separated with 2 mortgages

[deerhunter1]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? pennsylvania
My wife moved out. we have 2 mortgages. one for the house that i now live in without her and one for land only. the mortgages are in both our names. both mortgage payments come out of my checking account automatically. she has agreed to pay half of the smaller mortgage. i think she should pay half of the total of both.what can i do?

 

[Ohiogal]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? pennsylvania
My wife moved out. we have 2 mortgages. one for the house that i now live in without her and one for land only. the mortgages are in both our names. both mortgage payments come out of my checking account automatically. she has agreed to pay half of the smaller mortgage. i think she should pay half of the total of both.what can i do?

Why should she pay half of both? You live in the house. She doesn't. You are thus getting the benefit of the mortgage on that property. She is not. Is the land for the property upon which the house in which you live sits? If so, she shouldn't have to pay that. Why? Because in a divorce, if you are keeping the property, you get the debt that goes with the property.

 

[tranquility]

From a financial point of view, I will disagree with Ohiogal. My answer is, it depends.

Tell us the numbers, including the equity and the ability to pay rent (Or, at least 1/2 Fair rental value.) to the spouse and the chance of appreciation in the year(s) to come, and we can better talk about what is fair for debt both parties agreed to.

 

[Ohiogal]

From a financial point of view, I will disagree with Ohiogal. My answer is, it depends.

Tell us the numbers, including the equity and the ability to pay rent (Or, at least 1/2 Fair rental value.) to the spouse and the chance of appreciation in the year(s) to come, and we can better talk about what is fair for debt both parties agreed to.

From a Domestic Relations point of view -- i.e. the court -- the debt following the property is the norm. And since he is getting the benefit of the property during the divorce, he gets the debt that goes with it.

 

[tranquility]

Since the court cannot remove the ex from the loan and both have a legal duty to pay and the 'benefit' of the property can be far more complex than who is living there, I say again, it depends. A court cannot math-a-magically change reality.

 

[LdiJ]

Since the court cannot remove the ex from the loan and both have a legal duty to pay and the 'benefit' of the property can be far more complex than who is living there, I say again, it depends. A court cannot math-a-magically change reality.

Tranq, on a family law basis yes the court can.

It is fully recognized that the courts cannot remove her name from the mortgages because she is bound by the credit agreement and the creditors are not parties to the divorce., only the OP could remove her from the mortgages by doing a refi. The divorce court CAN however make him fully responsible for the debt as part of the divorce process...and that is very much the norm.

Whoever keeps the house keeps the debt associated with the house.
Whoever keeps a specific car keeps the debt associated with that car.
Whoever keeps a recreational item keeps the debt associated with that item...etc.

So, while you may feel that more information is needed to assess who is responsible for what debt, the reality is that if he keeps the house, the mortgages are going to end up being his responsibility.

 

[tranquility]

I don't really care what the "norm" is, one cannot make things happen that cannot happen. We need to know the numbers to see what the result will be. Period. It's math. Shall I give some common facts that make the "norm" impossible?

Let's say the house is upside down. Both people's salary were needed to afford the loan. Wife moves out and gets her own apartment, husband lives there still. What result?

Sure, we can say the court demands the husband pay all debts for the property, but the husband can't afford it. He can't move out either because there is not enough money for both to be out of the house in their own apartment and still pay the mortgage. He can't pay the mortgage alone. The court can make all the threats of contempt it wants, but if the wife doesn't kick in, her credit is ruined. They can try a short sale, but....they can try.

It depends.

 

[Zigner]

Tranq - the court most certainly can order that the person who gets possession of the house will also be responsible for the debt & ongoing expenses for the house. But, I don't think that's what you are arguing. You are looking down the road to the reality that, regardless of who is ordered to be responsible for the debt, it can still come back to bite the other party in the tushy if the bills don't get paid, right?

 

[LdiJ]

Tranq - the court most certainly can order that the person who gets possession of the house will also be responsible for the debt & ongoing expenses for the house. But, I don't think that's what you are arguing. You are looking down the road to the reality that, regardless of who is ordered to be responsible for the debt, it can still come back to bite the other party in the tushy if the bills don't get paid, right?

And we all agree with that...we have seen it hundreds of times here on these forums, let alone out there in the real world.

 

[tranquility]

I agree a court "can" order it.

I believe that just because a court orders it, does not make it happen.

I believe it depends on the facts as to what a court will order because most judges are not fools.

I think the OP should, if the facts indicate, go back to court to ask for wife to pay more and the key to that would be...the facts. (Which we have none other than the OP living there and the wife agreeing to pay 1/2 of the smaller mortgage.) We don't know who is on title, if the house can be sold, if one makes more than the other, if the OP wants to live in the house, what the wife's goals are or, well, all I really think is:

Tell us the numbers, including the equity and the ability to pay rent (Or, at least 1/2 Fair rental value.) to the spouse and the chance of appreciation in the year(s) to come, and we can better talk about what is fair for debt both parties agreed to.