Sell of property and already divorced

[tweetieburg]

What is the name of your state? Arizona

Here's my situation: I am divorced now for a year and my divorce docs state that once the divorce is final, my ex and I will sell our home and divide the proceeds equally. However, we had our house on the market for 1 full year with no offers. The house remained vacant during that time. In that time we each purchased another home for ourselves. My ex becamed overwhelmed and unable to keep up with both house payments, and therefore moved back into the house we own jointly, and forclosing on his house he owns solely. I do not know what steps to take to "force" him to put our house we own together back on the market. He's unable to refinance because he now has a "forclosure" on his credit report from his 2nd home. I do not have the means to hire an attorney, but need to know if there's some form the courts can do, to execute sell of our home.What is the name of your state?

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by tweetieburg

What is the name of your state? Arizona

Here's my situation: I am divorced now for a year and my divorce docs state that once the divorce is final, my ex and I will sell our home and divide the proceeds equally. However, we had our house on the market for 1 full year with no offers. The house remained vacant during that time. In that time we each purchased another home for ourselves. My ex becamed overwhelmed and unable to keep up with both house payments, and therefore moved back into the house we own jointly, and forclosing on his house he owns solely. I do not know what steps to take to "force" him to put our house we own together back on the market. He's unable to refinance because he now has a "forclosure" on his credit report from his 2nd home. I do not have the means to hire an attorney, but need to know if there's some form the courts can do, to execute sell of our home.What is the name of your state?

If he refuses to cooperate with putting the house on the market, then you need to file a motion to "show cause for contempt" for his refusal to do so. The home never should have been taken off the market after he moved back in.

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by LdiJ

If he refuses to cooperate with putting the house on the market, then you need to file a motion to "show cause for contempt" for his refusal to do so. The home never should have been taken off the market after he moved back in.

Is this case any different from the ex-wife who refuses to pay over the tax refund per court order?

You are really confusing me mom.

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by Bali Hai

Is this case any different from the ex-wife who refuses to pay over the tax refund per court order?

You are really confusing me mom.

It isn't even remotely similar, and you know that.

[BelizeBreeze]

You have no other choice but to file partition or contempt. And since he is 1/2 owner unless the court orders him to leave the home, he has just as much right to be there as anyone.

[BelizeBreeze]

and by the way, how long does the divorce decree give each of you to sell the home?

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by BelizeBreeze

and by the way, how long does the divorce decree give each of you to sell the home?

I'm sure the decree says "promptly" if anything at all.

[mjcrules]

Determine what a comparable rental would cost to lease per month, divide by 2 and he pays you....he also has to pay 1/2 of the mortgage as well, but those 2 added together will prob be less that 1.5 mortgages....get it in writing and keep the two separate...dont accept credit for your rent income by him paying the mortgage on your behalf

[Ohiogal]

Originally Posted by mjcrules

Determine what a comparable rental would cost to lease per month, divide by 2 and he pays you....he also has to pay 1/2 of the mortgage as well, but those 2 added together will prob be less that 1.5 mortgages....get it in writing and keep the two separate...dont accept credit for your rent income by him paying the mortgage on your behalf

Where are you getting this line of bull?

[BelizeBreeze]

Originally Posted by mjcrules

Determine what a comparable rental would cost to lease per month, divide by 2 and he pays you....he also has to pay 1/2 of the mortgage as well, but those 2 added together will prob be less that 1.5 mortgages....get it in writing and keep the two separate...dont accept credit for your rent income by him paying the mortgage on your behalf

Really? And what are you smoking?

[Ohiogal]

OP,
You still own the house as well and there are no orders saying you don't so move back in with the ex -- you have that right. tell him you are staying until the house is sold. That way you BOTH end up benefiting from the use of the property.

[BelizeBreeze]

Originally Posted by Ohiogal

OP,
You still own the house as well and there are no orders saying you don't so move back in with the ex -- you have that right. tell him you are staying until the house is sold. That way you BOTH end up benefiting from the use of the property.

But**************.
DO NOT sleep on your stomach

[mjcrules]

I thought the family court rules of procedure and court was instigated to provide the two parties an arena to possibly work out their child and financial issues with the hope of not having to proceed with expensive atty's and lengthy proceedings. In FL mediation is mandatory before you can schedule the trial at the CC, primarily for that reason. Judges are not mandated to review pre-trial executed settlement agreements in an attempt to free up a few hours from an already full court calendar. So with that thought in mind, was my suggestion not correct as a matter of law, or not correct because an atty on one side or the other would suggest to his/her client NOT to do it because it just doesn't seem fair or because a judgment of the other party's character is used to sway the decision. I may be naive, but I am beginning to conclude that some of the party's actions are strongly influenced by their atty(s). I am very sure the atty's and judges have seen the worst of humankind in some cases, but fearing that in all representations, and counseling accordingly, seems to me to produce a result via the "pygmalion effect".

[Ohiogal]

Originally Posted by mjcrules

I thought the family court rules of procedure and court was instigated to provide the two parties an arena to possibly work out their child and financial issues with the hope of not having to proceed with expensive atty's and lengthy proceedings. In FL mediation is mandatory before you can schedule the trial at the CC, primarily for that reason. Judges are not mandated to review pre-trial executed settlement agreements in an attempt to free up a few hours from an already full court calendar. So with that thought in mind, was my suggestion not correct as a matter of law, or not correct because an atty on one side or the other would suggest to his/her client NOT to do it because it just doesn't seem fair or because a judgment of the other party's character is used to sway the decision. I may be naive, but I am beginning to conclude that some of the party's actions are strongly influenced by their atty(s). I am very sure the atty's and judges have seen the worst of humankind in some cases, but fearing that in all representations, and counseling accordingly, seems to me to produce a result via the "pygmalion effect".

Quite frankly you are wrong in your prior response because both parties OWN the house. Neither owes rent to the other and either/both can take possession of the home if there are no court orders saying otherwise. And you are making a myriad of assumptions that may be extremely wrong. If the facts are not presented, do not assume what is the truth.

You are wrong in this response but there is nothing of relevance here that relates to the OPs original question. Or actually any question. These two are divorced.

[mjcrules]

Originally Posted by Ohiogal

Quite frankly you are wrong in your prior response because both parties OWN the house. Neither owes rent to the other and either/both can take possession of the home if there are no court orders saying otherwise.

I never stated one party owed rent to the other. I suggested an alternative solution to the situation OP stated she currently resides.

And you are making a myriad of assumptions that may be extremely wrong. If the facts are not presented, do not assume what is the truth.

Am unclear of your definition of "myriad" and any invalid assumptions proffered seem to be better disregarded and defined by OP v. an unrelated party without full knowledge of the current situation.

You are wrong in this response but there is nothing of relevance here that relates to the OPs original question. Or actually any question. These two are divorced.

The response regarding party's responses and actions was directed toward the responses my original response garnered. The fact that the "two are divorced" is not relevant as post-judgment execution of marital agreements is often still "influenced" by advise of counsel.