House sells with rigged closing costs, help!

[oldman13]

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

Mary and I got a divorce judgment last year. The sale of the house was ordered with details regarding the profits. Basically Mary received a lump sum that balanced the amount I received when we separated and I left the house. The remaining profit was divided equally.

The judgment stated that while Mary remained in the house she was responsible for the mortgage, insurance and property tax payments. I informed the Realtor and the Escrow Officer but on the final closing day the contract had closing costs that were not mine. I decided to sign the docs and deal with the new problem later.

1. The escrow docs showed a credit of $886.89 for "property tax at $1,793.70 per 6 months for the 10/02/2008 to 1/01/2009. Which looks like a refund from the impound the loan company
collects to pay taxes. I guess it's considered an escrow overpayment
Then further down the document it showed a debit of $1,830.33 for "property tax to orange county ..... 1st Half-2008/2009...and then the parcel number"
If the first half of 2008/2009 is from July 1st to January 1st and the escrow closed on 10/09/2008 then should it not be divided into the shared cost and then prorated for the time Mary lived in the house??

2. The loan payoff included interest up to the day Mary vacated the house and the total was $2,773.60. This is in lieu of her making a mortgage payment for September and a few days early in October so it's essentially free rent. Should I be expected to pay half of this?

Now I am trying to find similar cases or choose a direction to go. Mary has verbally refused to pay me back so should I file in small claims or file an order to show cause.

 

[mistoffolees]

It's going to cost you far more to fight this than you'd receive.

It's probably worth writing her a letter and asking her to reimburse you for the expenses she should have paid, but don't count on getting it.

Maybe you'll learn a lesson from this. Do not sign something you do not agree with or do not understand.

 

[Bali Hai]

It's going to cost you far more to fight this than you'd receive.

It's probably worth writing her a letter and asking her to reimburse you for the expenses she should have paid, but don't count on getting it.

Maybe you'll learn a lesson from this. Do not sign something you do not agree with or do not understand.

Yeah right, then be hauled into court by Mary for comtempt!! Been there, seen that genius!!

Why is it that you think men need to learn all their lessons by paying unecessary money to women cross-dresser??

 

[LdiJ]

It's going to cost you far more to fight this than you'd receive.

It's probably worth writing her a letter and asking her to reimburse you for the expenses she should have paid, but don't count on getting it.

Maybe you'll learn a lesson from this. Do not sign something you do not agree with or do not understand.

I agree. There is just not enough money involved to pursue it.

The net property tax owed was 943.44 and some of that was for months Mary did not occupy the home, so 1/2 of that is maybe 200 - 300 dollars.

Half of the interest was 1386.80. So at most you are look at 1686.80. It would likely cost you more than that to pursue it.

 

[Bali Hai]

I agree. There is just not enough money involved to pursue it.

The net property tax owed was 943.44 and some of that was for months Mary did not occupy the home, so 1/2 of that is maybe 200 - 300 dollars.

Half of the interest was 1386.80. So at most you are look at 1686.80. It would likely cost you more than that to pursue it.

Not if Mary paid his attorney fees!!

Isn't that what you would recommend if OP was a woman?? Take Mary to court and ask the judge that she pay OP's attorney fees in addition to the 1686.80??

Sounds like Mary should just pay what she owes to avoid this. What do you think of that!!

 

[mistoffolees]

Yeah right, then be hauled into court by Mary for comtempt!! Been there, seen that genius!!

Just what did I recommend that could even remotely lead to being cited for contempt?

He was at the closing table. He had every right in the world to ask for the numbers to be explained to him and, if necessary, corrected.

Why is it that you think men need to learn all their lessons by paying unecessary money to women cross-dresser??

You're babbling even worse than usual. Your meds need to be adjusted again.

 

[Bali Hai]

Just what did I recommend that could even remotely lead to being cited for contempt?

He was at the closing table. He had every right in the world to ask for the numbers to be explained to him and, if necessary, corrected.



You're babbling even worse than usual. Your meds need to be adjusted again.

You suggested that he not sign the documents at closing genius.

But he did sign the documents and therefore learned another lesson on how women and their lawyers can steal money from men and get away with it!!

 

[Zigner]

You suggested that he not sign the documents at closing genius.

Nope - he suggested that the person understand it. OP could have had his OWN lawyer or other specialist on hand at closing.

But he did sign the documents and therefore learned another lesson on how women and their lawyers can steal money from men and get away with it!!

It's not "stealing" if the person foolishly agrees to something that he doesn't fully understand.

Bali - in this instance, you're way off base.

 

[mistoffolees]

You suggested that he not sign the documents at closing genius.

But he did sign the documents and therefore learned another lesson on how women and their lawyers can steal money from men and get away with it!!

No one stole anything from him. He should have questioned it at closing. By signing it, he was indicating that he was OK with the agreement.

There's absolutely no way he would have been held in contempt for refusing to sign a document with obvious errors.

Of course, it IS possible that the other party would walk away and he'd lose the sale, but that's the risk of any real estate transaction.

Oh, and btw, there's absolutely nothing in there that indicates that gender was involved. The documents had an error and he signed. Unless you're suggesting that title company errors are always in favor of women and that men are always uninformed, it has nothing to do with gender.

 

[Bali Hai]

No one stole anything from him. He should have questioned it at closing. By signing it, he was indicating that he was OK with the agreement.

There's absolutely no way he would have been held in contempt for refusing to sign a document with obvious errors.

Of course, it IS possible that the other party would walk away and he'd lose the sale, but that's the risk of any real estate transaction.

Oh, and btw, there's absolutely nothing in there that indicates that gender was involved. The documents had an error and he signed. Unless you're suggesting that title company errors are always in favor of women and that men are always uninformed, it has nothing to do with gender.

Bottom line:

She owes the money per the decree and should be forced to pay it. Unless of course the court were to consider this to be another "gift" from a man to a woman!!

 

[Bali Hai]

Nope - he suggested that the person understand it. OP could have had his OWN lawyer or other specialist on hand at closing.



It's not "stealing" if the person foolishly agrees to something that he doesn't fully understand.

Bali - in this instance, you're way off base.

Now I know for damn sure that you're a LAWYER!!

 

[Zigner]

Now I know for damn sure that you're a LAWYER!!

Another thing you're wrong about

 

[stealth2]

Come on, BollyBoi... OP signed the closing agreement KNOWING full well it was wrong. He has little legal recourse as a result. He made a foolish mistake - now he has the consequences. Has nothing to do with gender, much as you'd like it to.

 

[mistoffolees]

Bottom line:

She owes the money per the decree and should be forced to pay it. Unless of course the court were to consider this to be another "gift" from a man to a woman!!

She DOES owe the taxes and interest amount-no one has denied that. It's just that it's likely to cost more than it's worth to try to collect it.

 

[Bali Hai]

She DOES owe the taxes and interest amount-no one has denied that. It's just that it's likely to cost more than it's worth to try to collect it.

Not if Mary pays the costs of his attorney.

I believe I've already said this??