets say your wife had a bit more money outside of the marriage and that her money was the down on the house. Your outside money bought the car. Now your wife trashed the car.. and now you are getting divorced. In the mean time the real estate value doubled. How would this be split?

[quote frenchlambda]My understanding was that whatever down-payment was used to purchase the property could only be recuperated from the equity that’s in it.[/quote]
Except for pre-marital assets. The property is communal. It is very hard to have the property part communal and part private (specific rooms or areas she can’t enter?). This means that when you unwind the assets of a marriage, you do appraisals of all properties to get equivalent values. You then extract the dollar amount of pre-marital contributions followed by divvying up what remains according to Community Property laws.

[quote frenchlambda]If I default on the loan from the ex-in-laws, then they do have a solid case for foreclosing.[/quote] Now that they have a loan secured by the property, you are correct. Before you signed over the trust deed, all they could do was complain.

[quote frenchlambda]The “stipulation and order” with the $85k never made it to the final divorce agreement.
[/quote] That is correct, and that is what may save you. The required reimbursement under the “stipulation and order” does not go away by omission in the MSA. You just have to be careful of blanket statements in the MSA which can make it go away.

[quote Eugene]Whatever rights you have now, two months after the divorce has been finalized, and after countless signed papers, it’s really hard for me to say.[/quote]
My point too, though there is that outstanding $85K which may not have been addressed by the MSA. This is why I would have an attorney look at all of those, the sequence they were signed and why (show him all of the signed papers, leave nothing out). He gave up tangible value in the trust deed to receive a ‘promissory’ on the 85K. Unless the MSA addresses the ‘promissory’, it doesn’t unilaterally go away.

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]It is actually a little more complex.
The purchase price of the condo including closing costs was about $490k.
We took a $145k loan with BofA, $200k with in-laws and $145k down payment.
The down-payment amount was “assembled” as follow:
– $85k came from me as pre-marriage money
– $60k came from our joint saving account
So theoretically I put $115k down and she put $30k
[/quote]
The math is basically the same, but the results would be more in your favor:
assets = $490K(in property, form of condo)
liability = $30K(wife’s pre-marriage contrib) + $115K(husband’s pre-marriage contrib) + $200K(from inlaws) + $145K(bank loan)
Property drops to $340K in value, shared loss is $150K. Because condo is community property – loss is shared equally 50/50 at $75K each. Balancing against pre-marital assets gives the wife $30K – $75K or a net negative $45K and the husband $115K – $75K or positive $40K.
[quote frenchlambda][quote ucodegen]There is an interesting quirk in the “stipulation and order” in that you may still have a right to have the $85K reimbursed.
The way it was written does not tie it to the value of the property(condo),[/quote]Sure the way it was written does not tie it the property. But when tracing this money, it becomes obvious that it was. [/quote]
The ‘tracing’ requirement is only on the remaining 16K or so. No such requirement on 85K for “stipulation and order”. This is why wording is so critical, and why making sure the wording match the intent with legal docs is so important. In this case, it might save you. Both parties accepted the 85K not tied to real estate.
[quote frenchlambda]If I had bought a $50k car for both myself and my wife with pre-marriage money and then crashed a car into a wall resulting in a total loss, would I get $50k back from my wife after divorce? Obviously not.[/quote]
WRONG! If the car was a personal asset, bought with money outside the marriage and the resulting personal asset was used by only you – this would be true. If the car was bought by money outside the marriage, but became an shared communal asset (California community property law) – this would be wrong. When transferring assets from outside marriage sources to communal, it does NOT matter what it is spent upon and the end value of the asset. The dollar amount matters. This is also why I said the gains on the real estate would have been communal unless specified with a prenup. Because your down was 75% does not mean you get 75% of the gain. Part of the problem is that though your down was 75% of the total down, it was about 25% of the total obligation. Both you and your ex-wife were party to the remaining balance, shared equally. You get your $115K back – net of the community property losses.

Take another example. Lets say your wife had a bit more money outside of the marriage and that her money was the down on the house. Your outside money bought the car. Now your wife trashed the car.. and now you are getting divorced. In the mean time the real estate value doubled. How would this be split?

[quote frenchlambda]My understanding was that whatever down-payment was used to purchase the property could only be recuperated from the equity that’s in it.[/quote]
Except for pre-marital assets. The property is communal. It is very hard to have the property part communal and part private (specific rooms or areas she can’t enter?). This means that when you unwind the assets of a marriage, you do appraisals of all properties to get equivalent values. You then extract the dollar amount of pre-marital contributions followed by divvying up what remains according to Community Property laws.

[quote frenchlambda]If I default on the loan from the ex-in-laws, then they do have a solid case for foreclosing.[/quote] Now that they have a loan secured by the property, you are correct. Before you signed over the trust deed, all they could do was complain.

[quote frenchlambda]The “stipulation and order” with the $85k never made it to the final divorce agreement.
[/quote] That is correct, and that is what may save you. The required reimbursement under the “stipulation and order” does not go away by omission in the MSA. You just have to be careful of blanket statements in the MSA which can make it go away.

[quote Eugene]Whatever rights you have now, two months after the divorce has been finalized, and after countless signed papers, it’s really hard for me to say.[/quote]
My point too, though there is that outstanding $85K which may not have been addressed by the MSA. This is why I would have an attorney look at all of those, the sequence they were signed and why (show him all of the signed papers, leave nothing out). He gave up tangible value in the trust deed to receive a ‘promissory’ on the 85K. Unless the MSA addresses the ‘promissory’, it doesn’t unilaterally go away.

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]It is actually a little more complex.
The purchase price of the condo including closing costs was about $490k.
We took a $145k loan with BofA, $200k with in-laws and $145k down payment.
The down-payment amount was “assembled” as follow:
– $85k came from me as pre-marriage money
– $60k came from our joint saving account
So theoretically I put $115k down and she put $30k
[/quote]
The math is basically the same, but the results would be more in your favor:
assets = $490K(in property, form of condo)
liability = $30K(wife’s pre-marriage contrib) + $115K(husband’s pre-marriage contrib) + $200K(from inlaws) + $145K(bank loan)
Property drops to $340K in value, shared loss is $150K. Because condo is community property – loss is shared equally 50/50 at $75K each. Balancing against pre-marital assets gives the wife $30K – $75K or a net negative $45K and the husband $115K – $75K or positive $40K.
[quote frenchlambda][quote ucodegen]There is an interesting quirk in the “stipulation and order” in that you may still have a right to have the $85K reimbursed.
The way it was written does not tie it to the value of the property(condo),[/quote]Sure the way it was written does not tie it the property. But when tracing this money, it becomes obvious that it was. [/quote]
The ‘tracing’ requirement is only on the remaining 16K or so. No such requirement on 85K for “stipulation and order”. This is why wording is so critical, and why making sure the wording match the intent with legal docs is so important. In this case, it might save you. Both parties accepted the 85K not tied to real estate.
[quote frenchlambda]If I had bought a $50k car for both myself and my wife with pre-marriage money and then crashed a car into a wall resulting in a total loss, would I get $50k back from my wife after divorce? Obviously not.[/quote]
WRONG! If the car was a personal asset, bought with money outside the marriage and the resulting personal asset was used by only you – this would be true. If the car was bought by money outside the marriage, but became an shared communal asset (California community property law) – this would be wrong. When transferring assets from outside marriage sources to communal, it does NOT matter what it is spent upon and the end value of the asset. The dollar amount matters. This is also why I said the gains on the real estate would have been communal unless specified with a prenup. Because your down was 75% does not mean you get 75% of the gain. Part of the problem is that though your down was 75% of the total down, it was about 25% of the total obligation. Both you and your ex-wife were party to the remaining balance, shared equally. You get your $115K back – net of the community property losses.

Take another example. Lets say your wife had a bit more money outside of the marriage and that her money was the down on the house. Your outside money bought the car. Now your wife trashed the car.. and now you are getting divorced. In the mean time the real estate value doubled. How would this be split?

[quote frenchlambda]My understanding was that whatever down-payment was used to purchase the property could only be recuperated from the equity that’s in it.[/quote]
Except for pre-marital assets. The property is communal. It is very hard to have the property part communal and part private (specific rooms or areas she can’t enter?). This means that when you unwind the assets of a marriage, you do appraisals of all properties to get equivalent values. You then extract the dollar amount of pre-marital contributions followed by divvying up what remains according to Community Property laws.

[quote frenchlambda]If I default on the loan from the ex-in-laws, then they do have a solid case for foreclosing.[/quote] Now that they have a loan secured by the property, you are correct. Before you signed over the trust deed, all they could do was complain.

[quote frenchlambda]The “stipulation and order” with the $85k never made it to the final divorce agreement.
[/quote] That is correct, and that is what may save you. The required reimbursement under the “stipulation and order” does not go away by omission in the MSA. You just have to be careful of blanket statements in the MSA which can make it go away.

[quote Eugene]Whatever rights you have now, two months after the divorce has been finalized, and after countless signed papers, it’s really hard for me to say.[/quote]
My point too, though there is that outstanding $85K which may not have been addressed by the MSA. This is why I would have an attorney look at all of those, the sequence they were signed and why (show him all of the signed papers, leave nothing out). He gave up tangible value in the trust deed to receive a ‘promissory’ on the 85K. Unless the MSA addresses the ‘promissory’, it doesn’t unilaterally go away.

[ucodegen]

[quote bearishgurl]If this $85K is not addressed in the OP’s MSA, I think he should file for a “characterization hg” (of the 2640 amt). He can then file an abstract on the ex for whatever judgment is awarded to him and then get a writ of execution and lien her wages for payments until it is paid off (assuming other creditors have not already liened her wages). But he should only do this AFTER the negative real property issue is disposed of … in that order.[/quote]
I was thinking of using it as a negotiating point to get the ex-in-laws to write down part of the loan he owes them as well as stopping foreclosure proceedings, possibly bringing the total refinanced into a range he might be successful at. Reading between the lines makes it sound like she is “daddy’s little girl”. The ex-in-laws might negotiate the amount down to make it ‘go away’, but to accomplish this, he needs a competent attorney! Right now, it is hard to tell which way Real Estate is going to go, so disposing of RE might not be a good idea. Too much federal and state meddling. (OOPS.. looks like you caught that on your next post }:-))
[quote bearishgurl][quote ucodegen]If I am out of touch with today’s prices.. then I definitely went into the wrong field 8-P.[/quote]I KNOW, ucodegen. I missed my “calling” at least 35 years ago. It is too late for me now, lol :={
[/quote]
I know a Chinese lady who became an attorney after 50 (after her kids all grew up and left the nest) so it may not be too late.
[quote Eugene]So, assuming that he didn’t sign away his right to 85k in MSA somehow, it’s not all bad.[/quote]
That is what I was thinking.. but I am worried about a certain two words in a certain sentence of the MSA..

[ucodegen]

[quote bearishgurl]If this $85K is not addressed in the OP’s MSA, I think he should file for a “characterization hg” (of the 2640 amt). He can then file an abstract on the ex for whatever judgment is awarded to him and then get a writ of execution and lien her wages for payments until it is paid off (assuming other creditors have not already liened her wages). But he should only do this AFTER the negative real property issue is disposed of … in that order.[/quote]
I was thinking of using it as a negotiating point to get the ex-in-laws to write down part of the loan he owes them as well as stopping foreclosure proceedings, possibly bringing the total refinanced into a range he might be successful at. Reading between the lines makes it sound like she is “daddy’s little girl”. The ex-in-laws might negotiate the amount down to make it ‘go away’, but to accomplish this, he needs a competent attorney! Right now, it is hard to tell which way Real Estate is going to go, so disposing of RE might not be a good idea. Too much federal and state meddling. (OOPS.. looks like you caught that on your next post }:-))
[quote bearishgurl][quote ucodegen]If I am out of touch with today’s prices.. then I definitely went into the wrong field 8-P.[/quote]I KNOW, ucodegen. I missed my “calling” at least 35 years ago. It is too late for me now, lol :={
[/quote]
I know a Chinese lady who became an attorney after 50 (after her kids all grew up and left the nest) so it may not be too late.
[quote Eugene]So, assuming that he didn’t sign away his right to 85k in MSA somehow, it’s not all bad.[/quote]
That is what I was thinking.. but I am worried about a certain two words in a certain sentence of the MSA..

[ucodegen]

[quote bearishgurl]If this $85K is not addressed in the OP’s MSA, I think he should file for a “characterization hg” (of the 2640 amt). He can then file an abstract on the ex for whatever judgment is awarded to him and then get a writ of execution and lien her wages for payments until it is paid off (assuming other creditors have not already liened her wages). But he should only do this AFTER the negative real property issue is disposed of … in that order.[/quote]
I was thinking of using it as a negotiating point to get the ex-in-laws to write down part of the loan he owes them as well as stopping foreclosure proceedings, possibly bringing the total refinanced into a range he might be successful at. Reading between the lines makes it sound like she is “daddy’s little girl”. The ex-in-laws might negotiate the amount down to make it ‘go away’, but to accomplish this, he needs a competent attorney! Right now, it is hard to tell which way Real Estate is going to go, so disposing of RE might not be a good idea. Too much federal and state meddling. (OOPS.. looks like you caught that on your next post }:-))
[quote bearishgurl][quote ucodegen]If I am out of touch with today’s prices.. then I definitely went into the wrong field 8-P.[/quote]I KNOW, ucodegen. I missed my “calling” at least 35 years ago. It is too late for me now, lol :={
[/quote]
I know a Chinese lady who became an attorney after 50 (after her kids all grew up and left the nest) so it may not be too late.
[quote Eugene]So, assuming that he didn’t sign away his right to 85k in MSA somehow, it’s not all bad.[/quote]
That is what I was thinking.. but I am worried about a certain two words in a certain sentence of the MSA..

[ucodegen]

[quote bearishgurl]If this $85K is not addressed in the OP’s MSA, I think he should file for a “characterization hg” (of the 2640 amt). He can then file an abstract on the ex for whatever judgment is awarded to him and then get a writ of execution and lien her wages for payments until it is paid off (assuming other creditors have not already liened her wages). But he should only do this AFTER the negative real property issue is disposed of … in that order.[/quote]
I was thinking of using it as a negotiating point to get the ex-in-laws to write down part of the loan he owes them as well as stopping foreclosure proceedings, possibly bringing the total refinanced into a range he might be successful at. Reading between the lines makes it sound like she is “daddy’s little girl”. The ex-in-laws might negotiate the amount down to make it ‘go away’, but to accomplish this, he needs a competent attorney! Right now, it is hard to tell which way Real Estate is going to go, so disposing of RE might not be a good idea. Too much federal and state meddling. (OOPS.. looks like you caught that on your next post }:-))
[quote bearishgurl][quote ucodegen]If I am out of touch with today’s prices.. then I definitely went into the wrong field 8-P.[/quote]I KNOW, ucodegen. I missed my “calling” at least 35 years ago. It is too late for me now, lol :={
[/quote]
I know a Chinese lady who became an attorney after 50 (after her kids all grew up and left the nest) so it may not be too late.
[quote Eugene]So, assuming that he didn’t sign away his right to 85k in MSA somehow, it’s not all bad.[/quote]
That is what I was thinking.. but I am worried about a certain two words in a certain sentence of the MSA..

[ucodegen]

[quote bearishgurl]If this $85K is not addressed in the OP’s MSA, I think he should file for a “characterization hg” (of the 2640 amt). He can then file an abstract on the ex for whatever judgment is awarded to him and then get a writ of execution and lien her wages for payments until it is paid off (assuming other creditors have not already liened her wages). But he should only do this AFTER the negative real property issue is disposed of … in that order.[/quote]
I was thinking of using it as a negotiating point to get the ex-in-laws to write down part of the loan he owes them as well as stopping foreclosure proceedings, possibly bringing the total refinanced into a range he might be successful at. Reading between the lines makes it sound like she is “daddy’s little girl”. The ex-in-laws might negotiate the amount down to make it ‘go away’, but to accomplish this, he needs a competent attorney! Right now, it is hard to tell which way Real Estate is going to go, so disposing of RE might not be a good idea. Too much federal and state meddling. (OOPS.. looks like you caught that on your next post }:-))
[quote bearishgurl][quote ucodegen]If I am out of touch with today’s prices.. then I definitely went into the wrong field 8-P.[/quote]I KNOW, ucodegen. I missed my “calling” at least 35 years ago. It is too late for me now, lol :={
[/quote]
I know a Chinese lady who became an attorney after 50 (after her kids all grew up and left the nest) so it may not be too late.
[quote Eugene]So, assuming that he didn’t sign away his right to 85k in MSA somehow, it’s not all bad.[/quote]
That is what I was thinking.. but I am worried about a certain two words in a certain sentence of the MSA..

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]According to Eugene, they have a right to foreclose based on the fact that the loan will mature on 9/3/2011.[/quote]
The wording does not say mature, or mention a balloon payment date. Wording has to be specific. You can’t have the word “Balloon” and a date by it.
[quote bearishgurl]Regardless of ANY language on the OP’s MSA, I STILL have a problem with the ex-wife signing the trust deed (along with the OP). Whether the holder of the (belated) trust deed (executed during a “divorce settlement”) is a relative or not is immaterial. In CA, I don’t see how domestic judges can legally absolve a domestic party from a promissory note they signed while married and taking title as joint tenants. Nor can they absolve parties of joint debts secured by filed trust deeds they executed together.
[/quote]
I agree. I think this is why the girls parents wanted it done before the marriage settlement. They had an unsecured loan combined with their daughter being in a net-negative position in marital assets. I also think that they made sure that the 85K was negated in the marriage settlement.. with two words. His attorney should have caught these and what it meant in terms of assets. This is why I thought he didn’t have an attorney present with the signing of the trust deed and “stipulation and order”. — still shaking my head.
[quote bearishgurl]I’m not you but I really believe, based on the child endangerment charge filed against your ex, that you could have gotten at least a 50% timeshare and even moved her to Orange County to live near your job, IMHO
[/quote]
I think he could have located child care near his Orange County job.. long drive for the kid, but they are good at napping in cars. Just don’t swear at the OC traffic with the kid in the car. Even when napping, their ears are on.

Instead of quoting a bunch of stuff, I do agree with much of what bearishgurl has posted previously here: http://piggington.com/exinlaws_3rd_party_creditors_want_to_foreclosed_on_my_condo#comment-185311

[quote Scarlett]The child is very young, she will adapt easily and she will forget about it.
[/quote]
Problem there is that he does not have exclusive custody, so I suspect.. using past behavior of ex-in-laws, ex-wife and some personal experience(as a kid), that the ex-in-laws are going to use every chance to tell the child just how bad her father is. Nasty stuff, divorces can be.

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]According to Eugene, they have a right to foreclose based on the fact that the loan will mature on 9/3/2011.[/quote]
The wording does not say mature, or mention a balloon payment date. Wording has to be specific. You can’t have the word “Balloon” and a date by it.
[quote bearishgurl]Regardless of ANY language on the OP’s MSA, I STILL have a problem with the ex-wife signing the trust deed (along with the OP). Whether the holder of the (belated) trust deed (executed during a “divorce settlement”) is a relative or not is immaterial. In CA, I don’t see how domestic judges can legally absolve a domestic party from a promissory note they signed while married and taking title as joint tenants. Nor can they absolve parties of joint debts secured by filed trust deeds they executed together.
[/quote]
I agree. I think this is why the girls parents wanted it done before the marriage settlement. They had an unsecured loan combined with their daughter being in a net-negative position in marital assets. I also think that they made sure that the 85K was negated in the marriage settlement.. with two words. His attorney should have caught these and what it meant in terms of assets. This is why I thought he didn’t have an attorney present with the signing of the trust deed and “stipulation and order”. — still shaking my head.
[quote bearishgurl]I’m not you but I really believe, based on the child endangerment charge filed against your ex, that you could have gotten at least a 50% timeshare and even moved her to Orange County to live near your job, IMHO
[/quote]
I think he could have located child care near his Orange County job.. long drive for the kid, but they are good at napping in cars. Just don’t swear at the OC traffic with the kid in the car. Even when napping, their ears are on.

Instead of quoting a bunch of stuff, I do agree with much of what bearishgurl has posted previously here: http://piggington.com/exinlaws_3rd_party_creditors_want_to_foreclosed_on_my_condo#comment-185311

[quote Scarlett]The child is very young, she will adapt easily and she will forget about it.
[/quote]
Problem there is that he does not have exclusive custody, so I suspect.. using past behavior of ex-in-laws, ex-wife and some personal experience(as a kid), that the ex-in-laws are going to use every chance to tell the child just how bad her father is. Nasty stuff, divorces can be.

[Author]

Posts