Daughter in law wants the divorce ruling reversed

[Beechstreetdiva]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Maine
My son & daughter in law were divorced August 2009. They agreed she would live in the house, pay all the expenses and put it for sale. When it sells he will get $30,000 regardless of profit made. She is now taking him back to court to have that decision reversed. Can she do that?

 

[Antigone*]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Maine
My son & daughter in law were divorced August 2009. They agreed she would live in the house, pay all the expenses and put it for sale. When it sells he will get $30,000 regardless of profit made. She is now taking him back to court to have that decision reversed. Can she do that?

She can try. It would be an exercise in futility, but it would be her wheels that would be spinning, not yours.

HOLD ON ~ If the divorce is not final then it is a possibility. Son would know if that is the case. Why isn't he asking?

 

[Beechstreetdiva]

Yes the divorce was final

last August or September. She is taking him back to court on the grounds that she is financially unable to keep things going much longer. She wants to sell the house for a song and walk away without owing him anything.

 

[LdiJ]

last August or September. She is taking him back to court on the grounds that she is financially unable to keep things going much longer. She wants to sell the house for a song and walk away without owing him anything.

The agreement was unfair. Any agreement that guarantees someone a set amount of money when a house sells is unfair. You can never guarantee what a house will sell for, particularly in today's market. If the house has been on the market since August, clearly it is NOT going to sell at the price its currently listed at.

Its current fair market value just might be the "song" she wishes to sell it for.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

The monies that she has to pay out of the proceeds may possible be a property settlement for ALL the property, not just the equity of the house.

 

[mistoffolees]

The agreement was unfair. Any agreement that guarantees someone a set amount of money when a house sells is unfair. You can never guarantee what a house will sell for, particularly in today's market. If the house has been on the market since August, clearly it is NOT going to sell at the price its currently listed at.

Its current fair market value just might be the "song" she wishes to sell it for.

Whether you consider it to be unfair is irrelevant. We don't know the facts, but the two parties did, their attorneys did, and the judge did, so it's going to be almost impossible to overturn.

For example, what if the home has $1,000,000 in equity and she received $470,000 in equity from other sources and the husband agreed to give her her remaining $30 K from the sale of the house. Or any number of other scenarios which aren't as unfair as you implied.

It's a valid court ruling and is probably past the point where it can be appealed. Therefore, the only way she's likely to be able to appeal it is she can show recently-discovered fraud.

 

[LdiJ]

Whether you consider it to be unfair is irrelevant. We don't know the facts, but the two parties did, their attorneys did, and the judge did, so it's going to be almost impossible to overturn.

For example, what if the home has $1,000,000 in equity and she received $470,000 in equity from other sources and the husband agreed to give her her remaining $30 K from the sale of the house. Or any number of other scenarios which aren't as unfair as you implied.

It's a valid court ruling and is probably past the point where it can be appealed. Therefore, the only way she's likely to be able to appeal it is she can show recently-discovered fraud.

Even in the scenario that you described, its unfair/unwise for an agreement to be based on a flat number. No one can ever be certain what a house will sell for....and clearly, in this scenario, the house does not have a huge amount of equity, since its not selling as currently listed, and in order for it to sell, there won't be the 30k in equity due to OP's son.

A judge cannot force anyone to purchase the house for the price needed to ensure OP's son's 30k.

A judge could perhaps reverse the ruling and give the house to OP's son, and then he can make his own decisions as to whether or not to hold onto it until he gets the price he wants, or to sell it for the current fair market value.

 

[Proserpina]

A judge could perhaps reverse the ruling and give the house to OP's son, and then he can make his own decisions as to whether or not to hold onto it until he gets the price he wants, or to sell it for the current fair market value.

(This one interests me)

But on what basis would the ruling be appealed?

 

[mistoffolees]

Even in the scenario that you described, its unfair/unwise for an agreement to be based on a flat number. No one can ever be certain what a house will sell for....and clearly, in this scenario, the house does not have a huge amount of equity, since its not selling as currently listed, and in order for it to sell, there won't be the 30k in equity due to OP's son.

A judge cannot force anyone to purchase the house for the price needed to ensure OP's son's 30k.

A judge could perhaps reverse the ruling and give the house to OP's son, and then he can make his own decisions as to whether or not to hold onto it until he gets the price he wants, or to sell it for the current fair market value.

It may be unfair. It may be unwise. But it's the law. It was agreed to by both parties (and their attorneys if they had them) and signed off by the judge so they are now obligated to do what the court order tells them to do.

The court is not likely to mess around with "well, we agreed to this, but we changed our minds". OP needs some grounds to reopen the issue after 8 months. LEGAL grounds (fraud), not "I don't like the way it turned out".

You are correct that the judge can't force anyone to buy the house - but he can enforce the decree. If the decree says she must sell the house, she must sell it. It doesn't matter if she has to lower the price. She has a court order saying that she must sell the house - which means that she must make reasonable efforts to do so. If the makes reasonable efforts and it still doesn't sell, that would be a defense if she is charged with contempt, but she MUST make an effort. In addition, if the decree says she has to give him $30 K after the house is sold, she has to do so - regardless of whether she made money on the sale or not.

Now, if she really is delaying the sale, he can take her to court for contempt. "It's not worth enough for me to cover all my costs" is not a defense.

 

[mistoffolees]

(This one interests me)

But on what basis would the ruling be appealed?

Consult an attorney because it's not a DIY project.

In general, there are two common grounds:

1. Fraud. If the other party committed fraud and hid relevant information from the judge, the decree could be appealed. This is probably most commonly applied when it is discovered after a divorce is final that one party has hidden bank accounts or other assets that they didn't disclose.

2. Judicial error. If the judge makes an ERROR OF LAW (not simply that you disagree with his judgment), then you can appeal:
Divorce Support - Appealing a Divorce Judgment or Decree

However, it doesn't appear that either of the grounds apply here. You reached an agreement and didn't object during the 30 days or whatever it is in your state. You can't simply go back after 8 months and say "I don't like this, please change it for me".

Note, there is one other matter - a change in circumstances can allow a divorce decree to be reopened in limited conditions - generally only spousal or child support, though. It would be extremely unusual to say "Judge, please give me a different property division because my circumstances are different than they were when you signed the decree" - and even more unusual for the judge to grant it.

 

[LdiJ]

(This one interests me)

But on what basis would the ruling be appealed?

It wouldn't be an "appeal". It would be a motion to modify.

Its impossible that the daughter in law is appealing anything at this point, because the period to appeal is LONG past. The daughter in law could only be filing a motion to modify.

Bottom line, the house isn't selling. The daughter in law apparently cannot afford the house payments any longer.

Something is going to have to give here. Since we are not privy to all of the details of the property settlement its hard to know what should "give". If the house was the only real asset then clearly the problem is the house and its fair market value.

If there were other assets involved then a complete "re-do" of the property settlement might be in order.

However, based on what I have been seeing out there, in the "world", I suspect this was a DIY divorce, that the parties naively placed an unrealistic value on the house, and that the house was the only significant asset.

I could be wrong...but nevertheless, if the house isn't selling, it isn't selling. If it goes into foreclosure, everybody's credit is totalled.

Unless the daughter in law has significant assets besides the house, if OP's son doesn't cooperate with a sale, OP's son could end up without the 30k AND with his credit tanked.

Sure, he might get a ruling that she owes him the 30k anyway, but it may be next to impossible to collect.

 

[mistoffolees]

Something is going to have to give here. Since we are not privy to all of the details of the property settlement its hard to know what should "give". If the house was the only real asset then clearly the problem is the house and its fair market value.

As usual, you're making lots of assumptions and making up a lot more.

All we know is that there was a signed agreement last August. The ex wants to change it.

It takes a lot to change a property division agreement after 8 months. "I don't like it" or "I shouldn't have signed it" are not sufficient.