contempt in West Virginia

[what-to-do]

I got a uncontested divorce back in May of this year. I agreed to give my ex-wife the marital property in which she is residing in. The order stated that she was suppose to keep make the payment every month on time and I recently found out that she is not doing that. She is three months behind now and I have served her with a contempt order and a hearing is set for the end of October. The agreement was that she would refinance and she has not because of credit reasons. Now I am getting threatened by the mortgage company because my name is still on the loan (I made contact with them). They are talking foreclosure as of the first of October if I do not pay two months worth of payments. Since the final order says that she is solely reponsible for the payments, I am wondering if I am protected by the family court ruling. If I make the payments, she still has the house and it will pretty much just be charity!!!! Any advise?

[Ohiogal]

The bank is NOT responsible or bound by the family court ruling. You signed the mortgage and you agreed to pay the bank. Until you are removed from the mortgage by either sale or refinance, you are responsible for the payments. You say it is charity but it is not. It is more like salvation -- salvaging your credit rating before it is destroyed. You need to be proactive and responsible for that.

[what-to-do]

I gave my ex the house because I did not want to leave her without a place to go, she has a son from another relationship. I do not think my credit is going to be an issue anymore because she had already messed that up pretty good during our marriage. It is not that I mind making the payments but I think that I was more than fair in the divorce hearings and I do not know what the family court judge is going to rule in the contempt hearing. Thank you for the advise. I really do appreciate it.

[Ohiogal]

Ask the court to force her to sell the house.

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by Ohiogal

Ask the court to force her to sell the house.

but still make the two payments or it will be a moot point. Seriously, you may think that your credit is bad now...but a foreclosure on your records is FAR worse.

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by LdiJ

but still make the two payments or it will be a moot point. Seriously, you may think that your credit is bad now...but a foreclosure on your records is FAR worse.

OP should also sue to recover the two payments if he makes them, attorney fees and any other consequential damages he incurrs as a result of her contempt.

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by Bali Hai

OP should also sue to recover the two payments if he makes them, attorney fees and any other consequential damages he incurrs as a result of her contempt.

If he gets the judge to order that the house be sold...then his best bet to collect damages is as part of the sale. Otherwise, no matter what the judge orders his odds of collecting are slim.

[frcisafraud]

I am no attorney,IF IT WERE ME.. but If she is not paying as required, her living there should be subject to her payments and the mortgage is in your name she does not own the house. Assuming there are no children I would think eviction and sell the house yourself, also the mortgage company may offer to assist in selling to prevent foreclusure which I would assume if it were me I would have the right to do, but then again I am not an attorney so dont take my thoughts as Legal advice.

[Ohiogal]

Originally Posted by frcisafraud

I am no attorney,IF IT WERE ME.. but If she is not paying as required, her living there should be subject to her payments and the mortgage is in your name she does not own the house. Assuming there are no children I would think eviction and sell the house yourself, also the mortgage company may offer to assist in selling to prevent foreclusure which I would assume if it were me I would have the right to do, but then again I am not an attorney so dont take my thoughts as Legal advice.

Your thoughts are not relevant. She was ordered the house. He cannot make the decision that her living there is subject to her making the payments. He cannot change the court order -- only the court can do that. And she does own the house. But you were right -- you don't know. He has no claims on this house at all. He cannot evict nor can he just put the house up for sale.

[frcisafraud]

Originally Posted by Ohiogal

Your thoughts are not relevant. She was ordered the house. He cannot make the decision that her living there is subject to her making the payments. He cannot change the court order -- only the court can do that. And she does own the house. But you were right -- you don't know. He has no claims on this house at all. He cannot evict nor can he just put the house up for sale.

My papers did state that the other poarty be awarded subject to ability to make payments.

Additionally SHE DOES NOT OWN THE HOUSE and THE JUDGE CAN NOT morally GIVE THAT WHICH IS NOT HIS, It belongs to the bank until it is paid for period.
But then again our whole economy is based on fraud and the justice system isnt always just.

[Ohiogal]

Originally Posted by frcisafraud

My papers did state that the other poarty be awarded subject to ability to make payments.

Additionally SHE DOES NOT OWN THE HOUSE and THE JUDGE CAN NOT morally GIVE THAT WHICH IS NOT HIS, It belongs to the bank until it is paid for period.
But then again our whole economy is based on fraud and the justice system isnt always just.

You are impossible and know nothing about the law. The bank does not own the house. The bank through its mortgage has a security interest in the house. The ownership of the house is determined by who is on the deed. And the only way she can be forced out of the house is by the court -- OP cannot do it. Deal.

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by frcisafraud

My papers did state that the other poarty be awarded subject to ability to make payments.

Additionally SHE DOES NOT OWN THE HOUSE and THE JUDGE CAN NOT morally GIVE THAT WHICH IS NOT HIS, It belongs to the bank until it is paid for period.
But then again our whole economy is based on fraud and the justice system isnt always just.

This is just a suspicion:

You have been smoking too much whacky weed to be posting your crap on this site.

Some of what you surmise could be correct, but you are at a big disadvantage.

[frcisafraud]

Originally Posted by Bali Hai

[/b]
This is just a suspicion:

You have been smoking too much whacky weed to be posting your crap on this site.

Some of what you surmise could be correct, but you are at a big disadvantage.

LOL, thanks for your opinion. I did not state I was giving legal advice just stating my opinion. nothing Is this thread have I sated to be law or legal advice. however I beleive the bank owns the deed until the home is paid for. Not that its legal advice but if its going to forclose eviction would not cause any undue hardship that the other party isnt inevitably bringing on herself anyway, So I fail to see how justice would be hindered. AGain thats not Law, but I just thought I should post my opinion.

As for Law, I cant give advice but I have been told that I could sue the ex part for damages as a result of non payment and foreclosure, but whats the point in suing someone that has NO MONEY. It will not reverse the problem.

Also I have been advised that for $850 dollars guaranteed I can have the item removed from my credit.

Although I dont smoke anything, and dont usually suggest it I might recommend something for some of the uptight serious and easily offended on this forum. Not as legal advice but strictly from simple observation.

As far as being at a disadvantage, I am uncertain what you are refering to? Is this a battlefield or some sort of ego competition I wasnt informed about?

[Ohiogal]

Originally Posted by frcisafraud

LOL, thanks for your opinion. I did not state I was giving legal advice just stating my opinion. nothing Is this thread have I sated to be law or legal advice. however I beleive the bank owns the deed until the home is paid for.

No. the people who own the home are the ones on the deed. The bank only has a lien or security interest in the house up to the amount of their mortgage. The house is used as security that the bank is going to get their money but the bank DOES NOT own the home.

Not that its legal advice but if its going to forclose eviction would not cause any undue hardship that the other party isnt inevitably bringing on herself anyway, So I fail to see how justice would be hindered. AGain thats not Law, but I just thought I should post my opinion.

Yes it would cause undue hardship on the OP because his credit would be ruined. he would have the foreclosure on his credit record.

As for Law, I cant give advice but I have been told that I could sue the ex part for damages as a result of non payment and foreclosure, but whats the point in suing someone that has NO MONEY. It will not reverse the problem.

Also I have been advised that for $850 dollars guaranteed I can have the item removed from my credit.

Whoever is guaranteeing you this is full of sh**. YOu don't improve your credit by paying some fly by night company close to a thousands dollar. All you do is make that company richer. But go for it if you want.

Although I dont smoke anything, and dont usually suggest it I might recommend something for some of the uptight serious and easily offended on this forum. Not as legal advice but strictly from simple observation.

As far as being at a disadvantage, I am uncertain what you are refering to? Is this a battlefield or some sort of ego competition I wasnt informed about?

No this is a place for legal advice. Your non legal opinion is not relevant to someone else's legal problem. And there is a difference between just and fair. Justice may not be fair but it is just within the confines of the law.

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by frcisafraud

LOL, thanks for your opinion. I did not state I was giving legal advice just stating my opinion. nothing Is this thread have I sated to be law or legal advice. however I beleive the bank owns the deed until the home is paid for. Not that its legal advice but if its going to forclose eviction would not cause any undue hardship that the other party isnt inevitably bringing on herself anyway, So I fail to see how justice would be hindered. AGain thats not Law, but I just thought I should post my opinion.

As for Law, I cant give advice but I have been told that I could sue the ex part for damages as a result of non payment and foreclosure, but whats the point in suing someone that has NO MONEY. It will not reverse the problem.

Also I have been advised that for $850 dollars guaranteed I can have the item removed from my credit.

Although I dont smoke anything, and dont usually suggest it I might recommend something for some of the uptight serious and easily offended on this forum. Not as legal advice but strictly from simple observation.

As far as being at a disadvantage, I am uncertain what you are refering to? Is this a battlefield or some sort of ego competition I wasnt informed about?

The bank does not own the property and is merely a lien-holder.

The bank is authorized to require as part of the mortagage agreement that you keep the appropriate amount of homeowners insurance to protect their interest in the property.

The bank as a lein-holder is authorized to approve the sale of the property or any portion thereof.

The bank as a lein-holder is authorized to require that your property taxes be put into escrow.

The bank can call in the mortgage for just cause.

The bank does not own the property.