Divorced and living together

[mistoffolees]

What would that have to do with making minor improvements inside the property? No matter what the court order says, obviously they have agreed to share the home until it sells (and I bet that is what the agreement says since they are both responsible to pay something towards the mortgage), so why not do something that might even make the property more able to be sold?

Good lord, there goes LD again. Apparently, in LD's world, court orders are only suggestions and it's OK to violate them at will.

LEGALLY, you're wrong.

 

[mistoffolees]

If your ex is refusing to reduce it, take the court order to the realtor and force the issue. if the realtor refuses, take your ex back to court for contempt.

Actually, I would be back in court, anyway. A 2% reduction every 60 days isn't going to get a house sold until long after it should have sold. If it were me, I'd consult a realtor to get a realistic estimate of what the home should sell for and ask the court for an order allowing me to control the sale of the home. I would also ask the court for 50:50 payment of expenses since ex is taking advantage of the situation.

 

[LdiJ]

Good lord, there goes LD again. Apparently, in LD's world, court orders are only suggestions and it's OK to violate them at will.

LEGALLY, you're wrong.

Misto, unless the court order state that the CANNOT share the house until its sold, nobody is violating anything. People are also perfectly free to deviate from their court orders as long as they are both in agreement.

I don't know where you got it fixated in your head that court orders overcome the two party's rights to mutually agree to do something else. You give people the impression that they are bound to the court orders even if BOTH of them don't want to do it that way. We are not living in a fascist state.

 

[ld4runner]

The ex is not refusing to reduce it the 2% she's refusing to reduce it to a price that it will sell at. We started the selling price too high and the 2% reduction every sixty days is making it take forever to sell. We started the ask price at $499K, the court appointed appraiser valued the house at $389K so it won't be until July of 2012 that the asking price finally reaches the appraisal value. I also feel that she will try to block any sale at this point because in the settlement it states we have to accept any offer in excess of $450k. The asking price is down to $425K so does that mean she can reject any offer because it's not in excess of $450K?

 

[nextwife]

When was the appraisal done? I deal with real estate values DAILY in my work, and anything older than a few months old likely needs to be completely revisited. Values are a moving target and changing every few months. I have to get updated valuations every few months for any properties my employer is marketing to sell because an older appraisal is felt to be unreliable. Have you followed recent local sale prices of comparable properties in your area? You really may need to take this back to court. Additionally, an appraisal done by an out of area appraiser may not be as "on target" as one by someone who knows all the local sub-markets and the nuance of what impacts local values.

 

[mistoffolees]

Misto, unless the court order state that the CANNOT share the house until its sold, nobody is violating anything. People are also perfectly free to deviate from their court orders as long as they are both in agreement.

I don't know where you got it fixated in your head that court orders overcome the two party's rights to mutually agree to do something else. You give people the impression that they are bound to the court orders even if BOTH of them don't want to do it that way. We are not living in a fascist state.

Obviously, you're confused again.

Someone suggested that OP could modify the house. OG asked who owned the house. You said "What would that have to do with making minor improvements inside the property?".

Obviously, ownership of the home is important in determining who can make improvements. You said that OP could make improvements regardless of who owned the home.

Not to mention, of course, that there's no evidence that they can agree on the modifications - nor that OP should pay for them, anyway.

 

[nextwife]

Obviously, you're confused again.

Someone suggested that OP could modify the house. OG asked who owned the house. You said "What would that have to do with making minor improvements inside the property?".

Obviously, ownership of the home is important in determining who can make improvements. You said that OP could make improvements regardless of who owned the home.

Not to mention, of course, that there's no evidence that they can agree on the modifications - nor that OP should pay for them, anyway.

In addition to those points, any actual modifications done to a property just prior to selling needs to be handled carefully, so as not to create problems getting to closing. I am not talking cosmetics here: the proposed change impacts traffic flow and egress. There are potential code, permit, and functional obsolescence issues here that a poorly considered or researched modification can create. Even possible zoning, as an in-law suite is an entirely different animal that a fully seperated unit, and one may be permitted, and the other not. Additionally, if they sell within a lienable time frame, they will need to have lien waivers from all contractors, subs, and materialmen for closing (for the title company), and failure to collect them as the work is paid could create problems getting closed.