Divorce and the marital dwelling???

[Happyness]

Ohio

I am going through a divorce right now. There is one child and one home involved. We began mediation for child custody and were able to come to an agreement on that. She since has moved out of the home. Just before she moved out and we began the divorce, we filed bankruptcy. We included our mortgage in the C13. We pay about 1800 a month to the courts for bankruptcy payment. That's about $300 for bills and our mortgage that's $1500. They pull $900 a month from each of our paychecks.
We are upside down about $70,000 on our house, so there's no way I can place it on the market. She now feels like since she isn't living there anymore, she doesn't want to pay for the house portion, which comes out of her paycheck.
I do not want to foreclose on the house. Mainly because I am just over a year into the C13, last thing I want to do now is have a foreclosure on my credit.
Can she just stop paying, since it's being ordered by the court? Can I be forced to sell the home? Is she liable for her portion of the mortgage? I am trying to find out what leg I have to stand on. Our court date is in Feb. Also, I considered refi'g the house out of her name, but my credit isn't strong enough to do that right now.
Any info would be great.

 

[mistoffolees]

Ohio

I am going through a divorce right now. There is one child and one home involved. We began mediation for child custody and were able to come to an agreement on that. She since has moved out of the home. Just before she moved out and we began the divorce, we filed bankruptcy. We included our mortgage in the C13. We pay about 1800 a month to the courts for bankruptcy payment. That's about $300 for bills and our mortgage that's $1500. They pull $900 a month from each of our paychecks.
We are upside down about $70,000 on our house, so there's no way I can place it on the market. She now feels like since she isn't living there anymore, she doesn't want to pay for the house portion, which comes out of her paycheck.
I do not want to foreclose on the house. Mainly because I am just over a year into the C13, last thing I want to do now is have a foreclosure on my credit.
Can she just stop paying, since it's being ordered by the court? Can I be forced to sell the home? Is she liable for her portion of the mortgage? I am trying to find out what leg I have to stand on. Our court date is in Feb. Also, I considered refi'g the house out of her name, but my credit isn't strong enough to do that right now.
Any info would be great.

Until there's a final court order, she's not obligated to pay anything as far as your divorce situation is concerned.

She is, of course, obligated to pay anything that she has contractually agreed to (the mortgage and/or the bankruptcy), but your divorce court will not get involved with that.

Typically, the person who retains the house is responsible for current payments, utilities, and maintenance. If the court HAD ruled, that would be the most likely outcome, so I'm not sure you'd get anywhere by making an issue of it.

 

[Happyness]

Well, there's nothing within the divorce that she's paying. She's paying the $900 a month because the bankruptcy court set that for us. She wants to just stop paying her portion of the mortgage. Thing is, for her to stop, i'd have to take up the slack from my check. I am not willing to do that. I feel like we bought this money pit together, she chose to move out, which shouldn't mean I have to take on 100% of the load. Heck, if it were that easy to walk away from an obligation, without penalty, I would have a long time ago considering the worth verses what we paid.

 

[Ohiogal]

Well, there's nothing within the divorce that she's paying. She's paying the $900 a month because the bankruptcy court set that for us. She wants to just stop paying her portion of the mortgage. Thing is, for her to stop, i'd have to take up the slack from my check. I am not willing to do that. I feel like we bought this money pit together, she chose to move out, which shouldn't mean I have to take on 100% of the load. Heck, if it were that easy to walk away from an obligation, without penalty, I would have a long time ago considering the worth verses what we paid.

And the divorce court may not mess with the rulings of the bankruptcy court. They may however have you pay her a portion of YOUR income for a settlement. Divorce court CANNOT overturn a bankruptcy decision. If you have retirement you may be ordered to grant her MORE of the retirement than just half of what accrued during the marriage.

if you get the benefit of the home in the divorce SHE will not be required to continue subsidizing you living there.

 

[Happyness]

And the divorce court may not mess with the rulings of the bankruptcy court. They may however have you pay her a portion of YOUR income for a settlement. Divorce court CANNOT overturn a bankruptcy decision. If you have retirement you may be ordered to grant her MORE of the retirement than just half of what accrued during the marriage.

if you get the benefit of the home in the divorce SHE will not be required to continue subsidizing you living there.

I am only benefiting because I have no way of getting out of it. Meaning if I put it on the market for what it's worth, I/WE cannot cover the gap.
What's good to know here is that her attorney has been trying to get me to amend the bankruptcy payments to like 80/20 from 50/50. Now I know what's been set in the bankruptcy court cannot be touched in this divorce. I was willing to take on a roommate and less her the amount I was being paid by them, but that's not good enough for her.

 

[mistoffolees]

I am only benefiting because I have no way of getting out of it. Meaning if I put it on the market for what it's worth, I/WE cannot cover the gap.

Plus, of course, the fact that you're getting a roof over your head and a place to stay. Funny how you conveniently forget that fact.

What's good to know here is that her attorney has been trying to get me to amend the bankruptcy payments to like 80/20 from 50/50. Now I know what's been set in the bankruptcy court cannot be touched in this divorce. I was willing to take on a roommate and less her the amount I was being paid by them, but that's not good enough for her.

Just ignore what her attorney is trying to do. They don't set the rules.

As you were told, in most divorce situations, the person who keeps the home gets to pay for it. If there's a huge difference in incomes, the difference MAY be handled via temporary support.

 

[LdiJ]

Ohio

I am going through a divorce right now. There is one child and one home involved. We began mediation for child custody and were able to come to an agreement on that. She since has moved out of the home. Just before she moved out and we began the divorce, we filed bankruptcy. We included our mortgage in the C13. We pay about 1800 a month to the courts for bankruptcy payment. That's about $300 for bills and our mortgage that's $1500. They pull $900 a month from each of our paychecks.
We are upside down about $70,000 on our house, so there's no way I can place it on the market. She now feels like since she isn't living there anymore, she doesn't want to pay for the house portion, which comes out of her paycheck.
I do not want to foreclose on the house. Mainly because I am just over a year into the C13, last thing I want to do now is have a foreclosure on my credit.
Can she just stop paying, since it's being ordered by the court? Can I be forced to sell the home? Is she liable for her portion of the mortgage? I am trying to find out what leg I have to stand on. Our court date is in Feb. Also, I considered refi'g the house out of her name, but my credit isn't strong enough to do that right now.
Any info would be great.

This is a really tricky situation.

Normally, the person keeping the house is totally responsible for paying the mortgage and property taxes, and is responsible for refinancing the mortgage to remove the other party from the mortgage.

Sometimes, if the house is immediately going on the market, even if its to be sold as a short sale, both parties are ordered to pay the mortgage, but not always.

You definitely can be forced to sell the home...and quite frankly, a short sale, if you can get the mortgage company to approve it, is probably your only viable option. She is going to have to be providing her own housing, and that will be difficult for her to do if she has to continue paying part of the mortgage of a home that she will have no benefit from. There is virtually no chance that a judge would order that you could keep the house for the long term, but that she would have to pay 1/2 of the mortgage.

However, I do believe that under the chapter 13 bankruptcy, she is still obligated, which is why I think that the judge will order you to short sale (if possible) the house.

 

[Happyness]

She is going to have to be providing her own housing, and that will be difficult for her to do if she has to continue paying part of the mortgage of a home that she will have no benefit from.

I understand that. Reason I told her if I was able to get a roommate to pay me 600 a month, she would get that and it would make her only pay 300. Thing is, she wants me to edit the C13 payments to reflect I am getting rent from someone else. My concern there is what if I am not, it'll be hell getting money from her to satisfy the entire mort. She lives rent free in a family residence that she plans to continue living in.

 

[nextwife]

This is a really tricky situation.

Normally, the person keeping the house is totally responsible for paying the mortgage and property taxes, and is responsible for refinancing the mortgage to remove the other party from the mortgage.

Sometimes, if the house is immediately going on the market, even if its to be sold as a short sale, both parties are ordered to pay the mortgage, but not always.

You definitely can be forced to sell the home...and quite frankly, a short sale, if you can get the mortgage company to approve it, is probably your only viable option. She is going to have to be providing her own housing, and that will be difficult for her to do if she has to continue paying part of the mortgage of a home that she will have no benefit from. There is virtually no chance that a judge would order that you could keep the house for the long term, but that she would have to pay 1/2 of the mortgage.

However, I do believe that under the chapter 13 bankruptcy, she is still obligated, which is why I think that the judge will order you to short sale (if possible) the house.

No, the BORROWERS for whom the loan was underwriten and approved are BOTH fully and equally responsible for the mortgage.

One person choosing to bail on their residence does NOT mean that the lender should be forced to take a hit to make it more convenient for someone to walk away from their marriage and their loan. Nor should people think it should be the bank's responsibility to take a loss so they don't have to suffer the inconvenience of staying put together in a jointly held property. If Mrs wants to bail on the place, she should be prepared to help pony up to cover the shortfall caused by the need to sell now. Either help with the loan or come up with half the selling shortfall.. The loan was approved and agreed to be given based upon BOTH parties agreeing to together repay the loan. Her choice to move should not be the lender's economic responsibility.

And just because someone chooses to move out does NOT make their payment responsibility go away. I'm darned tired of people moving and then complaining that because they decided to move they shouldn't have to cover their share of the payment. Many of these loans were granted based on BOTH agreeing to contribute toward the payment. Moving doesn't make the need to pay dissappear. It's one thing if the parties agree that the other can and will cover the whole payment, but many loans require contributions by both.

A judge CANNOT order a bank to accept a short sale.

 

[LdiJ]

No, the BORROWERS for whom the loan was underwriten and approved are BOTH fully and equally responsible for the mortgage.

One person choosing to bail on their residence does NOT mean that the lender should be forced to take a hit to make it more convenient for someone to walk away from their marriage and their loan. Nor should people think it should be the bank's responsibility to take a loss so they don't have to suffer the inconvenience of staying put together in a jointly held property. If Mrs wants to bail on the place, she should be prepared to help pony up to cover the shortfall caused by the need to sell now. Either help with the loan or come up with half the selling shortfall.. The loan was approved and agreed to be given based upon BOTH parties agreeing to together repay the loan. Her choice to move should not be the lender's economic responsibility.

And just because someone chooses to move out does NOT make their payment responsibility go away. I'm darned tired of people moving and then complaining that because they decided to move they shouldn't have to cover their share of the payment. Many of these loans were granted based on BOTH agreeing to contribute toward the payment. Moving doesn't make the need to pay dissappear. It's one thing if the parties agree that the other can and will cover the whole payment, but many loans require contributions by both.

A judge CANNOT order a bank to accept a short sale.

Nexie, that is all good and well from your perspective, but we all know that it doesn't work that way in a divorce. No, of course the judge cannot order a bank to accept a short sale. However, these are people already in bankruptcy so the bank may very well cooperate.

 

[LdiJ]

I understand that. Reason I told her if I was able to get a roommate to pay me 600 a month, she would get that and it would make her only pay 300. Thing is, she wants me to edit the C13 payments to reflect I am getting rent from someone else. My concern there is what if I am not, it'll be hell getting money from her to satisfy the entire mort. She lives rent free in a family residence that she plans to continue living in.

I think that you are not looking at this correctly. You need to review your bankruptcy paperwork to see exactly what money is going where.

However, it's really not going to work the way that you think its going to work...or that you hope its going to work. The one thing that is certain is that there is no way that a family law judge is going to make her responsible for paying 1/2 of the mortgage, on a long term basis, while you are the only one living in the home.

What you need is enough roommates to cover her share of the mortgage. She will still be responsible for 1/2 of the other marital bills were included in the bankruptcy.

 

[mistoffolees]

I think that you are not looking at this correctly. You need to review your bankruptcy paperwork to see exactly what money is going where.

However, it's really not going to work the way that you think its going to work...or that you hope its going to work. The one thing that is certain is that there is no way that a family law judge is going to make her responsible for paying 1/2 of the mortgage, on a long term basis, while you are the only one living in the home.

What you need is enough roommates to cover her share of the mortgage. She will still be responsible for 1/2 of the other marital bills were included in the bankruptcy.

As Nextwife has pointed out, she MAY be responsible for 1/2 of the mortgage if the bankruptcy judge says that she is. (Actually, they are probably each responsible for 100% if that's what their mortgage documents say which complicates matters even further).

Now, if the divorce court makes ex responsible for the mortgage, she would have to pay her 1/2 and then file for contempt to collect it back from ex.

 

[Happyness]

No, the BORROWERS for whom the loan was underwriten and approved are BOTH fully and equally responsible for the mortgage.

One person choosing to bail on their residence does NOT mean that the lender should be forced to take a hit to make it more convenient for someone to walk away from their marriage and their loan. Nor should people think it should be the bank's responsibility to take a loss so they don't have to suffer the inconvenience of staying put together in a jointly held property. If Mrs wants to bail on the place, she should be prepared to help pony up to cover the shortfall caused by the need to sell now. Either help with the loan or come up with half the selling shortfall.. The loan was approved and agreed to be given based upon BOTH parties agreeing to together repay the loan. Her choice to move should not be the lender's economic responsibility.

And just because someone chooses to move out does NOT make their payment responsibility go away. I'm darned tired of people moving and then complaining that because they decided to move they shouldn't have to cover their share of the payment. Many of these loans were granted based on BOTH agreeing to contribute toward the payment. Moving doesn't make the need to pay dissappear. It's one thing if the parties agree that the other can and will cover the whole payment, but many loans require contributions by both.

A judge CANNOT order a bank to accept a short sale.

This is what I have been saying from the very start to her. Her just not wanting to pay would work for her if we were not in the C13. Due to her just not paying me and the payment being short her half every month. Now that the mortgage is in the C13, we have agreed to pay the 1800 a month for 60 months. After 60, the bills will be paid off, then we would just have the 1500 mort payment directly to the bank. Basically, she's on the hook for 60 months. The C13 court does not care how they get the 1800, as long as they get it. We are doing 50/50, so to change her 50 to 20, I'd have to change my 50 to 80 and I am not doing that, so in my eyes, she can't change to 20. I have been known to be wrong before.
I also don't see the bank approving the short sale because we, together, are able to make the payment as we have been. The only reasoning we would have is that she just doesn't want to pay anymore, which is not a valid reason.

I think that you are not looking at this correctly. You need to review your bankruptcy paperwork to see exactly what money is going where.

However, it's really not going to work the way that you think its going to work...or that you hope its going to work. The one thing that is certain is that there is no way that a family law judge is going to make her responsible for paying 1/2 of the mortgage, on a long term basis, while you are the only one living in the home.

What you need is enough roommates to cover her share of the mortgage. She will still be responsible for 1/2 of the other marital bills were included in the bankruptcy.

I stated above how the 1800 breaks down. 300 to the bills, 1500 to the mortgage. I also said I told her I would look into a roommate to pay me say 600 a month, give that to her, which would less her payment that amount where she would only pay 300 instead of 900.

 

[mistoffolees]

I stated above how the 1800 breaks down. 300 to the bills, 1500 to the mortgage. I also said I told her I would look into a roommate to pay me say 600 a month, give that to her, which would less her payment that amount where she would only pay 300 instead of 900.

But why should she be paying at all? You have the home.

If you let the judge decide, s/he will probably say that you have to pay all of it because you are keeping the home. Almost certainly you're going to be responsible for all of it after the divorce is final. So why in the world do you think it's fair to expect your ex to pay half of the mortgage?

And half of the utilities is absurd. If you weren't there, she could turn the utilities off -or at least down to bare minimum (no lights, just enough heat to keep it at 45 degrees). CLEARLY, you should be paying all of the utilities. I can't believe you're even expecting her to do that.

 

[Ohiogal]

This is what I have been saying from the very start to her. Her just not wanting to pay would work for her if we were not in the C13. Due to her just not paying me and the payment being short her half every month. Now that the mortgage is in the C13, we have agreed to pay the 1800 a month for 60 months. After 60, the bills will be paid off, then we would just have the 1500 mort payment directly to the bank. Basically, she's on the hook for 60 months. The C13 court does not care how they get the 1800, as long as they get it. We are doing 50/50, so to change her 50 to 20, I'd have to change my 50 to 80 and I am not doing that, so in my eyes, she can't change to 20. I have been known to be wrong before.
I also don't see the bank approving the short sale because we, together, are able to make the payment as we have been. The only reasoning we would have is that she just doesn't want to pay anymore, which is not a valid reason.



I stated above how the 1800 breaks down. 300 to the bills, 1500 to the mortgage. I also said I told her I would look into a roommate to pay me say 600 a month, give that to her, which would less her payment that amount where she would only pay 300 instead of 900.

If the bolded is the truth and the bankruptcy court did not order her to pay 900, expect that you will be ordered 1650 and she will be ordered to pay 150 for 15 months in divorce court. Why? Because you have the home and benefit thereof (1500) so that should be yours. You would then split the $300 month that is marital debt.

The court can order that if the bankruptcy court doesn't care and didn't order that $900 come from her pays and $900 from yours.