Do I have to sign laon modification after agreeing in divorce decree?

[Ohiogal]

It is apparent you have anger issues, control issues and such. I have read some of your previous posts and you are more interested in insulting people than helping them. Even in my posts it is apparent that you really don't know what you are talking about with regard to certain issues. Thanks but no thanks. I will stick with people who have decent bedside manners and respect for other human beings. Have a nice day.

Oh really? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

You go have fun with that and find someone who will tell you all that you want to hear when you don't share with them what the actual ORDERS state. It won't be educated advice.

 

[LdiJ]

Oh really? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

You go have fun with that and find someone who will tell you all that you want to hear when you don't share with them what the actual ORDERS state. It won't be educated advice.

OG seriously. This woman is between a rock and a hard place. If she does not sign, she is violating the divorce decree. If she does sign, she is committing fraud. If you were in her shoes which one would you choose? That is not snark, its a real question. I personally would be more afraid of committing fraud.

My second question: is the provision in the decree even enforceable? I don't know if it is or isn't, but it seems to me like forcing someone to sign a credit application for their ex spouse might possibly be contrary to law.

 

[justalayman]

OG seriously. This woman is between a rock and a hard place. If she does not sign, she is violating the divorce decree. If she does sign, she is committing fraud. If you were in her shoes which one would you choose? That is not snark, its a real question. I personally would be more afraid of committing fraud.

My second question: is the provision in the decree even enforceable? I don't know if it is or isn't, but it seems to me like forcing someone to sign a credit application for their ex spouse might possibly be contrary to law.

as I said: if she knows the information is false and her signing attests to the truthfulness of the information, she simply should not sign it. Ex will have to seek an order of contempt for her refusal. She will be able to defend her actions to the judge. A judge is not going to make her commit fraud.

OP better damn well be able to support her claims to the judge though. She won't be able to simply ignore him.

of course, Ohiogal's question is extremely pertinent to this thread. A small misstatement of what the order actually says could drastically alter the meaning. We are getting OP's interpretation of what the order states. That could be very different from what it actually states.

OP wrote:

Thanks but no thanks. I will stick with people who have decent bedside manners and respect for other human beings. Have a nice day.

If she is dealing with lawyers that have bedside manners of any sort she is aware of, it's time to change lawyers.

 

[Ohiogal]

OG seriously. This woman is between a rock and a hard place. If she does not sign, she is violating the divorce decree. If she does sign, she is committing fraud. If you were in her shoes which one would you choose? That is not snark, its a real question. I personally would be more afraid of committing fraud.

My second question: is the provision in the decree even enforceable? I don't know if it is or isn't, but it seems to me like forcing someone to sign a credit application for their ex spouse might possibly be contrary to law.

And I would have helped her if she had done what I asked. SERIOUSLY. Now what does her court order state? Oh yeah, you don't know. So we don't know if she even a) needs his income or b) needs to sign at all. We also don't know if she has to sign any paperwork which would result in her committing fraud because we do NOT KNOW WHAT SHE HAS TO SIGN. Why? BECAUSE WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE COURT ORDER STATES!

All we know is there is a court order to which she is bound. And she doesn't want help. But nice defense of her stupidity (and that is not snark either but a real statement). Which one would I choose? I would choose to actually state what the COURT ORDER SAYS WORD FOR WORD if someone was offering to help. But she doesn't want to do that. She wants to whine and complain and engage in a self pity party about how the whole world has done her wrong and she is an innocent victim because of a dozen different things. A dozen different thing, by the way, which she CHOSE.

 

[nextwife]

If ex is generating income from a roommate, an illegal apartment, or a legal apartment he is SUPPOSED to include that income in the mod request. It would be the EXCLUSION of that income that would be fraudulant.

 

[smorr]

Ohiogal is right. You really DO need to know what that court order says in order to make an informed decision on whether or not she can get away with refusing to sign the modification. If she agreed to it, it survives the decree, and she would be in contempt. If she signs it, knowing there is false information, I'd think she'd be in worse doo-doo than being in contempt of court. At the same time, I agree with "justalayman" since I'd be likely to not sign the modification even knowing I'd be in contempt. But, she HAS to have proof with paperwork that the ex-husband is lying on the loan modification application. Just uttering it in court at a contempt hearing won't work. The judge doesn't even want to go there. He/she wants proof... real proof. That's the only thing any court would accept as a reason for not signing, if the court decree states she must. But... nothing is sure and who's to say he will actually get the modification?! I don't even see that anyone touched that area in this thread. If he doesn't then the house gets foreclosed on and she can move the court to apply for residential custody (IF we only knew what was in that court order..... hmmmm.....) I'd fire the lawyer too.. he certainly isn't working in her best interest, but if she's not able to pay him, that (unfortunately) could be the reason he's just trying to get the matter off his caselist.