You are here

DH updated me a bit on what happened with this whole house/equity thing

bulletproof's picture

First and foremost, the decree I was referencing yesterday came from that crazy e-mail BM sent about a year ago where she outlined different sections and told DH he was breaking all of those sections (remember? She said we had to consult her before giving SS cough drops! :? ) The first thing that he said to me when he got home from work was that we needed to wait until our furniture/household items were shipped to us here because she left out parts of the section that references the house/equity situation and his copy of the decree is in that shipment. So, hopefully he's remembering correctly. Those things should be here within a few weeks.

BM and DH bought the house together. NONE of the numbers below are accurate, but to have this make more sense I'll use numbers. So, they bought it for $250,000. Almost five years later they had it appraised because the market would work in their favor. It appraised at $350,000. They put it on the market. THEN, BM filed for divorce. They estimated the equity to be $90,000. The money they were to split (this interest/equity that she is referring to) is $60,000 (so 30k each). The other $30,000 was to go to the realtor who was selling the house for them. That is how the figure she is saying DH owes her came about. He said that nothing other than that was done to come up with that figure.

Then he explained to me that the part BM left out says that he had to sell the house and give her the first $30,000 of the profit of the house. Well, we are in the process of a short sale, and it is selling for less than DH and BM originally bought it for, so there isn't any profit there.

After we talked about all of that, we looked up the statute of limitations on this. I forgot that when we met with DH's lawyer back before we moved overseas, he told us that there is a statute of limitations and he was pretty sure it was past the point where BM could do anything about this. For a written contract in the state in which they divorced, the statute is 6 years. The way we saw it worded on every website we read has us understanding that it is 6 years from the day in which the contract is entered. I am hoping that is true, and that it isn't 6 years from the day it says you have to pay it by.

So, from what he explained to me, things look more promising. He does not have the best memory, so I am hoping that what he is saying about that section of the decree is indeed what it says. He said he will not fly home for this, that his lawyer already said he'd represent him with DH being there, and that he plans to consult a second lawyer again after he contacts his lawyer today to make sure opinions are the same.

Thanks for all your support and help yesterday; anything else you can tell me that will help me understand the court system better, or anything that you can foresee BM throwing at us will definitely help! Smile

Comments

bulletproof's picture

The cough drops thing wasn't in the agreement. She wrote, word-for-word, sections of the decree and accused DH of violating them. For the cough drops thing, she wrote about how they are supposed to make major medical decisions for SS together, but he was given too many cough drops and if we don't follow the directions on the package we can damage his GI tract and he can even have organ failure. GAG. She is an idiot, and a control freak.

The funny part is, I forgot that in that email she was accusing DH of removing money from the bank accounts they had when she first walked out on him...and that was seriously EIGHT years ago. When I read it yesterday I kind of giggled to myself and was hopeful that she'll bring that up in court, so the judge gets a little humor added to his/her day also.

bulletproof's picture

It's confusing to me also. In my opinion, it could go one way or the other. I agree that it would be kind of yucky if he got out of it, but it's hard for me to not count the fact that she didn't take care of tens of thousands of dollars of her debt because she played the bank.

And actually, DH told me yesterday that it was a double whammy for her...she put renters in the house she took (which was where the debt was that she was supposed to take in the divorce) and then quit paying the mortgage. The bank took care of the debt for her, and now she has renters in there and is paying the mortgage again. She pocketed thousands over the course of months because of how she played the system AND she got out of the debt. It irritates me that she can pull all of the refis and stuff that DH has done on our old house, but we (according to what you guys are saying on here) can't use this against her. It says in the decree that SHE had to pay that debt, not the bank. And she didn't pay it.

The cough drops thing was ridiculous. I posted everything in that e-mail when she sent it. One of these days, I'll have to do a re-post so everyone can laugh at her expense again, because it was mind-boggling that she invested the time she did to compose and send that e-mail.

bulletproof's picture

Well, the six years was in 2012, before we even had orders. We were in the same state as BM until after 2013 began, months after the 6 year statute expired.

bulletproof's picture

Yes, and what I said in this post is that from what we read, the statute of limitations begins the day the contract is signed. So for this, that would be the day they signed the decree and all that jazz, which was more than six years ago. THEN I said that DH is going to contact his lawyer to ensure that is indeed what the law is in our old state.

bulletproof's picture

No, and like I've said I have no idea how anything works when it comes to legal matters. That's why I came here and requested positive advice and support, which is not what is reflected in the way you worded your question. I already said that we very well could be mistaken with how it works, and that my husband is contacting his attorney. Is that not enough for you to be satisfied with my admission of uncertainty?

bulletproof's picture

haha--thank you.

I'll ask you, since you are an attorney.

In the state where they divorced, the statute of limitations on written contracts is 6 years. Is that from the date the contract is signed? And, isn't their decree a contract?

bulletproof's picture

I completely understand. We have a friend that went to law school and just has to take the bar, and whenever we have questions like this for him he gives us the same disclaimer.

Thank you so much! Smile

RedWingsFan's picture

In the words of Ashton Kutcher playing Michael in "That 70's Show" - BURN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LMFAO

Stepmom_Lori's picture

Did you DH ever refinance to get BM off the mortgage? Did they file a quit claim deed? Or was she still on the mortgage when the house sold? I would think that if he refinanced he would owe her whatever the equity was at that time. He could have refinanced for a higher amount at that time to get the money to pay her the share of the equity.
If she was still on the mortgage now when the house sold I can't imagine her getting a share of non-existing equity especially since it was a short sale. Whether he owes or not will depend on a lot of these things.

I can see both sides of this situation. When my DH divorced, BM got the house but was supposed to "buy him out" by paying him half of the equity which was about 70k at the time. She dragged her feet and refused to agree to that amount and he just wanted it overwith so he agreed to only 30k. I personally feel she robbed him of his rightful 40k. She refinanced and took out 30k to pay him the difference.
My friend was divorcing her DH and there was no equity in their house. He agreed to let her have it and she had 1 year to refinance, which I think is very generous. 4 years later and she still has not refinanced because her credit sucks and her EXH is still legally on the hook for this house. She gets very generous child support and alimony and has her BF who she left her DH for living with her but still has the gall to send her EXH bills for household expenses. For example, they had a water pipe break in the house and it caused some damage. She sent him a bill for it through her lawyer because she feels he's still responsible for half of it because he's still on the mortgage. Yes, she's one of THOSE BM's that we hear about everyday on this site.

bulletproof's picture

Yes, he did refinance immediately to remove her name from the mortgage. The house is in the process of a short sale now, and her name has been off of it for almost a decade.

Stepmom_Lori's picture

then I'd say he owes her whatever her share of equity was back then unfortunately. It wouldn't matter if the market tanked the very next day. But I guess it will all depend on the judge and a statute of limitations if it applies.

bulletproof's picture

I don't think there was when he refinanced. Don't quote me on that, but that's why I laid out the timeline.

The numbers in their decree for the amount of total equity and the amount DH owes her are from when they had the house appraised like four months before they divorced. BM didn't want them to do another appraisal (why, I don't know), so they based it off of those numbers. So, when he refinanced AFTER the divorce was final, I don't think there was any equity.

Stepmom_Lori's picture

I'm not a lawyer like others on here but I would think that if there was no equity in the house by the time that he refinanced to get her off of the mortgage then he shouldn't owe her diddily squat!

I could be comepletely wrong though, but in my head, that's how it should work and hopefully for you and DH this is the case Smile

misSTEP's picture

Although people seem to think that he is somehow screwing BM out of money that is rightfully hers, it is not HIS problem that the housing market tanked. If anything, blame the big banks who were handing out mortgages left and right to people who couldn't afford them.

The person BM should be pissed at his her own LAWYER. Because if they, at the time of the divorce, would have sold the house and split the profit RIGHT THEN, she would HAVE her oh so precious money. Because of how the decree was worded, she would get half of the PROFIT WHEN he sold. He is selling in a down market and THERE IS NO PROFIT TO SPLIT. He is getting screwed out of money just as much as she is.

If you think that he was able to see into the future in order to deliberately screw BM out of her chunk of change that she was counting on, I want to consult this guy for my stock purchases!

I don't understand why people think he is screwing her over. He is getting screwed as well. It isn't HIS fault, it is the HOUSING MARKET'S fault. Write your congressman! Wink

bulletproof's picture

What you said about seeing into the future is something DH says all the time. All I'm doing right now is hoping that how he's remembering this to be worded in the decree is indeed the way it is worded, and that's that he had to sell and give her the money he owed her first from the profits.

I can fill in the gap and aid in your understanding:

Because people on this board think that my DH can only do wrong. If you'd like hard evidence to back up that statement, check out my blogs: every single time that I post ANYTHING positive about him, people like SAF and CheriWilson have NOTHING to say. It's only when they see a blog where they can somehow link it to something they've perceived to be negative that they sit at their computers and brainstorm cruelty.

bulletproof's picture

LOL--Good name for them! There are definitely a few others that mingle with the Mean Girls also. We need to assign character names to them, seriously.

Lalena75's picture

"And I think that you should be quiet while the adults are talking"
OMG I'm sorry I just lost it after this, I use this all the time with the morons I seem to be surrounded by. I've decided I need to move to a foreign country and date a scientist or at least someone with a Masters degree I'm tired of being the smart one.
Thank you dog person. I needed the great big laugh, and for a very legitimate reason, that gave me.

bulletproof's picture

He went to a lawyer every single time, and every time they told him that he didn't owe her any money and advised him not to pay her. They all said that if she wanted to try to take it to court, she would, and he would fight it then. So he took their advice. Beyond that, I don't know why SHE took so long in taking it to court.