California Evidence Code 1152 and Third Party Contract

[AgentSmithers]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Hi everyone!
In a situation where an opposing side crafts a straight forward proposal saying that they will take some form of positive action at a later date if you agree to sign another contract with a third party that day. Is that proposal either legally binding or is it still exempt under California Code 1152? Is there a simple way to make the third party contact contingent on the proposal letter when signing? A bad case scenario is to find that the opposing side says they can not fulfill their side then your stuck legally bound to the third party contract.

Here's an example.
A couple is involved in getting a diverse (Spouse A and B), Some time before the Divorce is finalized Spouse A wants to buy a house. B is required to sign a QuitClaim deed for A to move forward with buying the house and cannot until that is signed. A draws up a proposal letter asking B to sign and in return submit to the diverse to finalize it under certain conditions.

I don't mean to open a can of worms topic because I know there can more then likely be an "any" case scenario but anyone that can point me in the right direction will be appreciated. If one can easily go back if A has fulfilled their part.

Thanks everyone!!

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Hi everyone!
In a situation where an opposing side crafts a straight forward proposal saying that they will take some form of positive action at a later date if you agree to sign another contract with a third party that day. Is that proposal either legally binding or is it still exempt under California Code 1152? Is there a simple way to make the third party contact contingent on the proposal letter when signing? A bad case scenario is to find that the opposing side says they can not fulfill their side then your stuck legally bound to the third party contract.

Here's an example.
A couple is involved in getting a diverse (Spouse A and B), Some time before the Divorce is finalized Spouse A wants to buy a house. B is required to sign a QuitClaim deed for A to move forward with buying the house and cannot until that is signed. A draws up a proposal letter asking B to sign and in return submit to the diverse to finalize it under certain conditions.

I don't mean to open a can of worms topic because I know there can more then likely be an "any" case scenario but anyone that can point me in the right direction will be appreciated. If one can easily go back if A has fulfilled their part.

Thanks everyone!!

Huh?

 

[tranquility]

I agree with the "huh", but add, you can certainly make up a set of contingencies to protect all the parties in a series of contracts.

 

[AgentSmithers]

I agree with the "huh", but add, you can certainly make up a set of contingencies to protect all the parties in a series of contracts.

So it sounds like the QuitClaim deed needs to be modified to reflect that it is contingent on the Diverse proceedings correct?
Thanks again for chiming in.

 

[Zigner]

So it sounds like the QuitClaim deed needs to be modified to reflect that it is contingent on the Diverse proceedings correct?
Thanks again for chiming in.

What does diversity have to do with this?

 

[tranquility]

So it sounds like the QuitClaim deed needs to be modified to reflect that it is contingent on the Diverse proceedings correct?
Thanks again for chiming in.

Gets back to the "huh". Why would the quit claim need to be contingent?

Lay out what you are trying to do in reality, not hypothetical. You are not good at hypothetical.

 

[quincy]

AgentSmithers, a signed agreement made during settlement negotiations can be used as evidence if the agreement is offered as evidence to show a breach in the agreement previously made.

Is this what you are asking about? A divorce agreement where A gets the deed to a house if A gives B "C" in exchange - with the deed having to come before A can provide C?

Here is a link to California's evidence code, section 1152: http://law.oncle.com/california/evidence/1152.html

Perhaps I am reading this wrong.

 

[AgentSmithers]

Gets back to the "huh". Why would the quit claim need to be contingent?

Lay out what you are trying to do in reality, not hypothetical. You are not good at hypothetical.

I have a letter from my spouse's lawyer about an agreement in signing off on our divorce and finalizing it. The letter stats that I will get what and list the terms in the letter if and only if want if I sign the Quit Claim Deed today to my spouses new house that is in progress of being bought. It appears the Quit Claim was drafted up by the Title company and not my spouses lawyer.

 

[tranquility]

I have a letter from my spouse's lawyer about an agreement in signing off on our divorce and finalizing it. The letter stats that I will get what and list the terms in the letter if and only if want if I sign the Quit Claim Deed today to my spouses new house that is in progress of being bought. It appears the Quit Claim was drafted up by the Title company and not my spouses lawyer.

A quite claim deed gives up your rights in the spouses new house. Do you feel you have any rights in your spouse's new house? If not, what is the problem even if they don't guarantee follow through?

 

[AgentSmithers]

Thank you Quincy that is 100% correct. The divorce proceeding will take time to process however a quit claim deed will need to be processed first. If 1152 can be used to show breach of contract after its signed that should work for both of us. All we want to do is make sure we both get what we want. Thank you for your input!!

 

[quincy]

Thank you Quincy that is 100% correct. The divorce proceeding will take time to process however a quit claim deed will need to be processed first. If 1152 can be used to show breach of contract after its signed that should work for both of us. All we want to do is make sure we both get what we want. Thank you for your input!!

Just make sure you get any agreement in writing and signed by both parties, showing that A gives "C" to B in exchange for B giving the deed to A.

You will want attorneys for both parties involved in drafting the agreement to ensure its enforceability. Professional values and estimates of values of both the house and "C" should be provided to the parties so both parties are fully informed before agreeing to the exchange. Any misrepresentation or omission of material facts relating to the exchange can make the agreement voidable.

From my understanding, the type of exchange you are talking about is not that uncommon in divorces. It often involves one party agreeing to give up ownership and all equity in a house by signing a quit claim deed, in exchange for the other party giving up any and all rights in, say, pensions or 401k's. The terms of any agreement made during settlement talks should be detailed in the final divorce agreement.

Anything that can be agreed to in the way of property division prior to the divorce can be of benefit to both parties because there is less to argue about. Again, though, you need to be sure that one party is not taking unfair advantage of the other or else the agreement can be challenged later. For a bad example: Parties agree to an exchange of items, with Party A not realizing as Party B does that what Party A is exchanging is a rare collectible worth a hundred times what is being exchanged by Party B.

Having attorneys involved is important for both parties to ensure their rights are being adequately protected.

Good luck.

 

[tranquility]

From my understanding, the type of exchange you are talking about is not that uncommon in divorces. It often involves one party agreeing to give up ownership and all equity in a house by signing a quit claim deed, in exchange for the other party giving up any and all rights in, say, pensions or 401k's. The terms of any agreement made during settlement talks should be detailed in the final divorce agreement.

A related issue is fairly standard by what I see. It is usually used where actual rights are given up with the quit claim. One spouse will quit claim the residence to the other to sell and the money split will be done under court order under penalty of contempt. Contract law does not enter into it. Here, while giving up known rights can be consideration, I am uncertain the quit claim will rise to that level of the OP has no rights in the first place.

 

[quincy]

A related issue is fairly standard by what I see. It is usually used where actual rights are given up with the quit claim. One spouse will quit claim the residence to the other to sell and the money split will be done under court order under penalty of contempt. Contract law does not enter into it. Here, while giving up known rights can be consideration, I am uncertain the quit claim will rise to that level of the OP has no rights in the first place.

I think having attorneys review the facts is important before either party agrees to or signs anything - but it is true that a quit claim means nothing if the party agreeing to the quit claim has no rights in the house to begin with.

I am sort of visualizing this as a house owned by both A and B, with A wanting to use the house perhaps as collateral on a loan for a new house. If B is not living in the house and/or cannot afford to live in the house, and any equity in the house can be seen as equivalent to an asset A agrees to sign over to B (perhaps a pension, perhaps a boat), then it can be better in many cases, and in my opinion, to handle the house with this sort of exchange - rather than allowing one party to live in the house and ordered by a court to sell it and split the proceeds.

The one living in the house in the latter example often has no incentive to sell and can actually thwart all attempts to sell. The one not living in the house can wait a long time for his/her share from the sale of the home (not to mention, having a house tied up in one's name can make it harder to qualify for another one).

But this is all in my opinion only. Facts (assets, finances, family) can really change what is best and most reasonable for both parties. There is a lot to consider when people divorce and it can be best to consider it all with the help of an attorney (although whatever the parties can agree to amicably between themselves without an attorney helps).

 

[tranquility]

I think having attorneys review the facts is important before either party agrees to or signs anything - but it is true that a quit claim means nothing if the party agreeing to the quit claim has no rights in the house to begin with.

I am sort of visualizing this as a house owned by both A and B, with A wanting to use the house perhaps as collateral on a loan for a new house. If B is not living in the house and/or cannot afford to live in the house, and any equity in the house can be seen as equivalent to an asset A agrees to sign over to B (perhaps a pension, perhaps a boat), then it can be better in many cases, and in my opinion, to handle the house with this sort of exchange - rather than allowing one party to live in the house and ordered by a court to sell it and split the proceeds.

The one living in the house in the latter example often has no incentive to sell and can actually thwart all attempts to sell. The one not living in the house can wait a long time for his/her share from the sale of the home (not to mention, having a house tied up in one's name can make it harder to qualify for another one).

But this is all in my opinion only. Facts (assets, finances, family) can really change what is best and most reasonable for both parties. There is a lot to consider when people divorce and it can be best to consider it all with the help of an attorney (although whatever the parties can agree to amicably between themselves without an attorney helps).

This is more along the path of how such quit claims are demanded by the courts. (At least in CA.) It often comes up when the parties do not cooperate in the sale of a residence and there is no possibility of one being able to afford a refi to cash out the spouse within a few years.

 

[AgentSmithers]

Thank you everyone for the feed back. The Quit Claim deed was required to be signed due to the marriage not being finalized yet in the divorce. As such even though both people are legally separated, buying a house will still make the sale a piece of community propertly.