tampa florida - house to ex

[lem66]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? florida
in the divorce the ex got the house to live in until my daughter turns 18 years old. Once my daughter turns 18, we are to sell the house, and divide the profits - - the ex will get "kelly credits" applied to her portion as she remains paying the mortgage (no alimony).

I have found out that she has moved out of the house (my daughter is only 8) and is renting the house - -- she is collecting the full amount of rent (and of course, this was not communicated to me)

can she legally do this? should i report that she is earning income on the house? and since she is renting and earning income, is she still entitled to the kelly credits when the house is sold?

thank you

 

[Ohiogal]

File a motion to sell the house NOW and a motion to show cause as she is not living in the house.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? florida
in the divorce the ex got the house to live in until my daughter turns 18 years old. Once my daughter turns 18, we are to sell the house, and divide the profits - - the ex will get "kelly credits" applied to her portion as she remains paying the mortgage (no alimony).

I have found out that she has moved out of the house (my daughter is only 8) and is renting the house - -- she is collecting the full amount of rent (and of course, this was not communicated to me)

can she legally do this? should i report that she is earning income on the house? and since she is renting and earning income, is she still entitled to the kelly credits when the house is sold?

thank you

I agree with OG, but you need to realize that there is almost no chance that she is making a profit on the house. At best, she is probably breaking even...and yes, she is still paying the mortgage and you are not. Therefore she would still be entitled to any credits for doing so.

Maybe she could not afford the house payment and needed to downsize, and it made sense to rent the house out rather than try to sell in today's market.

In fact, even though I agree with OG, you might be better off letting this ride for a while to allow the market more time to recover.

 

[Ohiogal]

I agree with OG, but you need to realize that there is almost no chance that she is making a profit on the house. At best, she is probably breaking even...and yes, she is still paying the mortgage and you are not. Therefore she would still be entitled to any credits for doing so.

Maybe she could not afford the house payment and needed to downsize, and it made sense to rent the house out rather than try to sell in today's market.

In fact, even though I agree with OG, you might be better off letting this ride for a while to allow the market more time to recover.

I would still say he needs to push it in court for the simple reason that this way she should NOT be able to profit off the mortgage (how much is she paying that the rent does not cover?) and still be credited. He is entitled to half the rent she is collecting. She is profiting off the home by renting it. Even if the rent doesn't cover the ENTIRE mortgage she is making a profit.

 

[LdiJ]

I would still say he needs to push it in court for the simple reason that this way she should NOT be able to profit off the mortgage (how much is she paying that the rent does not cover?) and still be credited. He is entitled to half the rent she is collecting. She is profiting off the home by renting it. Even if the rent doesn't cover the ENTIRE mortgage she is making a profit.

How is she making a profit? She has to pay for other housing as she no longer has the benefit of living in the home. If he was making 1/2 of the house payment I could see your argument, but he is not. She is still taking full responsibility for the mortgage. In no way can it be argued that she is profiting, unless the rent is higher than the mortgage, property taxes and upkeep. The odds of that are very slim.

His situation is no different than if she was still living in the home.
He is not out any additional money. His reason for taking it back to court would be so that the house could go on the market and he could get his share of the equity now. However, since his situation is no different than it would have been if she was living there, it might be financially wiser to give the market some time to recover before selling the house.

 

[lem66]

reply - thank you

thank you everyone for your reply
fyi - the house was bought years ago, and the mortgage is under $300/mth - since, we had renovated - even in today's market conditions the house is valued at doubled+ what we paid for it originally - a profit is being made. A good point was on the fact that she still does need to pay for housing elsewhere, although our divorce was due to "another person" she was involved with - so not sure if SHE is responsible for her housing now - - all good replies and I will keep them in mind - thank you!

 

[LdiJ]

thank you everyone for your reply
fyi - the house was bought years ago, and the mortgage is under $300/mth - since, we had renovated - even in today's market conditions the house is valued at doubled+ what we paid for it originally - a profit is being made. A good point was on the fact that she still does need to pay for housing elsewhere, although our divorce was due to "another person" she was involved with - so not sure if SHE is responsible for her housing now - - all good replies and I will keep them in mind - thank you!

Well heck, if the mortgage is that low, and you have that much equity, then by all means take it back to court now and get it ordered that the house be sold and the proceeds split.

However, you still might make out better if you wait a couple of years. It all depends on how badly you need/want the money.

 

[Ohiogal]

How is she making a profit? She has to pay for other housing as she no longer has the benefit of living in the home. If he was making 1/2 of the house payment I could see your argument, but he is not. She is still taking full responsibility for the mortgage. In no way can it be argued that she is profiting, unless the rent is higher than the mortgage, property taxes and upkeep. The odds of that are very slim.

His situation is no different than if she was still living in the home.
He is not out any additional money. His reason for taking it back to court would be so that the house could go on the market and he could get his share of the equity now. However, since his situation is no different than it would have been if she was living there, it might be financially wiser to give the market some time to recover before selling the house.

Actually it is because if she is NOT living there then he could be living there and paying for that as opposed to his housing. And as an owner he is entitled to half the rent. And I read ahead -- at $300 a month she is making money off of it. She was given the right to LIVE in the house. NOT rent it out and use it as a business.