signing over to a trust question

[whmiller13]

I have been divorced for 11 years, but I still own part of the house my ex husband lives in.

I live in Phoenix, Arizona, the house is in Santee, California. He signed his part over to his parents 8 years ago and now they want me to sign mine over to them. They say it's for our childrens future and will be in a trust for them. The trust name is Boren family trust, my childrens last name is Miller. I do not trust these people and they do not like me. They are actually trying to keep me from seeing my children until I sign the house to them. I know they can't do that, yet they try anyway. There is quite a bit of equity in the house. Any suggestions or advice would be greatly appreciated

 

[LdiJ]

I have been divorced for 11 years, but I still own part of the house my ex husband lives in.

I live in Phoenix, Arizona, the house is in Santee, California. He signed his part over to his parents 8 years ago and now they want me to sign mine over to them. They say it's for our childrens future and will be in a trust for them. The trust name is Boren family trust, my childrens last name is Miller. I do not trust these people and they do not like me. They are actually trying to keep me from seeing my children until I sign the house to them. I know they can't do that, yet they try anyway. There is quite a bit of equity in the house. Any suggestions or advice would be greatly appreciated

What did the divorce decree say about the house?

 

[FlyingRon]

Ldij's question is very important.

The "name" of the trust is largely immaterial. You should see what the trust documents say about the nature of the trust. It could provide things solely for your ex and the kids, or it could be open to the entire "family."

 

[latigo]

First most, do not do it! Ignore their overtures. They are obviously self serving.

Next, and this may seem a bit complicated, as it would take some time providing a complete explanation, even vis-à-vis, but briefly here is something that you need to be aware of.

I gather that the house was acquired by you and your former husband as community property. Then the marriage was subsequently dissolved with no distribution made of the house.

If so, then the ownership automatically converted to an "estate in cotenancy", meaning that you and your ex husband became co-tenants with each owning and undivided one half interest in the property. Further that the ex deeded his 50% undivided interest over to his parents, which of course leaves yours intact.

Also you mention there is a substantial equity in the property, which implies that there is an outstanding indebtedness (mortgage lien) against the property with considerably less owed than market value.

To cut to the quick here I would have you insist that the property be SOLD and the net proceeds equally divided and you make your own provisions for your children. Why sell it?

Because for an assortment of reasons an estate in cotenancy is the worst possible way to own land. It is fraught with legal pitfalls! (If you want details, I'll provide them.) And made worst by you being an absent owner!

If the grandparents refuse to cooperate in seeing that the property is placed on the open market and retained until sold, then you have the option of forcing its sale through with a court petition known as "Partition of Real Property". That is, obtaining a court decree ordering that it be sold.

And if you want more information about the ramifications of an action for "partition" and if need be threaten it (even commencing it) as leverage to bring about the grandparent's cooperation in obtaining an open market listing and sale, I'll explain that to you.

The most foolish thing you could do is to accede to the grandparents overtures. Just don't do it!

Also, bear in mind that some day this house needs to be sold. It can't hang as it is indefinitely. And the sooner sold the better - like Roger Dangerfield said in "Caddyshack", "While we are young!".

 

[whmiller13]

Thank you everyone for your advice.. In the divorce it was kept in both our names, and he was to live in it with the children until the youngest is 18 or we go back to court....I was fine with that. The children moved in with the grandparents several years ago for other reasons. I was still fine with that. Him living in the house was ok with me, I didn't pay the mortgage so whatever, right.... I don't know why but the last 8 months or so is when the grandparents starting telling me they wanted me to sign this paper. I didn't even know that my ex had signed his over to them until this started. Apparently he signed like 8 years ago.

I'm not looking to get money out of it, so after reading your suggestions and comments I will NOT sign this paper. And since they are concerned with my childrens future I am going to put my part in a trust myself for them.

Thank you all again!

Wendy

 

[Zigner]

Thank you everyone for your advice.. In the divorce it was kept in both our names, and he was to live in it with the children until the youngest is 18 or we go back to court....I was fine with that. The children moved in with the grandparents several years ago for other reasons. I was still fine with that. Him living in the house was ok with me, I didn't pay the mortgage so whatever, right.... I don't know why but the last 8 months or so is when the grandparents starting telling me they wanted me to sign this paper. I didn't even know that my ex had signed his over to them until this started. Apparently he signed like 8 years ago.

I'm not looking to get money out of it, so after reading your suggestions and comments I will NOT sign this paper. And since they are concerned with my childrens future I am going to put my part in a trust myself for them.

Thank you all again!

Wendy

How is title to the house held (ignoring his act of "signing over his part"?)

 

[whmiller13]

How is title to the house held (ignoring his act of "signing over his part"?)

The title says Wendy Miller and The Boren Family Trust

 

[Zigner]

The title says Wendy Miller and The Boren Family Trust

And...how was it titled prior to your husband assigning his ownership to the trust?

 

[FlyingRon]

And...how was it titled prior to your husband assigning his ownership to the trust?

Most likely Wendy Miller and Mr. Miller. Not that the type of tenancy has any bearing here. He broke the joint tenancy (or entirety) when he transfered his to the trust.

 

[Zigner]

Most likely Wendy Miller and Mr. Miller. Not that the type of tenancy has any bearing here. He broke the joint tenancy (or entirety) when he transfered his to the trust.

he default holding in CA for a husband and wife is JTWROS - please let the OP answer. If it was JTWROS then the wife would have needed to have signed off on any change also.

 

[FlyingRon]

he default holding in CA for a husband and wife is JTWROS - please let the OP answer. If it was JTWROS then the wife would have needed to have signed off on any change also.

That's NOT true. Either tenant can terminate the joint tenancy without consent of the other. In California, deeding his interest to a trust that benefits a third person (as opposed to his personal in vivos trust) automatically breaks the joint tenancy as soon as it is recorded.

 

[whmiller13]

It was both of us on the title before. I never had to sign anything when he signed his interest over. I was never even informed.

 

[Zigner]

That's NOT true. Either tenant can terminate the joint tenancy without consent of the other. In California, deeding his interest to a trust that benefits a third person (as opposed to his personal in vivos trust) automatically breaks the joint tenancy as soon as it is recorded.

(not meant to be snarky)

Can you point out your source of this information?

ETA: Never mind - found it: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=00001-01000&file=678-703 (683.2)

I stand corrected.