Use of Joint Credit After Divorce

[elisa513]

California

My exhusband and I held a joint retail credit card at Best Buy. We never disclosed it in our divorce paperwork, and instead had a verbal mutual agreement that I would retain that card and use it / pay on it myself. All our other credit was held in our individual names and we also both agreed to pay our individually-held credit debts ourselves, so those also were never stated in our divorce paperwork.

Recently upon receiving the Best Buy card statement, I noticed that he used the card to make $400 in purchases. I immediately called the store and they recommended I close the account, although the debt (including the purchases he made using the card) will still need to be paid. I understand this. My questions is, do I have any legal recourse to get him to pay that $400 incurred on that card or am I simply out of luck since, as he put it, he "utilized credit that he was entitled to use since it was established with his name on it (and as the primary holder, no less) and it was still open in good standing and had available credit".

I suspect he used the card and stuck me with the bill as a way to get back at me because he was upset about my dating someone he didn't like (he mentioned that person in our conversation). We both live in California and our divorce was finalized on 7/29/2011.

 

[Zigner]

Yes, if he won't pay for it, sue him in small claims court.

 

[Ohiogal]

However they both committed fraud upon the court and therefore the "unclean hands" doctrine could be applied. They should have put this in the divorce. Instead, she agreed to be shysty.

 

[Zigner]

However they both committed fraud upon the court and therefore the "unclean hands" doctrine could be applied. They should have put this in the divorce. Instead, she agreed to be shysty.

The usage of the card (and thus the accrual of the debt) occurred after the divorce was final. I agree that any debts owed on the card prior to the divorce should have been included in the divorce, but how can one include a debt that was not incurred yet?

 

[sandyclaus]

California

My exhusband and I held a joint retail credit card at Best Buy. We never disclosed it in our divorce paperwork, and instead had a verbal mutual agreement that I would retain that card and use it / pay on it myself. All our other credit was held in our individual names and we also both agreed to pay our individually-held credit debts ourselves, so those also were never stated in our divorce paperwork.

Recently upon receiving the Best Buy card statement, I noticed that he used the card to make $400 in purchases. I immediately called the store and they recommended I close the account, although the debt (including the purchases he made using the card) will still need to be paid. I understand this. My questions is, do I have any legal recourse to get him to pay that $400 incurred on that card or am I simply out of luck since, as he put it, he "utilized credit that he was entitled to use since it was established with his name on it (and as the primary holder, no less) and it was still open in good standing and had available credit".

I suspect he used the card and stuck me with the bill as a way to get back at me because he was upset about my dating someone he didn't like (he mentioned that person in our conversation). We both live in California and our divorce was finalized on 7/29/2011.

Joint credit card debt means just that. You BOTH signed for the card, you BOTH had rights to charge on the card, and you BOTH remained jointly liable for any debts incurred on the card.

While you claim that you BOTH agreed to allow you to retain and use the open account, there didn't appear to be any agreement that he wouldn't also still use it.

He is right in that as long as his name remained on the account, and the account was in good standing, he had every right to use the card and add to the debt. Unfortunately, you ALSO admit that you alone had agreed to take on the responsibility for paying on the account by yourself, which from a legal standpoint, makes it pointless to try to sue your ex for 1/2 of the debt now.

The whole point to including joint debt in a divorce agreement is to prevent from happening exactly what you describe. "Gentlemen's Agreements" have a strange way of going right out the window in these situations, especially when the divorce was not completely amicable.

Unfortunately for you, as long as that account is open and active, you will continue to have things like this happen. You need to close the account IMMEDIATELY (after paying it off, of course), and then get a separate account of your own.

 

[Zigner]

Joint credit card debt means just that. You BOTH signed for the card, you BOTH had rights to charge on the card, and you BOTH remained jointly liable for any debts incurred on the card.

While you claim that you BOTH agreed to allow you to retain and use the open account, there didn't appear to be any agreement that he wouldn't also still use it.

He is right in that as long as his name remained on the account, and the account was in good standing, he had every right to use the card and add to the debt. Unfortunately, you ALSO admit that you alone had agreed to take on the responsibility for paying on the account by yourself, which from a legal standpoint, makes it pointless to try to sue your ex for 1/2 of the debt now.

The whole point to including joint debt in a divorce agreement is to prevent from happening exactly what you describe. "Gentlemen's Agreements" have a strange way of going right out the window in these situations, especially when the divorce was not completely amicable.

Unfortunately for you, as long as that account is open and active, you will continue to have things like this happen. You need to close the account IMMEDIATELY (after paying it off, of course), and then get a separate account of your own.

If the ex charged $400 on it for something the ex was buying, then our OP certainly can sue (and prevail) if the ex doesn't pay our OP for this amount.

Now, you are correct that the credit issuer can seek payment from the OP, but that doesn't prevent the OP from seeking payment from the ex.

 

[LdiJ]

However they both committed fraud upon the court and therefore the "unclean hands" doctrine could be applied. They should have put this in the divorce. Instead, she agreed to be shysty.

I agree that what they did was foolish, but how was it "unclean" or "shysty" or fraud upon the court?

I am not being snarky, I really want to know.

 

[Ladyback1]

California

My exhusband and I held a joint retail credit card at Best Buy. We never disclosed it in our divorce paperwork, and instead had a verbal mutual agreement that I would retain that card and use it / pay on it myself. All our other credit was held in our individual names and we also both agreed to pay our individually-held credit debts ourselves, so those also were never stated in our divorce paperwork.

Recently upon receiving the Best Buy card statement, I noticed that he used the card to make $400 in purchases. I immediately called the store and they recommended I close the account, although the debt (including the purchases he made using the card) will still need to be paid. I understand this. My questions is, do I have any legal recourse to get him to pay that $400 incurred on that card or am I simply out of luck since, as he put it, he "utilized credit that he was entitled to use since it was established with his name on it (and as the primary holder, no less) and it was still open in good standing and had available credit".

I suspect he used the card and stuck me with the bill as a way to get back at me because he was upset about my dating someone he didn't like (he mentioned that person in our conversation). We both live in California and our divorce was finalized on 7/29/2011.

Wait...he is the primary on the card?
Wouldn't Best Buy attempt to collect the debt from him first??
Been a while since I had credit card with the Ex, but I seem to recall that even when I was an authorized user, it was not my responsibility primarily--he was the first to get the credit calls for non-payment.
*shrug* I don't know.

 

[sandyclaus]

Wait...he is the primary on the card?
Wouldn't Best Buy attempt to collect the debt from him first??
Been a while since I had credit card with the Ex, but I seem to recall that even when I was an authorized user, it was not my responsibility primarily--he was the first to get the credit calls for non-payment.
*shrug* I don't know.

You're probably right. But at this point, we aren't talking about the card issuer seeking payment. We are talking about the former spouse who agreed to be responsible for paying for the account after the divorce.

 

[Ohiogal]

I agree that what they did was foolish, but how was it "unclean" or "shysty" or fraud upon the court?

I am not being snarky, I really want to know.

They were to list ALL of their debts for the court to determine division. They both agreed NOT to list this debt -- which means they agreed to LIE to the court about the marital debt. It was a lie by omission but a LIE nonetheless.

 

[Bali Hai]

California

My exhusband and I held a joint retail credit card at Best Buy. We never disclosed it in our divorce paperwork, and instead had a verbal mutual agreement that I would retain that card and use it / pay on it myself. All our other credit was held in our individual names and we also both agreed to pay our individually-held credit debts ourselves, so those also were never stated in our divorce paperwork.

Recently upon receiving the Best Buy card statement, I noticed that he used the card to make $400 in purchases. I immediately called the store and they recommended I close the account, although the debt (including the purchases he made using the card) will still need to be paid. I understand this. My questions is, do I have any legal recourse to get him to pay that $400 incurred on that card or am I simply out of luck since, as he put it, he "utilized credit that he was entitled to use since it was established with his name on it (and as the primary holder, no less) and it was still open in good standing and had available credit".

I suspect he used the card and stuck me with the bill as a way to get back at me because he was upset about my dating someone he didn't like (he mentioned that person in our conversation). We both live in California and our divorce was finalized on 7/29/2011.

You didn't close the joint account, so you're stuck paying. That lesson cost you $400, which is peanuts. Live and learn.

 

[sandyclaus]

They were to list ALL of their debts for the court to determine division. They both agreed NOT to list this debt -- which means they agreed to LIE to the court about the marital debt. It was a lie by omission but a LIE nonetheless.

I'm confused on how this would be a fraud on the court myself.

It's my understanding that the court would be utilized to determine the division of both assets and debts that are in question. However, since the two parties basically made their own informal agreement with regard to this particular debt, why would the court need to rule on it at all?

Of course, as it always seems to go, what didn't get put in the official divorce decree (or ratified through ANY formal written agreement) ended up being one of those debts that probably SHOULD have been submitted to the court and division assigned. But these two thought that this particular debt had already been settled, which to me, seems a valid reason for NOT including it in the list of marital debts.

The two were not intentionally deceiving the court, they just figured that they had made an their own decision on what was fair amongst themselves and reduced it to a verbal agreement with regard to this particular account. (Although, they probably should have disclosed it to the court, simply to document the agreement they already made so that it would be included in the formal court order and decree. If they had, OP wouldn't necessarily be here asking about the issue.)

 

[LdiJ]

They were to list ALL of their debts for the court to determine division. They both agreed NOT to list this debt -- which means they agreed to LIE to the court about the marital debt. It was a lie by omission but a LIE nonetheless.

When my ex and I divorced our decree stated that all assets and debts had previously been divided and nothing was listed. Neither of our attorneys had a problem with that. Therefore it never occurred to me that it could be a requirement.

 

[Bali Hai]

I'm confused on how this would be a fraud on the court myself.

It's my understanding that the court would be utilized to determine the division of both assets and debts that are in question. However, since the two parties basically made their own informal agreement with regard to this particular debt, why would the court need to rule on it at all?

Of course, as it always seems to go, what didn't get put in the official divorce decree (or ratified through ANY formal written agreement) ended up being one of those debts that probably SHOULD have been submitted to the court and division assigned. But these two thought that this particular debt had already been settled, which to me, seems a valid reason for NOT including it in the list of marital debts.

The two were not intentionally deceiving the court, they just figured that they had made an their own decision on what was fair amongst themselves and reduced it to a verbal agreement with regard to this particular account. (Although, they probably should have disclosed it to the court, simply to document the agreement they already made so that it would be included in the formal court order and decree. If they had, OP wouldn't necessarily be here asking about the issue.)

The court has the final approval whether the parties agree or not. Therefore, all assets and debt should be submitted for the courts approval.

Would you decide a case with only half the evidence made available?

 

[Zigner]

One more time folks...


The $400 we are talking about was incurred AFTER the divorce was finalized. The $400 was not involved in any fraud on the court because it didn't exist at the time of the divorce.