Recovery of divorce settlement

[Bananahead289]

What is the name of your state ? Florida

I was divorced two years ago. My Ex was supposed to give me a full settlement; however, he couldn't afford to refinance the house for the full amount due to me, so part of it ($25,000) was to be part when our family house was refinanced or sold. This is written in the divorce settlement.

The problem is that he foreclosed on the house and the bank bought it back for $100 (I was second below the mortgage company). My question is: Since this is part of the property settlement, can I recover it by going after his wages via garnishment or his bank account?

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by Bananahead289

What is the name of your state ? Florida

I was divorced two years ago. My Ex was supposed to give me a full settlement; however, he couldn't afford to refinance the house for the full amount due to me, so part of it ($25,000) was to be part when our family house was refinanced or sold. This is written in the divorce settlement.

The problem is that he foreclosed on the house and the bank bought it back for $100 (I was second below the mortgage company). My question is: Since this is part of the property settlement, can I recover it by going after his wages via garnishment or his bank account?

[url]http://forum.freeadvice.com/tax-law-12/can-i-take-deduction-432907.html[/url]

[nextwife]

Originally Posted by Bananahead289

What is the name of your state ? Florida

I was divorced two years ago. My Ex was supposed to give me a full settlement; however, he couldn't afford to refinance the house for the full amount due to me, so part of it ($25,000) was to be part when our family house was refinanced or sold. This is written in the divorce settlement.

The problem is that he foreclosed on the house and the bank bought it back for $100 (I was second below the mortgage company). My question is: Since this is part of the property settlement, can I recover it by going after his wages via garnishment or his bank account?

I wonder if it could not be sold or cash out refinanced because there was not $25000 worth of additional value over and above the amt of equity the lenders require the borrower retain? Did he attempt to refi? Did it appraise out at enough to produce a $25000 cash out?

If it was upside down, that would also make selling impossible unless one could either bring cash to the table or get the lender to agree to a short sale.

I am seeing LOTS of cases like this because settlements were predicated on a lender doing something the lender won't do anymore. And on an arbitrary real estate value that doesn't exist.

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by nextwife

I wonder if it could not be sold or cash out refinanced because there was not $25000 worth of additional value over and above the amt of equity the lenders require the borrower retain? Did he attempt to refi? Did it appraise out at enough to produce a $25000 cash out?

If it was upside down, that would also make selling impossible unless one could either bring cash to the table or get the lender to agree to a short sale.

I am seeing LOTS of cases like this because settlements were predicated on a lender doing something the lender won't do anymore. And on an arbitrary real estate value that doesn't exist.

Its possible that the equity was there when they divorced, but the party who kept the home was not in a position (credit wise) to refinance at that time, and really couldn't afford the house on his own, or had a financial reversal, which lead to the foreclosure.

Had the house been sold at the time of the divorce, and the proceeds split, that could have guaranteed the other party their share of the equity.

The party who kept the house took on the risks of home ownership, as well as the benefits. Had he been able to refinance at the time of the divorce, and had therefore paid out the equity due to the other party, and then later lost it due to the downturn in the market, and perhaps a financial reversal, no one would be suggesting that the other party should have to reimburse him half of the loss.

Therefore in this instance, I would feel that the 25k was still due to the OP. However, collecting on it is likely impossible.

[mistoffolees]

Originally Posted by LdiJ

Its possible that the equity was there when they divorced, but the party who kept the home was not in a position (credit wise) to refinance at that time, and really couldn't afford the house on his own, or had a financial reversal, which lead to the foreclosure.

Had the house been sold at the time of the divorce, and the proceeds split, that could have guaranteed the other party their share of the equity.

The party who kept the house took on the risks of home ownership, as well as the benefits. Had he been able to refinance at the time of the divorce, and had therefore paid out the equity due to the other party, and then later lost it due to the downturn in the market, and perhaps a financial reversal, no one would be suggesting that the other party should have to reimburse him half of the loss.

Therefore in this instance, I would feel that the 25k was still due to the OP. However, collecting on it is likely impossible.

Unfortunately, the law doesn't always do what someone might consider fair.

If the decree said that the house was to be sold (with no time limit) and the OP was to get half of the proceeds left after payment of the debt, then that's exactly what they get.

Now, if she can prove that her ex never made any effort to sell it, then she MIGHT have a case for contempt, but that would be a weak one - and all that would happen is that the judge would slap his wrist and tell him to sell it - maybe with a time limit this time.

If, OTOH, the divorce decree says that her ex was to pay her $25,000 when the house was sold, then it doesn't matter if the house was worth a billion dollars or nothing - he would owe her $25 K.

It's impossible to tell her what she's entitled to without knowing the exact wording of the relevant clause(s).