Grandma loses house in divorce?

What is the name of your state? Calif.

I have an unusual situation I don't know if there is any answer for, but I'm going to try. I will try to be as brief as I can.
In 1979, my mother and I bought a house together (I was single, she a widow). She put $52,000 down, proceeds from the sale of her former home. Six months later, I married and he moved in. He and I together contributed 2/3'rd of household expenses, she 1/3. The taking of a second trust deed a couple years later resulted in his name being added to title. Jump ahead to 1992. Due to money probs, we needed to refinance. My mom's credit was bad, and mort. co. wouldn't allow us to refi w/her name on loan, and we couldn't do it with her name on house and not on loan. The loan agent suggusted we have her file a quitclaim deed, proceed with the financing, then simply add her back on. She did, only after we promised (verbally) to restore her name later. We never got around to it, and it was easier to leave it off as we refied again a couple of times. In 2002, we divorced, with the property settlement to be dealt with later. Now we face property settlement problems. He says he never agreed to deed the house back to her. He wants his part, so wants to force sale of home. She will lose her home and her down payment. My lawyer said she didn't think there was much she could do, and suggested she call a real estate attorney to find out. Can she sue for breach of verbal agreement? There are no witnesses to this agreement, only those who knew about it at the time. I am told their testimony would be heresay and inadmissable. There is a little bit more to the situation, but this is the main part. Is there hope, or is she totally screwed?

Thanks for your help--

eaglesoar

[HomeGuru]

Originally posted by eaglesoar
What is the name of your state? Calif.

I have an unusual situation I don't know if there is any answer for, but I'm going to try. I will try to be as brief as I can.
In 1979, my mother and I bought a house together (I was single, she a widow). She put $52,000 down, proceeds from the sale of her former home. Six months later, I married and he moved in. He and I together contributed 2/3'rd of household expenses, she 1/3. The taking of a second trust deed a couple years later resulted in his name being added to title. Jump ahead to 1992. Due to money probs, we needed to refinance. My mom's credit was bad, and mort. co. wouldn't allow us to refi w/her name on loan, and we couldn't do it with her name on house and not on loan. The loan agent suggusted we have her file a quitclaim deed, proceed with the financing, then simply add her back on. She did, only after we promised (verbally) to restore her name later. We never got around to it, and it was easier to leave it off as we refied again a couple of times. In 2002, we divorced, with the property settlement to be dealt with later. Now we face property settlement problems. He says he never agreed to deed the house back to her. He wants his part, so wants to force sale of home. She will lose her home and her down payment. My lawyer said she didn't think there was much she could do, and suggested she call a real estate attorney to find out. Can she sue for breach of verbal agreement? There are no witnesses to this agreement, only those who knew about it at the time. I am told their testimony would be heresay and inadmissable. There is a little bit more to the situation, but this is the main part. Is there hope, or is she totally screwed?

Thanks for your help--

eaglesoar

**A: I agree with your lawyer.

[nextwife]

AWWWWWWWW!

Who do people take legal advice from loan officers?

And, at minimum, they could have executed the quit claim back at the same time, with Grandma holding it to record herself in a month.

[HomeGuru]

[quote]Originally posted by nextwife
[b]AWWWWWWWW!

Who do people take legal advice from loan officers?

**A: probably for the same reasons they take legal advice from Realtors.

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

It's probably possible to overcome the Statute of Frauds problem, inherent in this story, on grounds of Equitable Estoppel. Under general contract law, a party may be able to overcome a statute of frauds defense on the basis of "equitable estoppel" (detrimental reliance on oral agreement and resulting "unconscionable injury" or "unjust enrichment"). [Monarco v. Lo Greco (1950) 35 Cal.2d 621, 623-624, 220 P.2d 737, 739-740 - - estoppel is proper to avoid unconscionable injury or unjust enrichment that would result from refusal to enforce oral promise]

The only problem is that your mother will undoubtedly spend as much money on attorney's fees as she's trying to recover from her son-in-law.

In short, she blew it.

IAAL

I have a question regarding my original post. Since my mother and I purchased the house together prior to my marriage, could 1/2 of the $52,000 be seen as my investment prior to marriage, and therefor exempt from the community property law? If so, could I then be entitled, once the house is sold to have that $26,000 paid to me first, and then we split the balance of the equity 50/50? At least I could then give her back half of her down payment and it wouldn't be a total loss. What would the court say about that?

I would be grateful for an answer to this question!

Eaglesoar (the one who blew it for my mom by poor planning!)

Ok, let me clarify my question, since no one has responded. I know there is no way of knowing what a judge in an individual case will do. What I am wondering is whether or not my question above about 1/2 of the original down payment could be considered my contribution, made before the marriage, and therefore constitute separate property? Would it be reasonable to sell the house, give me back 26,000, then split the balance 50/50? Please tell me if this question is at least reasonable. Any response would be very much appreciated!!

Eaglesoar

[HomeGuru]

Originally posted by eaglesoar
Ok, let me clarify my question, since no one has responded. I know there is no way of knowing what a judge in an individual case will do. What I am wondering is whether or not my question above about 1/2 of the original down payment could be considered my contribution, made before the marriage, and therefore constitute separate property? Would it be reasonable to sell the house, give me back 26,000, then split the balance 50/50? Please tell me if this question is at least reasonable. Any response would be very much appreciated!!

Eaglesoar

**A: It's possible but not probable.

If you could trace the $52K downpayment back in 1979 and where it came from (you mentioned, proceed from sale of previous home) my understanding is that you can get the whole thing as your contribution. The other thing you can do for your mother is give your mother her 1/3 out of your 1/2 of the divorce settlement and you keep the difference. This is the moral thing to do for you mother since the house was yours and hers to begin with and still paid 1/3 of household expenses after you got married. I know, the courts may not look at the moral things but you can as a daughter.

[HomeGuru]

Originally posted by donotkohlme
If you could trace the $52K downpayment back in 1979 and where it came from (you mentioned, proceed from sale of previous home) my understanding is that you can get the whole thing as your contribution. The other thing you can do for your mother is give your mother her 1/3 out of your 1/2 of the divorce settlement and you keep the difference. This is the moral thing to do for you mother since the house was yours and hers to begin with and still paid 1/3 of household expenses after you got married. I know, the courts may not look at the moral things but you can as a daughter.

**A: did you not read the posts made by IAAL and myself?

Excuse me HomeGuru, the King of one liners and famous for "I suggest you see a Real Estate Lawyer" advisor. I was merely writing about the daughter's moral obligations to her mother. Her moral obligations to her mother will save her mother money from having to go after the ex son-in-law. The ex son-in-law has no moral obligations to the mother and could care less. It seems that all he wants is his 1/2 of the deal.

Homeguru, you are doing such a great job with your one liners. Keep up the great work. People are getting such good ideas from you! thank you, you're very helpful!

Oh brother. Another Don Knotts wannabe

[HomeGuru]

Originally posted by donotkohlme
Excuse me HomeGuru, the King of one liners and famous for "I suggest you see a Real Estate Lawyer" advisor. I was merely writing about the daughter's moral obligations to her mother. Her moral obligations to her mother will save her mother money from having to go after the ex son-in-law. The ex son-in-law has no moral obligations to the mother and could care less. It seems that all he wants is his 1/2 of the deal.

Homeguru, you are doing such a great job with your one liners. Keep up the great work. People are getting such good ideas from you! thank you, you're very helpful!

**A: donotcallme, this is a legal advice website and not a moral obligation site.