I suspect she doesn't have any legal claim on the house now, but you need to talk to a lawyer to be sure.

Sounds like she is trying to "influence you into giving her money".

I'd lawyer up. For stuff like this and Divorces in general a good lawyer is worth their weight in gold.

I'd also not say another word to her about it until you talk to your lawyer. Don't be confrontational or shady, just say "I'm waiting to hear back from my attorney" or she engages you on it.

I'd give you my personal opinion, but it's biased as I'm divorced too and it's not as valuable as the above advice.

I'm not an attorney but I do have a valid driver's license...and been through two divorces. I represented myself in the second one.

I don't read anything in this thread that indicates she has a valid claim and I assume a Judge signed a Divorce Decree and it was filed. She seems to think she can unilaterally reopen the Property Settlement. B.S.

Pay a Family Law Attorney a few bucks to review your Divorce Decree and then write her a letter. The end.

If she has an interest in the house, there may be a title problem with the new mortgage.

Usually, the title company insuring the new loan will make sure that spouses have adequately documented their interests, or lack of interest in the property.

A quit claim from the recently divorced spouse not on title is often requested, and screws things up when that spouse refuses to sign, or signs for a price.

Usually, when someone threatens me, I say "fine, take your best shot."

If you cave in, it'll cost you $15,000. If you don't, it might cost you nothing, nothing but lawyer fees, or $15,000 plus lawyer fees.

If the lawyer says you're in the clear, I'd send her a "bill" for her portion of the deficiency when the agreement was first signed.

First, there is no way I'd just "give her $15K" without consulting a lawyer, assessing the risks, and ensuring that if I DID give her $15k, that the issues was SETTLE once and for all. Period, DOT, end of story. Witnesses, Notarized, sealed with blood kind of done.

Second, GET REAL LEGAL ADVICE. The several hundred dollars required for a consultation will be required either way you go (pay off or tell her to go fuck herself). It could be that you are entirely in the clear, but you'd want legal advice telling you that was the case and send her a legaleise letter stating as such. Let an expert tell you the reality of the situation under NV law.

If she's groveling for $15k, she likely doesn't have the ass to really take you to court and win.

Oh yeah, tell her fuck you for me. Just because it sounds like she deserves it.

quote:

Oh yeah, tell her fuck you for me. Just because it sounds like she deserves it.

Give her one for me as well. Having gone through the exact same thing as you, could you also throw an extra exclamation point or two on mine please.

In my case she paid exactly 1/2 of one mortgage payment and was asking for $46,000. 1/2 of the down-payment which was all non-marital money. I bought in 2006. By the time she was asking for her payday the house had six figures of negative equity. I suggested she A) Fuck off or B) We sell and she comes up with 1/2 the check due to mortgage company at closing. She choose to STFU.

Mine DID get the house and all equity, PLUS my retirement.

She promptly took the cash, causing a 25% penalty on top of taxes owed and showing as income to her.

In the end there was $16,000 in taxes owed by HER on raping my retirement that she nor I could pay.

The IRS promptly put a lien on the house and when she sold it, took 100% of the equity.

I have the letter of lien satisfaction framed on my wall.

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:
Mine DID get the house and all equity, PLUS my retirement.

She promptly took the cash, causing a 25% penalty on top of taxes owed and showing as income to her.

In the end there was $16,000 in taxes owed by HER on raping my retirement that she nor I could pay.

The IRS promptly put a lien on the house and when she sold it, took 100% of the equity.

I have the letter of lien satisfaction framed on my wall.

You didn't transfer the retirement money under a QDRO!?

quote:

Originally posted by heavyd:
It depends on what your settlement agreement or divorce decree says. Generally, if you were provided an opportunity to refi then the house is yours. You'll have to check out the papers.

Yes. Everyone up until HeavyD is talking about things that have nothing whatever to do with your question. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Bupkus.

This is an operative lesson in why you don't ask for legal advice on the web. Everyone thinks they know something, and most of them know less than nothing, because what they know is wrong but they'll tell you anyway.

Your divorce decree ALREADY tells you who gets the money from the sale proceeds. If it doesn't there was a serious mistake. But I hope it already does. No one can answer your question without reading your decree. There should be language awarding the house to someone. Since you drafted it yourself though, you may well have screwed it up.

Sometimes the proceeds of a later sale are split when that sale occurs. If that is true, it should be absolutely and obviously clear that is what is supposed to happen.

More often one party gets the house, which means he or she gets any and all proceeds upon a later sale.

But you can't tell without reading the decree. Ask a lawyer if after reading the decree you are still confused. ASK A DAMN LAWYER, not your internet friends. I hope you didn't fail to award the ownership of the house to someone, because if that is the case you have created a nightmare for yourself.

Which brings up another point. HIRE A DAMN LAWYER to do this stuff. This is a great example of how trying to save a few thousand dollars can cost you thousands later in fees just to straighten something out that could have been done right for less money. And worse, could cost you more if it is decided that you aren't the sole owner of the house.

(I am a divorce lawyer. And I figured since HeavyD already won the brevity award, I'd explain more, and gripe about those who just spout off.)

quote:

Originally posted by rocket72:

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:
Mine DID get the house and all equity, PLUS my retirement.

She promptly took the cash, causing a 25% penalty on top of taxes owed and showing as income to her.

In the end there was $16,000 in taxes owed by HER on raping my retirement that she nor I could pay.

The IRS promptly put a lien on the house and when she sold it, took 100% of the equity.

I have the letter of lien satisfaction framed on my wall.

You didn't transfer the retirement money under a QDRO!?

A QDRO doesn't suspend the tax if she cashes out of a qualified plan. The tax still hasn't been paid on the tax deferred income, and she has to pay it. And she has to pay the penalty for cashing out early.

The QDRO just prevents the transfer to her from being the event that triggers the taxation.

quote:

But you can't tell without reading the decree. Ask a lawyer if after reading the decree you are still confused. ASK A DAMN LAWYER, not your internet friends. I hope you didn't fail to award the ownership of the house to someone, because if that is the case you have created a nightmare for yourself.

Which brings up another point. HIRE A DAMN LAWYER to do this stuff. This is a great example of how trying to save a few thousand dollars can cost you thousands later in fees just to straighten something out that could have been done right for less money. And worse, could cost you more if it is decided that you aren't the sole owner of the house.

(I am a divorce lawyer. And I figured since HeavyD already won the brevity award, I'd explain more, and gripe about those who just spout off.)

But I cannot afford a lawyer, I would rather ask my internet friends!! I do have to admit we have a pretty intelligent group here, better than advice from random people at the bus stop. Maybe it is because I am a professional, I find myself hiring a CPA for my tax questions, an attorney to draw up my will, and a physician to take care of my health care needs. Admittedly I will ask friends about stuff, but when it gets serious I consult a professional. Sorry I left out LEO professionals.

quote:

Originally posted by sdf:
It says (in her writing)...

"The house is considered a zero asset due to negative equity. Wife will keep her name on the mortgage and title, but husband will pay mortgage/HOA dues and reside at property. Wife will remain on mortgage/title until husband can qualify for the home on his own."


I qualified, I signed refi papers, and she signed off the deed.

We did not use lawyers. She simply wanted to "live her own life."

We filled out the paperwork, submitted it, and a judge signed it.

Not a lawyer here, but...

It sounds as this may be the only stipulation the judge noted on his/her approval of a petition for divorce? No other assets specifically addressed as to how to split, etc.? Totally uncontested divorce?

If the answers to those questions is "No", I don't see how you could possible owe her even the time of day.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by heavyd:
It depends on what your settlement agreement or divorce decree says. Generally, if you were provided an opportunity to refi then the house is yours. You'll have to check out the papers.

Yes. Everyone up until HeavyD is talking about things that have nothing whatever to do with your question. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Bupkus.

This is an operative lesson in why you don't ask for legal advice on the web. Everyone thinks they know something, and most of them know less than nothing, because what they know is wrong but they'll tell you anyway.

Your divorce decree ALREADY tells you who gets the money from the sale proceeds. If it doesn't there was a serious mistake. But I hope it already does. No one can answer your question without reading your decree. There should be language awarding the house to someone. Since you drafted it yourself though, you may well have screwed it up.

Sometimes the proceeds of a later sale are split when that sale occurs. If that is true, it should be absolutely and obviously clear that is what is supposed to happen.

More often one party gets the house, which means he or she gets any and all proceeds upon a later sale.

But you can't tell without reading the decree. Ask a lawyer if after reading the decree you are still confused. ASK A DAMN LAWYER, not your internet friends. I hope you didn't fail to award the ownership of the house to someone, because if that is the case you have created a nightmare for yourself.

Which brings up another point. HIRE A DAMN LAWYER to do this stuff. This is a great example of how trying to save a few thousand dollars can cost you thousands later in fees just to straighten something out that could have been done right for less money. And worse, could cost you more if it is decided that you aren't the sole owner of the house.

(I am a divorce lawyer. And I figured since HeavyD already won the brevity award, I'd explain more, and gripe about those who just spout off.)

What he said! And, Hire a damned Lawyer!

The language the OP posted about the house is not very clear at all. In fact, it is terrible. I hope there is more in the decree about the house.

I would probably prefer to be the OP in this situation, but if that is all that is in the decree, there is an excellent argument that you just can't tell what they intended, and that the house house wasn't divided.

The hell of it is that any marginally competent lawyer could have drafted language that made in perfectly clear what the parties intended. Hell, I have drafted so many decrees of divorce that I would have dozens of samples of model language that would have required modest edits after a cut and paste job.

Not to bang on the OP, but this could have been avoided years ago, for a modest cost, and for less than the cost of fighting about it now.

"The house is considered a zero asset due to negative equity.

(((So what? The net value of the house isn't relevant to who owns it. And, which is it? A zero asset, whatever that is, or does it have negative equity?)))

Wife will keep her name on the mortgage and title, but husband will pay mortgage/HOA dues and reside at property.

(((She doesn't have any choice about the mortgage. And does that mean the note or the deed of trust? In any case, the bank won't let her off the hook until there is a re-fi. Not relevant to ownership. Keeping her as a record owner (name stays on the title) means she remains a record owner, as she could convey her ownership interest to him at the time of divorce, regardless of her status vis a vis the note and deed of trust. He can reside in the house without owning it outright - it is done all the time. This is probably bad for the OP.

Wife will remain on mortgage/title until husband can qualify for the home on his own."

(((This seems to indicate that wife will transfer ownership to husband when he refinances. This is why I slightly favor husband's position. But in light of everything that went before, it is a long way from definitive.)))

And OP - this is not legal advice to you. If you tell her to pound sand, you do it at your own risk. You are not my client, and I owe you no duty. I think your arguments are weak. Hire a lawyer in your state.

quote:

Joe and Bill decided to go fishing. It was cool, so they wore sweaters. They caught some fish. What color were the sweaters?

You guys take the same Language and Logic courses that I took in College or was that during your law school years?

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by rocket72:

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:
Mine DID get the house and all equity, PLUS my retirement.

She promptly took the cash, causing a 25% penalty on top of taxes owed and showing as income to her.

In the end there was $16,000 in taxes owed by HER on raping my retirement that she nor I could pay.

The IRS promptly put a lien on the house and when she sold it, took 100% of the equity.

I have the letter of lien satisfaction framed on my wall.

You didn't transfer the retirement money under a QDRO!?

A QDRO doesn't suspend the tax if she cashes out of a qualified plan. The tax still hasn't been paid on the tax deferred income, and she has to pay it. And she has to pay the penalty for cashing out early.

The QDRO just prevents the transfer to her from being the event that triggers the taxation.

Yeah I misread that he had to liquidate it and pay the taxes himself.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:

quote:

Joe and Bill decided to go fishing. It was cool, so they wore sweaters. They caught some fish. What color were the sweaters?

You guys take the same Language and Logic courses that I took in College or was that during your law school years?

I took that out of my post as he was quoting it. My point was that there isn't enough information in the thread to make a clear determination. Sorry, ZSMICHAEL.

Those read like LSAT questions in the logic section.

I see that "she signed off the deed."

If that can be interpreted as signing a deed conveying her interest in the property to you and that deed was delivered to you, which is what should have been done to put you in title as the sole mortgagor, then she has no interest in the property. That doesn't completely answer the question of whether she is entitled to money, but it leans that way.

The trouble with non lawyer drafted agreements is they seldom use language that accurately describes what they are doing, or mean. You don't "keep your name on title and loan" for example, or "sign off the deed."

It makes it all but impossible to predict what it will mean in practice.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
I see that "she signed off the deed."

If that can be interpreted as signing a deed conveying her interest in the property to you and that deed was delivered to you, which is what should have been done to put you in title as the sole mortgagor, then she has no interest in the property. That doesn't completely answer the question of whether she is entitled to money, but it leans that way.

The trouble with non lawyer drafted agreements is they seldom use language that accurately describes what they are doing, or mean. You don't "keep your name on title and loan" for example, or "sign off the deed."

It makes it all but impossible to predict what it will mean in practice.

I agree with JAllen - he notes additional reasons to be confused, but the fact that she did apparently transfer ownership (which I assume what is meant by "signed off the deed"), is not a factor in her favor.

But again, this is very murky.