[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.

[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]I used these $85K towards the down-payment for the property. Since 75% of the total down-payment came from money I had acquired outside the marriage, it is my understanding that I would get 75% of whatever equity was in the house at the time of dissolution.[/quote]
But the “marriage settlement” changes this.. to you getting all of the assets and liabilities out of the marriage (see what you wrote @ http://piggington.com/exinlaws_3rd_party_creditors_want_to_foreclosed_on_my_condo#comment-185278 under “COMMUNITY RESIDENCE” ). This means that if the above was the intent, then there was no purpose in the “stipulation and order” because the marriage settlement already took care of it and only caused you to sign away a right.

Husband shall be awarded, without offset, his separate, Wife’s separate and the community’s interest in the residence located at (address), subject to any and all encumbrances, including but not limited to the interest held by (ex-wife’s parents).

There was no purpose surrendering the deed of trust in order to get her signature.

During divorce, both parties share in the gain and any loss, adjusted for before marriage assets brought in from either side. The ex-in-laws loan was also not an arm-length transaction. Since you mentioned $85k as your 75% into the down from pre-marriage assets, that means that she brought in 25% or about $28K? The statement:

Since 75% of the total down-payment came from money I had acquired outside the marriage, it is my understanding that I would get 75% of whatever equity was in the house at the time of dissolution.

Usually gains are split evenly (California is a community property state) after pre-marriage contributed assets are subtracted. There is a more complicated way to do the divvying, but usually this would involve a pre-nup and valuating pre-marriage contributed assets over time, probably at an implied zero risk rate of return.

From a financial accounting point of view, pre-marriage assets contributed to a marriage are considered a liability as well as an asset. They have to be considered on dissolution of marriage. I am assuming that you bought the property originally for around $443K?
This means
assets = $443K (in property, form of condo)
liability = $28K(wife’s pre-marriage contrib) + $85K(husbands pre-marriage contrib) + $200K(from inlaws) + $130K(bank loan)

Property drops by $100K in value, meaning that you have a shared deficit of $100K. Split 50/50 means that you both have deficits of $50K each. Balancing that with the amount paid in from pre-marital assets, means that she is in negative territory to the tune of $50K-$28K or owes $22K. Your position ends up being $85K – $50K = $35K. Both of you lost $50K of asset value (shared loss – community property) when comparing pre and post marriage. This is basically the calc that would have been done if the property had been sold, and should have been done when dealing with the marriage settlement. (I initially thought the 85K was for something else, not related to property brought into the marriage.). NOTE: the cost of the divorce is also generally shared…

Now considering that it is all mostly water under the bridge because things have been signed, consider the above as educational material. Also: be careful of signing anything related to community property or disputed community property outside of the marriage settlement(As the “stipulation and order” and “deed of trust” did.)

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), but from who? This is where an attorney might be useful. Oddly, you might be able to have the full amount assessed against the wife’s current assets and use that to reduce what is owed to the ex-in-laws (loan was not arms length). Does the “marriage settlement” mention anything with respect to this specific $85K? The only problem I see is the “without offset” in “Husband shall be awarded, without offset, his separate, Wife’s separate and..”. The whole thing seems quite messy in terms of the docs.. (gives me a queasy feeling. My German-Scottish background likes everything in order.)

** I wonder if anyone on this board knows a good attorney, particularly in the area of property, assets and marriage/divorce. An attorney needs to take a look at this mess (not one looking to charge as many hours as possible, or pad their hours). Maybe I am out of touch with today’s prices, but I don’t think frenchlambda got much for his $13K for restraining order and arbitrated divorce. The paperwork is too messy. If I am out of touch with today’s prices.. then I definitely went into the wrong field 8-P.

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]I used these $85K towards the down-payment for the property. Since 75% of the total down-payment came from money I had acquired outside the marriage, it is my understanding that I would get 75% of whatever equity was in the house at the time of dissolution.[/quote]
But the “marriage settlement” changes this.. to you getting all of the assets and liabilities out of the marriage (see what you wrote @ http://piggington.com/exinlaws_3rd_party_creditors_want_to_foreclosed_on_my_condo#comment-185278 under “COMMUNITY RESIDENCE” ). This means that if the above was the intent, then there was no purpose in the “stipulation and order” because the marriage settlement already took care of it and only caused you to sign away a right.

Husband shall be awarded, without offset, his separate, Wife’s separate and the community’s interest in the residence located at (address), subject to any and all encumbrances, including but not limited to the interest held by (ex-wife’s parents).

There was no purpose surrendering the deed of trust in order to get her signature.

During divorce, both parties share in the gain and any loss, adjusted for before marriage assets brought in from either side. The ex-in-laws loan was also not an arm-length transaction. Since you mentioned $85k as your 75% into the down from pre-marriage assets, that means that she brought in 25% or about $28K? The statement:

Since 75% of the total down-payment came from money I had acquired outside the marriage, it is my understanding that I would get 75% of whatever equity was in the house at the time of dissolution.

Usually gains are split evenly (California is a community property state) after pre-marriage contributed assets are subtracted. There is a more complicated way to do the divvying, but usually this would involve a pre-nup and valuating pre-marriage contributed assets over time, probably at an implied zero risk rate of return.

From a financial accounting point of view, pre-marriage assets contributed to a marriage are considered a liability as well as an asset. They have to be considered on dissolution of marriage. I am assuming that you bought the property originally for around $443K?
This means
assets = $443K (in property, form of condo)
liability = $28K(wife’s pre-marriage contrib) + $85K(husbands pre-marriage contrib) + $200K(from inlaws) + $130K(bank loan)

Property drops by $100K in value, meaning that you have a shared deficit of $100K. Split 50/50 means that you both have deficits of $50K each. Balancing that with the amount paid in from pre-marital assets, means that she is in negative territory to the tune of $50K-$28K or owes $22K. Your position ends up being $85K – $50K = $35K. Both of you lost $50K of asset value (shared loss – community property) when comparing pre and post marriage. This is basically the calc that would have been done if the property had been sold, and should have been done when dealing with the marriage settlement. (I initially thought the 85K was for something else, not related to property brought into the marriage.). NOTE: the cost of the divorce is also generally shared…

Now considering that it is all mostly water under the bridge because things have been signed, consider the above as educational material. Also: be careful of signing anything related to community property or disputed community property outside of the marriage settlement(As the “stipulation and order” and “deed of trust” did.)

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), but from who? This is where an attorney might be useful. Oddly, you might be able to have the full amount assessed against the wife’s current assets and use that to reduce what is owed to the ex-in-laws (loan was not arms length). Does the “marriage settlement” mention anything with respect to this specific $85K? The only problem I see is the “without offset” in “Husband shall be awarded, without offset, his separate, Wife’s separate and..”. The whole thing seems quite messy in terms of the docs.. (gives me a queasy feeling. My German-Scottish background likes everything in order.)

** I wonder if anyone on this board knows a good attorney, particularly in the area of property, assets and marriage/divorce. An attorney needs to take a look at this mess (not one looking to charge as many hours as possible, or pad their hours). Maybe I am out of touch with today’s prices, but I don’t think frenchlambda got much for his $13K for restraining order and arbitrated divorce. The paperwork is too messy. If I am out of touch with today’s prices.. then I definitely went into the wrong field 8-P.

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]I used these $85K towards the down-payment for the property. Since 75% of the total down-payment came from money I had acquired outside the marriage, it is my understanding that I would get 75% of whatever equity was in the house at the time of dissolution.[/quote]
But the “marriage settlement” changes this.. to you getting all of the assets and liabilities out of the marriage (see what you wrote @ http://piggington.com/exinlaws_3rd_party_creditors_want_to_foreclosed_on_my_condo#comment-185278 under “COMMUNITY RESIDENCE” ). This means that if the above was the intent, then there was no purpose in the “stipulation and order” because the marriage settlement already took care of it and only caused you to sign away a right.

Husband shall be awarded, without offset, his separate, Wife’s separate and the community’s interest in the residence located at (address), subject to any and all encumbrances, including but not limited to the interest held by (ex-wife’s parents).

There was no purpose surrendering the deed of trust in order to get her signature.

During divorce, both parties share in the gain and any loss, adjusted for before marriage assets brought in from either side. The ex-in-laws loan was also not an arm-length transaction. Since you mentioned $85k as your 75% into the down from pre-marriage assets, that means that she brought in 25% or about $28K? The statement:

Since 75% of the total down-payment came from money I had acquired outside the marriage, it is my understanding that I would get 75% of whatever equity was in the house at the time of dissolution.

Usually gains are split evenly (California is a community property state) after pre-marriage contributed assets are subtracted. There is a more complicated way to do the divvying, but usually this would involve a pre-nup and valuating pre-marriage contributed assets over time, probably at an implied zero risk rate of return.

From a financial accounting point of view, pre-marriage assets contributed to a marriage are considered a liability as well as an asset. They have to be considered on dissolution of marriage. I am assuming that you bought the property originally for around $443K?
This means
assets = $443K (in property, form of condo)
liability = $28K(wife’s pre-marriage contrib) + $85K(husbands pre-marriage contrib) + $200K(from inlaws) + $130K(bank loan)

Property drops by $100K in value, meaning that you have a shared deficit of $100K. Split 50/50 means that you both have deficits of $50K each. Balancing that with the amount paid in from pre-marital assets, means that she is in negative territory to the tune of $50K-$28K or owes $22K. Your position ends up being $85K – $50K = $35K. Both of you lost $50K of asset value (shared loss – community property) when comparing pre and post marriage. This is basically the calc that would have been done if the property had been sold, and should have been done when dealing with the marriage settlement. (I initially thought the 85K was for something else, not related to property brought into the marriage.). NOTE: the cost of the divorce is also generally shared…

Now considering that it is all mostly water under the bridge because things have been signed, consider the above as educational material. Also: be careful of signing anything related to community property or disputed community property outside of the marriage settlement(As the “stipulation and order” and “deed of trust” did.)

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), but from who? This is where an attorney might be useful. Oddly, you might be able to have the full amount assessed against the wife’s current assets and use that to reduce what is owed to the ex-in-laws (loan was not arms length). Does the “marriage settlement” mention anything with respect to this specific $85K? The only problem I see is the “without offset” in “Husband shall be awarded, without offset, his separate, Wife’s separate and..”. The whole thing seems quite messy in terms of the docs.. (gives me a queasy feeling. My German-Scottish background likes everything in order.)

** I wonder if anyone on this board knows a good attorney, particularly in the area of property, assets and marriage/divorce. An attorney needs to take a look at this mess (not one looking to charge as many hours as possible, or pad their hours). Maybe I am out of touch with today’s prices, but I don’t think frenchlambda got much for his $13K for restraining order and arbitrated divorce. The paperwork is too messy. If I am out of touch with today’s prices.. then I definitely went into the wrong field 8-P.

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]I used these $85K towards the down-payment for the property. Since 75% of the total down-payment came from money I had acquired outside the marriage, it is my understanding that I would get 75% of whatever equity was in the house at the time of dissolution.[/quote]
But the “marriage settlement” changes this.. to you getting all of the assets and liabilities out of the marriage (see what you wrote @ http://piggington.com/exinlaws_3rd_party_creditors_want_to_foreclosed_on_my_condo#comment-185278 under “COMMUNITY RESIDENCE” ). This means that if the above was the intent, then there was no purpose in the “stipulation and order” because the marriage settlement already took care of it and only caused you to sign away a right.

Husband shall be awarded, without offset, his separate, Wife’s separate and the community’s interest in the residence located at (address), subject to any and all encumbrances, including but not limited to the interest held by (ex-wife’s parents).

There was no purpose surrendering the deed of trust in order to get her signature.

During divorce, both parties share in the gain and any loss, adjusted for before marriage assets brought in from either side. The ex-in-laws loan was also not an arm-length transaction. Since you mentioned $85k as your 75% into the down from pre-marriage assets, that means that she brought in 25% or about $28K? The statement:

Since 75% of the total down-payment came from money I had acquired outside the marriage, it is my understanding that I would get 75% of whatever equity was in the house at the time of dissolution.

Usually gains are split evenly (California is a community property state) after pre-marriage contributed assets are subtracted. There is a more complicated way to do the divvying, but usually this would involve a pre-nup and valuating pre-marriage contributed assets over time, probably at an implied zero risk rate of return.

From a financial accounting point of view, pre-marriage assets contributed to a marriage are considered a liability as well as an asset. They have to be considered on dissolution of marriage. I am assuming that you bought the property originally for around $443K?
This means
assets = $443K (in property, form of condo)
liability = $28K(wife’s pre-marriage contrib) + $85K(husbands pre-marriage contrib) + $200K(from inlaws) + $130K(bank loan)

Property drops by $100K in value, meaning that you have a shared deficit of $100K. Split 50/50 means that you both have deficits of $50K each. Balancing that with the amount paid in from pre-marital assets, means that she is in negative territory to the tune of $50K-$28K or owes $22K. Your position ends up being $85K – $50K = $35K. Both of you lost $50K of asset value (shared loss – community property) when comparing pre and post marriage. This is basically the calc that would have been done if the property had been sold, and should have been done when dealing with the marriage settlement. (I initially thought the 85K was for something else, not related to property brought into the marriage.). NOTE: the cost of the divorce is also generally shared…

Now considering that it is all mostly water under the bridge because things have been signed, consider the above as educational material. Also: be careful of signing anything related to community property or disputed community property outside of the marriage settlement(As the “stipulation and order” and “deed of trust” did.)

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), but from who? This is where an attorney might be useful. Oddly, you might be able to have the full amount assessed against the wife’s current assets and use that to reduce what is owed to the ex-in-laws (loan was not arms length). Does the “marriage settlement” mention anything with respect to this specific $85K? The only problem I see is the “without offset” in “Husband shall be awarded, without offset, his separate, Wife’s separate and..”. The whole thing seems quite messy in terms of the docs.. (gives me a queasy feeling. My German-Scottish background likes everything in order.)

** I wonder if anyone on this board knows a good attorney, particularly in the area of property, assets and marriage/divorce. An attorney needs to take a look at this mess (not one looking to charge as many hours as possible, or pad their hours). Maybe I am out of touch with today’s prices, but I don’t think frenchlambda got much for his $13K for restraining order and arbitrated divorce. The paperwork is too messy. If I am out of touch with today’s prices.. then I definitely went into the wrong field 8-P.

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]I used these $85K towards the down-payment for the property. Since 75% of the total down-payment came from money I had acquired outside the marriage, it is my understanding that I would get 75% of whatever equity was in the house at the time of dissolution.[/quote]
But the “marriage settlement” changes this.. to you getting all of the assets and liabilities out of the marriage (see what you wrote @ http://piggington.com/exinlaws_3rd_party_creditors_want_to_foreclosed_on_my_condo#comment-185278 under “COMMUNITY RESIDENCE” ). This means that if the above was the intent, then there was no purpose in the “stipulation and order” because the marriage settlement already took care of it and only caused you to sign away a right.

Husband shall be awarded, without offset, his separate, Wife’s separate and the community’s interest in the residence located at (address), subject to any and all encumbrances, including but not limited to the interest held by (ex-wife’s parents).

There was no purpose surrendering the deed of trust in order to get her signature.

During divorce, both parties share in the gain and any loss, adjusted for before marriage assets brought in from either side. The ex-in-laws loan was also not an arm-length transaction. Since you mentioned $85k as your 75% into the down from pre-marriage assets, that means that she brought in 25% or about $28K? The statement:

Since 75% of the total down-payment came from money I had acquired outside the marriage, it is my understanding that I would get 75% of whatever equity was in the house at the time of dissolution.

Usually gains are split evenly (California is a community property state) after pre-marriage contributed assets are subtracted. There is a more complicated way to do the divvying, but usually this would involve a pre-nup and valuating pre-marriage contributed assets over time, probably at an implied zero risk rate of return.

From a financial accounting point of view, pre-marriage assets contributed to a marriage are considered a liability as well as an asset. They have to be considered on dissolution of marriage. I am assuming that you bought the property originally for around $443K?
This means
assets = $443K (in property, form of condo)
liability = $28K(wife’s pre-marriage contrib) + $85K(husbands pre-marriage contrib) + $200K(from inlaws) + $130K(bank loan)

Property drops by $100K in value, meaning that you have a shared deficit of $100K. Split 50/50 means that you both have deficits of $50K each. Balancing that with the amount paid in from pre-marital assets, means that she is in negative territory to the tune of $50K-$28K or owes $22K. Your position ends up being $85K – $50K = $35K. Both of you lost $50K of asset value (shared loss – community property) when comparing pre and post marriage. This is basically the calc that would have been done if the property had been sold, and should have been done when dealing with the marriage settlement. (I initially thought the 85K was for something else, not related to property brought into the marriage.). NOTE: the cost of the divorce is also generally shared…

Now considering that it is all mostly water under the bridge because things have been signed, consider the above as educational material. Also: be careful of signing anything related to community property or disputed community property outside of the marriage settlement(As the “stipulation and order” and “deed of trust” did.)

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), but from who? This is where an attorney might be useful. Oddly, you might be able to have the full amount assessed against the wife’s current assets and use that to reduce what is owed to the ex-in-laws (loan was not arms length). Does the “marriage settlement” mention anything with respect to this specific $85K? The only problem I see is the “without offset” in “Husband shall be awarded, without offset, his separate, Wife’s separate and..”. The whole thing seems quite messy in terms of the docs.. (gives me a queasy feeling. My German-Scottish background likes everything in order.)

** I wonder if anyone on this board knows a good attorney, particularly in the area of property, assets and marriage/divorce. An attorney needs to take a look at this mess (not one looking to charge as many hours as possible, or pad their hours). Maybe I am out of touch with today’s prices, but I don’t think frenchlambda got much for his $13K for restraining order and arbitrated divorce. The paperwork is too messy. If I am out of touch with today’s prices.. then I definitely went into the wrong field 8-P.

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]What exactly would make the note callable?
Doesn’t the deed of trust make it callable?[/quote]
Wording in the note stating that the lender can back out and demand their capital (outstanding balance including any outstanding interest due) at will and at any time. The deed of trust does not make it callable. It just makes the loan secured by the property.
[quote frenchlambda]By the way, both my ex-wife and I signed the deed of trust. I refused to do so at the beginning because my wife was refusing to sign the “stipulation and order” document. [/quote] Of course she would sign the trust deed.. It helps her and her parents. From what I have seen of the “marriage settlement” posted earlier, she dumped it all on you.. the underwater property and all of the liabilities. She should have shared in the liabilities because they were part of the community property.
[quote frenchlambda][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”.[/quote]
It should have been, particularly with how much you spent on the whole proceedings, including the restraining order. Considering that you were divvying up the marriage assets, it all should have been part of the “marriage settlement”. The note associated with the deed of trust should have been modified by the minimum of the $85k.. resulting in an outstanding balance of $200,000 – $85,824.49 or $114175.31 — making refi much easier. Have you yet received the $85k?
[quote frenchlamda]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.[/quote]
As your supposed exact copy of the note reads, it doesn’t. But this is one of those things were the wording is VERY important. One word added or omitted from the wording can change the meaning.
[quote frenchlamda]I forgot to mention the following clause as part of the promissory note:

“Should default be made in payment of principal and/or interest when due, the whole sum of principal and accrued interest shall become immediately due, without notice, at the option of the holder of this note.”[/quote]
VERY IMPORTANT – like I mentioned above, wording is critical. This makes the note callable on default. Notice that the wording states “shall become immediately due” with the condition of “Should default..”. Are you current in the payments to the ex-in-laws?

So far, I have found nothing that makes them able to foreclose, but I am concerned that you are omitting something… the paragraph you ‘forgot to mention’ is incredibly critical.

Is the mortgage document with the in-laws written in English or French?

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]What exactly would make the note callable?
Doesn’t the deed of trust make it callable?[/quote]
Wording in the note stating that the lender can back out and demand their capital (outstanding balance including any outstanding interest due) at will and at any time. The deed of trust does not make it callable. It just makes the loan secured by the property.
[quote frenchlambda]By the way, both my ex-wife and I signed the deed of trust. I refused to do so at the beginning because my wife was refusing to sign the “stipulation and order” document. [/quote] Of course she would sign the trust deed.. It helps her and her parents. From what I have seen of the “marriage settlement” posted earlier, she dumped it all on you.. the underwater property and all of the liabilities. She should have shared in the liabilities because they were part of the community property.
[quote frenchlambda][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”.[/quote]
It should have been, particularly with how much you spent on the whole proceedings, including the restraining order. Considering that you were divvying up the marriage assets, it all should have been part of the “marriage settlement”. The note associated with the deed of trust should have been modified by the minimum of the $85k.. resulting in an outstanding balance of $200,000 – $85,824.49 or $114175.31 — making refi much easier. Have you yet received the $85k?
[quote frenchlamda]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.[/quote]
As your supposed exact copy of the note reads, it doesn’t. But this is one of those things were the wording is VERY important. One word added or omitted from the wording can change the meaning.
[quote frenchlamda]I forgot to mention the following clause as part of the promissory note:

“Should default be made in payment of principal and/or interest when due, the whole sum of principal and accrued interest shall become immediately due, without notice, at the option of the holder of this note.”[/quote]
VERY IMPORTANT – like I mentioned above, wording is critical. This makes the note callable on default. Notice that the wording states “shall become immediately due” with the condition of “Should default..”. Are you current in the payments to the ex-in-laws?

So far, I have found nothing that makes them able to foreclose, but I am concerned that you are omitting something… the paragraph you ‘forgot to mention’ is incredibly critical.

Is the mortgage document with the in-laws written in English or French?

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]What exactly would make the note callable?
Doesn’t the deed of trust make it callable?[/quote]
Wording in the note stating that the lender can back out and demand their capital (outstanding balance including any outstanding interest due) at will and at any time. The deed of trust does not make it callable. It just makes the loan secured by the property.
[quote frenchlambda]By the way, both my ex-wife and I signed the deed of trust. I refused to do so at the beginning because my wife was refusing to sign the “stipulation and order” document. [/quote] Of course she would sign the trust deed.. It helps her and her parents. From what I have seen of the “marriage settlement” posted earlier, she dumped it all on you.. the underwater property and all of the liabilities. She should have shared in the liabilities because they were part of the community property.
[quote frenchlambda][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”.[/quote]
It should have been, particularly with how much you spent on the whole proceedings, including the restraining order. Considering that you were divvying up the marriage assets, it all should have been part of the “marriage settlement”. The note associated with the deed of trust should have been modified by the minimum of the $85k.. resulting in an outstanding balance of $200,000 – $85,824.49 or $114175.31 — making refi much easier. Have you yet received the $85k?
[quote frenchlamda]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.[/quote]
As your supposed exact copy of the note reads, it doesn’t. But this is one of those things were the wording is VERY important. One word added or omitted from the wording can change the meaning.
[quote frenchlamda]I forgot to mention the following clause as part of the promissory note:

“Should default be made in payment of principal and/or interest when due, the whole sum of principal and accrued interest shall become immediately due, without notice, at the option of the holder of this note.”[/quote]
VERY IMPORTANT – like I mentioned above, wording is critical. This makes the note callable on default. Notice that the wording states “shall become immediately due” with the condition of “Should default..”. Are you current in the payments to the ex-in-laws?

So far, I have found nothing that makes them able to foreclose, but I am concerned that you are omitting something… the paragraph you ‘forgot to mention’ is incredibly critical.

Is the mortgage document with the in-laws written in English or French?

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]What exactly would make the note callable?
Doesn’t the deed of trust make it callable?[/quote]
Wording in the note stating that the lender can back out and demand their capital (outstanding balance including any outstanding interest due) at will and at any time. The deed of trust does not make it callable. It just makes the loan secured by the property.
[quote frenchlambda]By the way, both my ex-wife and I signed the deed of trust. I refused to do so at the beginning because my wife was refusing to sign the “stipulation and order” document. [/quote] Of course she would sign the trust deed.. It helps her and her parents. From what I have seen of the “marriage settlement” posted earlier, she dumped it all on you.. the underwater property and all of the liabilities. She should have shared in the liabilities because they were part of the community property.
[quote frenchlambda][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”.[/quote]
It should have been, particularly with how much you spent on the whole proceedings, including the restraining order. Considering that you were divvying up the marriage assets, it all should have been part of the “marriage settlement”. The note associated with the deed of trust should have been modified by the minimum of the $85k.. resulting in an outstanding balance of $200,000 – $85,824.49 or $114175.31 — making refi much easier. Have you yet received the $85k?
[quote frenchlamda]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.[/quote]
As your supposed exact copy of the note reads, it doesn’t. But this is one of those things were the wording is VERY important. One word added or omitted from the wording can change the meaning.
[quote frenchlamda]I forgot to mention the following clause as part of the promissory note:

“Should default be made in payment of principal and/or interest when due, the whole sum of principal and accrued interest shall become immediately due, without notice, at the option of the holder of this note.”[/quote]
VERY IMPORTANT – like I mentioned above, wording is critical. This makes the note callable on default. Notice that the wording states “shall become immediately due” with the condition of “Should default..”. Are you current in the payments to the ex-in-laws?

So far, I have found nothing that makes them able to foreclose, but I am concerned that you are omitting something… the paragraph you ‘forgot to mention’ is incredibly critical.

Is the mortgage document with the in-laws written in English or French?

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]What exactly would make the note callable?
Doesn’t the deed of trust make it callable?[/quote]
Wording in the note stating that the lender can back out and demand their capital (outstanding balance including any outstanding interest due) at will and at any time. The deed of trust does not make it callable. It just makes the loan secured by the property.
[quote frenchlambda]By the way, both my ex-wife and I signed the deed of trust. I refused to do so at the beginning because my wife was refusing to sign the “stipulation and order” document. [/quote] Of course she would sign the trust deed.. It helps her and her parents. From what I have seen of the “marriage settlement” posted earlier, she dumped it all on you.. the underwater property and all of the liabilities. She should have shared in the liabilities because they were part of the community property.
[quote frenchlambda][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”.[/quote]
It should have been, particularly with how much you spent on the whole proceedings, including the restraining order. Considering that you were divvying up the marriage assets, it all should have been part of the “marriage settlement”. The note associated with the deed of trust should have been modified by the minimum of the $85k.. resulting in an outstanding balance of $200,000 – $85,824.49 or $114175.31 — making refi much easier. Have you yet received the $85k?
[quote frenchlamda]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.[/quote]
As your supposed exact copy of the note reads, it doesn’t. But this is one of those things were the wording is VERY important. One word added or omitted from the wording can change the meaning.
[quote frenchlamda]I forgot to mention the following clause as part of the promissory note:

“Should default be made in payment of principal and/or interest when due, the whole sum of principal and accrued interest shall become immediately due, without notice, at the option of the holder of this note.”[/quote]
VERY IMPORTANT – like I mentioned above, wording is critical. This makes the note callable on default. Notice that the wording states “shall become immediately due” with the condition of “Should default..”. Are you current in the payments to the ex-in-laws?

So far, I have found nothing that makes them able to foreclose, but I am concerned that you are omitting something… the paragraph you ‘forgot to mention’ is incredibly critical.

Is the mortgage document with the in-laws written in English or French?

[ucodegen]

First things first:
[quote frenchlambda]- a few months ago, while my then wife and I were trying to reach an agreement, her parents freaked out about the loan they gave us. They hired an attorney who threatened me to take legal action against me if I refused to sign a deed of trust for the benefit of his clients.
– at this time, my wife was refusing to sign a “stipulation and order” that showed that I was entitled to some other reimbursement
– so we worked out a deal. I signed the deed of trust and my wife signed the “stipulation and order” document.[/quote]
This is where you screwed up. Did you have an attorney representing you at the time? If not, and considering that coercion/duress was used by their attorney (under threat of legal action but w/o legal representation), it could invalidate the deed of trust (signatures under coercion are often not enforceable – more so if the counter party is not represented by an attorney, even more so if the threat from the counter party or counter party’s attorney contains the implied — “if you get an attorney to check this, then we will definitely sue”). The reason why they threatened here is that they didn’t have a leg to stand on w/ respect to the loan. With the deed, they now do.
NOTE: It might have been useful to offset the loan owed to parents by the amounts under consideration under the “stipulation and order”, thereby reducing your payments and loan amount — and making it easier to refi the ex-inlaw portion. But now you may have to take the effort to make sure the “stipulation and order” is enforced.

What this signature did, was convert an unsecured loan into a secured loan. This is a huge benefit to your wife and parents. 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.

Was the divorce proceedings done through court or arbitration? $13K sounds like court(but not drawn out). Was the “stipulation and order” part of the divorce agreement? If it was a court divorce proceedings AND was part of the agreement AND she then refused, she could be in contempt of court. What was in the “stipulation and order”?
[quote frenchlambda]I was nice enough to offer her shared child custody when my attorney recommended full custody for me.[/quote]
Should have listened to your attorney. Shared custody is hard enough when both parties are healthy and of fit mind. They are a nightmare if one is addicted, pathological or has revenge in mind. Until she is 100% clean for a period of time, it should have been visitation with supervision- for the sake of your daughter. Once she is 100% clean for a period of time, it is always possible to go back and amend to give her more rights/shared custody. It is hard to take back or re-establish custody once given though.

[quote frenchlambda]I think that it would be extremely disruptive to my daughter if I move.[/quote]
Moving is less disruptive to kids than it is to parents. Kids adapt a lot faster than their parents – just look how fast they can learn and pick up on new things.. ie technology.

[quote frenchlambda]I guess I will have no other choice than taking $30K from my 401(k). Is it even possible to do so? What are the costs associated with taking money from a 401(k)? Will I have to pay a huge tax next year?[/quote]
There is a way to use 401k money for real-estate purchases. I am not up 100% on how. Someone on the board may be. The problem may be that it can(maybe) only be used on original purchase, not refinance.
http://www.ehow.com/how_2075559_purchase-home-using-401k.html
http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/24/tapping-retirement-funds-ira-401k-personal-finance-house-downpayment.html
http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/04/ira-401k-hardship-personal-finance-retirement-ten-percent-penalty.html

And I am stressing again, when they bring an attorney to the table, make sure you have one too.. otherwise, you are the one getting screwed. Their attorney is only there to protect their rights, assets, wishes.. not yours. Considering that you tried to help their daughter and now they want the money immediately, this thing has already gone ‘adversarial’. No point in trying to ‘be nice’. Just deal with the facts.

For the IRA withdrawal, check w/ Accountant/IRS before committing.

[ucodegen]

First things first:
[quote frenchlambda]- a few months ago, while my then wife and I were trying to reach an agreement, her parents freaked out about the loan they gave us. They hired an attorney who threatened me to take legal action against me if I refused to sign a deed of trust for the benefit of his clients.
– at this time, my wife was refusing to sign a “stipulation and order” that showed that I was entitled to some other reimbursement
– so we worked out a deal. I signed the deed of trust and my wife signed the “stipulation and order” document.[/quote]
This is where you screwed up. Did you have an attorney representing you at the time? If not, and considering that coercion/duress was used by their attorney (under threat of legal action but w/o legal representation), it could invalidate the deed of trust (signatures under coercion are often not enforceable – more so if the counter party is not represented by an attorney, even more so if the threat from the counter party or counter party’s attorney contains the implied — “if you get an attorney to check this, then we will definitely sue”). The reason why they threatened here is that they didn’t have a leg to stand on w/ respect to the loan. With the deed, they now do.
NOTE: It might have been useful to offset the loan owed to parents by the amounts under consideration under the “stipulation and order”, thereby reducing your payments and loan amount — and making it easier to refi the ex-inlaw portion. But now you may have to take the effort to make sure the “stipulation and order” is enforced.

What this signature did, was convert an unsecured loan into a secured loan. This is a huge benefit to your wife and parents. 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.

Was the divorce proceedings done through court or arbitration? $13K sounds like court(but not drawn out). Was the “stipulation and order” part of the divorce agreement? If it was a court divorce proceedings AND was part of the agreement AND she then refused, she could be in contempt of court. What was in the “stipulation and order”?
[quote frenchlambda]I was nice enough to offer her shared child custody when my attorney recommended full custody for me.[/quote]
Should have listened to your attorney. Shared custody is hard enough when both parties are healthy and of fit mind. They are a nightmare if one is addicted, pathological or has revenge in mind. Until she is 100% clean for a period of time, it should have been visitation with supervision- for the sake of your daughter. Once she is 100% clean for a period of time, it is always possible to go back and amend to give her more rights/shared custody. It is hard to take back or re-establish custody once given though.

[quote frenchlambda]I think that it would be extremely disruptive to my daughter if I move.[/quote]
Moving is less disruptive to kids than it is to parents. Kids adapt a lot faster than their parents – just look how fast they can learn and pick up on new things.. ie technology.

[quote frenchlambda]I guess I will have no other choice than taking $30K from my 401(k). Is it even possible to do so? What are the costs associated with taking money from a 401(k)? Will I have to pay a huge tax next year?[/quote]
There is a way to use 401k money for real-estate purchases. I am not up 100% on how. Someone on the board may be. The problem may be that it can(maybe) only be used on original purchase, not refinance.
http://www.ehow.com/how_2075559_purchase-home-using-401k.html
http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/24/tapping-retirement-funds-ira-401k-personal-finance-house-downpayment.html
http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/04/ira-401k-hardship-personal-finance-retirement-ten-percent-penalty.html

And I am stressing again, when they bring an attorney to the table, make sure you have one too.. otherwise, you are the one getting screwed. Their attorney is only there to protect their rights, assets, wishes.. not yours. Considering that you tried to help their daughter and now they want the money immediately, this thing has already gone ‘adversarial’. No point in trying to ‘be nice’. Just deal with the facts.

For the IRA withdrawal, check w/ Accountant/IRS before committing.

[Author]

Posts