Can my ex take out loan w/o my signature

[CameronNewport]

And yes, many seniors here have argued that half of the mortgage payment was her "rent" for allowing him the use of her property for all of these years.

Those seniors would be wrong. First, as co-owner, the ex didn't "allow" him to use her property. He has a right to use 100% of it. Second, co-owners do not owe each other rent unless there is an ouster (which wasn't alluded to here).

 

[amwes]

Did you have a child support agreement put in place by a court?

No. At the time it just didn't seem right considering she didn't have a job. Basically I made a big mess of things by not listening to the law.

 

[Farfalla]

That would be grossly inequitable, and unless other facts surface, it ignores basic property law. I really doubt a judge would rule that they each currently own a 50% share of the house. A fair way to divide the property would be to take 50% of the equity at the time of divorce, and then inflate it according to the appreciation on the house.

If one takes 50% of the equity at the time of the dirvorce and inflate it according to appreciation of the house.... that is equal to 50% of the current value of the house.

 

[Farfalla]

No. At the time it just didn't seem right considering she didn't have a job. Basically I made a big mess of things by not listening to the law.

It's not unusual... I did not go after increases in child support over the years even though my ex's income when up about 400% over the years... because the thought of going to court with the man again made we sick to my stomach. I did not really need the money... it would have been nice but not a necessity. I figure that my son will benefit some day one way or the other.

But I don't think you can go back not to get child support when none was ever ordered. Don't know what else to say.

 

[Farfalla]

Those seniors would be wrong. First, as co-owner, the ex didn't "allow" him to use her property. He has a right to use 100% of it. Second, co-owners do not owe each other rent unless there is an ouster (which wasn't alluded to here).

Yes she did 'allow' him to use it. She has as much right to the property as he does since her name in on the deed as co-owner. She could have forced the sale of the property at any time.

What gave him the right to 100% usage of the property? There is no court order doing that.

So if I own property with another person, they can use it with no consideration to my ownership? I would have no rights to the property?

 

[LdiJ]

Those seniors would be wrong. First, as co-owner, the ex didn't "allow" him to use her property. He has a right to use 100% of it. Second, co-owners do not owe each other rent unless there is an ouster (which wasn't alluded to here).

And she also has the right to use 100% of it. However, that obviously hasn't happened, and I doubt that the OP would have permitted it to happen.

Look, I actually agree with you on the rent issue. However, I can't disagree with the logic to a great extent. If you take away marriage from the formula, and look at it as two unrelated people sharing ownership of a piece of property, unless you have a contract that states that one of them majority ownership/equity rights if they are the one solely paying the mortgage, (which obviously they don't have) the deed controls.

The OP could certainly file a partition suit and attempt to persuade a judge to given him the majority of ownership/equity rights since he is the one who has been paying the mortgage for the last 20 years, but that's an expensive and difficult battle to fight.

 

[LdiJ]

If one takes 50% of the equity at the time of the dirvorce and inflate it according to appreciation of the house.... that is equal to 50% of the current value of the house.

While I understand your point, that isn't exactly correct.

Example:

At the time of the split, the house was worth 150k, and had a 100k mortgage balance.

20 years later, the house is worth 400k, and is paid off.

250k is appreciation since the time of the split. 50k was equity built up prior to the split (which probably was a combination of paying down the mortgage and appreciation) and the other 100k is paying down the mortgage.

Equity is comprised of mortgage paydown AND appreciation. So, if you are making an argument based on "return of investment" you can't logically include equity paydown in that if only one party is paying down the equity. Then it can get even more complex by adding in the interest component.

In fact, an argument can be made that the party leaving the home had a 25k investment. (1/2 of the equity in the home at the time of the split) and that the party keeping the home had a 125k investment (1/2 of the equity plus the remaining mortgage). That would give the party leaving a potential appreciation basis of 16.67%, making there share of the 400k at 67k 20 years later. It could even be less if the interest component is factored in.

Would that fly in court? Absolutely yes if they had an agreement/contract at the time they split. If not, it would be really, really iffy in a partition suit.

 

[Farfalla]

While I understand your point, that isn't exactly correct.

Example:

At the time of the split, the house was worth 150k, and had a 100k mortgage balance.

**************

Ok I get the point from this explaination.

 

[CameronNewport]

Yes she did 'allow' him to use it. She has as much right to the property as he does since her name in on the deed as co-owner. She could have forced the sale of the property at any time.

Her failure to use or sell the property has no impact on the OP's legal right to use the property. Therefore, my point stands: She did not "allow" him to use it. She had absolutely no choice in the matter.

What gave him the right to 100% usage of the property? There is no court order doing that.

A co-owner always has a right to use 100% of the property. Do you mean what gave him the right to have exclusive possession? Nothing except the ex's failure to exercise her rights. As you stated above, she could have used it or sold it. She didn't. That's not the OP's problem.

So if I own property with another person, they can use it with no consideration to my ownership? I would have no rights to the property?

Yes, the co-owner can use it with no consideration to your ownership (unless that person's use infringes on your right to use the property). No, you would have rights to the property (as mentioned).

And she also has the right to use 100% of it. However, that obviously hasn't happened, and I doubt that the OP would have permitted it to happen.

The ex would need to prove that the OP specifically excluded her from using the property. It's not enough for her to state that she had a right to use the property but chose not to, or that she thought that if she tried to use the property the OP wouldn't permit it.

Having said that, I do agree that this issue is not a simple matter. But for purposes of equity, under the circumstances shared by the OP (that he paid the mortgage for 20 years), I just don't think a judge would rule that the ex gets half the house.

 

[LdiJ]

Having said that, I do agree that this issue is not a simple matter. But for purposes of equity, under the circumstances shared by the OP (that he paid the mortgage for 20 years), I just don't think a judge would rule that the ex gets half the house.

This would not be a family law matter at this point in time. This would have nothing to do with the divorce.

This would be no different than any other two, unrelated people, sharing ownership of a property.

There is no "equitable distribution" in real estate law.

 

[mistoffolees]

While I understand your point, that isn't exactly correct.

Example:

At the time of the split, the house was worth 150k, and had a 100k mortgage balance.

20 years later, the house is worth 400k, and is paid off.

250k is appreciation since the time of the split. 50k was equity built up prior to the split (which probably was a combination of paying down the mortgage and appreciation) and the other 100k is paying down the mortgage.

Equity is comprised of mortgage paydown AND appreciation. So, if you are making an argument based on "return of investment" you can't logically include equity paydown in that if only one party is paying down the equity. Then it can get even more complex by adding in the interest component.

In fact, an argument can be made that the party leaving the home had a 25k investment. (1/2 of the equity in the home at the time of the split) and that the party keeping the home had a 125k investment (1/2 of the equity plus the remaining mortgage). That would give the party leaving a potential appreciation basis of 16.67%, making there share of the 400k at 67k 20 years later. It could even be less if the interest component is factored in.

Would that fly in court? Absolutely yes if they had an agreement/contract at the time they split. If not, it would be really, really iffy in a partition suit.

Sometimes it helps to reduce things to the simplest level, so let's take the case where there's no appreciation.

At the time of the divorce, home value is $150 K and mortgage is $100 K (equity of $50 K). Each party gets $25 K in equity.

Now one partner moves out and the other takes full responsibility for the loan - eventually paying off the entire loan. The home does not increase in value.

It would be hard to argue that each partner should get $75 K of the selling price. Clearly, the partner who left gets $25 K and the other gets $125 K.

That demonstrates that the 'each partner gets 50% of the equity no matter how much later it is' argument is false.

 

[Ohiogal]

Sometimes it helps to reduce things to the simplest level, so let's take the case where there's no appreciation.

At the time of the divorce, home value is $150 K and mortgage is $50 K. Each party gets $25 K in equity.

.

Where did the other $50k in equity go? Because as far as I know 150 -50 = 100 which means divide that by 2 and you end up with 50k. So that is what each party should get.

 

[mistoffolees]

Where did the other $50k in equity go? Because as far as I know 150 -50 = 100 which means divide that by 2 and you end up with 50k. So that is what each party should get.

Sorry, I meant to say $100 K mortgage, leaving $50 K equity. I've corrected my original post.

 

[LdiJ]

Sometimes it helps to reduce things to the simplest level, so let's take the case where there's no appreciation.

At the time of the divorce, home value is $150 K and mortgage is $100 K (equity of $50 K). Each party gets $25 K in equity.

Now one partner moves out and the other takes full responsibility for the loan - eventually paying off the entire loan. The home does not increase in value.

It would be hard to argue that each partner should get $75 K of the selling price. Clearly, the partner who left gets $25 K and the other gets $125 K.

That demonstrates that the 'each partner gets 50% of the equity no matter how much later it is' argument is false.

Again, that's "fair" but does that apply under real estate law? Can someone's 50% ownership in a property be reduced to 20% because they did not pay the mortgage? Unless there was written contract to that effect, I don't see how its possible.

Remember, these people were divorced 20 years ago. They are not negotiating a divorce now. They are simply two unrelated parties sharing ownership of a property.

 

[CameronNewport]

This would not be a family law matter at this point in time. This would have nothing to do with the divorce.

This would be no different than any other two, unrelated people, sharing ownership of a property.

There is no "equitable distribution" in real estate law.

Completely untrue. Equitable remedies are not limited to a particular subject matter.