Need question answered

What is the name of your state? Arizona


My friends (female) divorce was final on 05/06/03 and was done without any attorneys involved. It state in the decree that the house is awared to her. She is trying to refinance the house in order to get his name off the deed and she was told that she needed a quit claim deed. He refused to sign one because he states that he lived in the house for 10 years and wants to get something out of it. Is this legal for him to do? And what can she do to get it done - she has already paid $500 to get his name off of the deed/loan which is non refundable and doesn't want to lose this money.

"My friends (female) divorce was final on 05/06/03 and was done without any attorneys involved. It state in the decree that the house is awared to her."
*** EXACTLY what does the 'decree' say as to ownership and mortgage obligations of the parties??

"She is trying to refinance the house in order to get his name off the deed and she was told that she needed a quit claim deed."
*** Confusing. First, refinancing the property has NOTHING to do with ownership (deed). Her refinancing will NOT remove his name from the deed or ownership.

"He refused to sign one because he states that he lived in the house for 10 years and wants to get something out of it. Is this legal for him to do?"
*** Yes.... and no. He has the right to deny signing the property. However, if it is truly in violation of the court order (decree), then she can file a motion for contempt of the order.

"And what can she do to get it done - she has already paid $500 to get his name off of the deed/loan which is non refundable and doesn't want to lose this money."
*** See above. Also, any funds that she has spent in error (trying to refinance to remove ownership) is HER problem.... not his.

Reply

The divorce decree states ver batum "
9. The following community property is awarded to the parties as follows: A. Petitioner (him) is awarded the following: 2001 Dodge Dakota, and all property currently in Petitioners possession.
B. Respondent (her) is awarded the following: Home located at ...(address).., 1993 Mercury Villager, and all property currently in Respondent possession.

10. The following shall remain as each of the parties sole and separate property:
A. Petitioner: NONE.
B. Respondent: NONE."

It actually says nothing as to who is to pay the mortgage anywhere in the decree.

And what she is trying to do is actually take his name off the mortgage-not refinance. She will keep the same rates and all-just take his name off the mortgage.

He told her that if she ever sold the house, he will get at least $10000.00 out of it or he won't sign the papers.

"It actually says nothing as to who is to pay the mortgage anywhere in the decree."
*** And even if it did, it would not be binding on the mortage as that is a completely separate contract.

"And what she is trying to do is actually take his name off the mortgage-not refinance. She will keep the same rates and all-just take his name off the mortgage."
*** The only way that she can remove his obligation to the mortgage is to sell the property (and pay off the note) or to refinance.

"He told her that if she ever sold the house, he will get at least $10000.00 out of it or he won't sign the papers."
*** And based solely on the information provided in your post, he likely has a good claim to at least half of any equity accrual during the marriage.

The problem as I see it, is the parties tried to save a few bucks in attorney fees, and screwed themselves in the details. The excerpt you provided is NOT clear as to OWNERSHIP of the house or any equity claims by the parties. A valid argument can be made that the decree only awards CUSTODY of the real property to her..... and not OWNERSHIP!!
Sounds like the money saved on attorney fees will be spent in future litigation.