Lost! Need some help!!!

[LdiJ]

If she would be entitled to half of any equity, could she also be held liable for half of any deficit?

No, because the person keeping the asset has the benefit of all future appreciation/equity gain in the asset. Her benefit in staying in the home until the court orders her to move is that she has someplace to live while the marital assets are going sorted out.

 

[wavehopper27]

Seems unfair to me. If you are a half owner in a property, you should have to take on half of any deficits just like you get half of any equity.

I know that's not how it works but I think it should.

 

[LdiJ]

Seems unfair to me. If you are a half owner in a property, you should have to take on half of any deficits just like you get half of any equity.

I know that's not how it works but I think it should.

Ok...let's break it down....right now the housing market is in the toilet and therefore most houses are not fairly valued...and MANY people are upside down who did not take out risky mortgages.

So, someone with a 200k home could have a 100k deficit. Under your theory, the person not keeping the house should have to cough up 50k towards the deficit. However, 5 years from now the market rebounds, housing goes back up to its proper value, and the 100k is recouped via appreciation, not via housing payments. Is your theory still fair or did the person who kept the house simply get a free 50k windfall?

Lets try another....a married couple each puts 5k towards a downpayment on a house. Six months later the marriage falls apart and because they just purchased the house, it doesn't actually have any equity, its upside down by 2k. So the person not keeping the house not only loses their 5k down payment, but also has to pay another 1k? Do you think that is fair?

 

[commentator]

Ok thank you. I wont agree to anything until at the table with lawyer

Please, make sure this is YOUR lawyer. DO NOT try to go on the el-cheapo here. This is not the place to scrimp. You have a job, you are making some money. Protect yourself. Hire an attorney to represent YOU and let this attorney advise you. It's pretty obvious you're a decent person trying to get by and that you're pretty clueless about this process. It sounds as though your husband may be trying to hustle you into signing something, threatening you that you'll go bankrupt or be foreclosed on....get an attorney. Sooner rather than later.

 

[wavehopper27]

Ok...let's break it down....right now the housing market is in the toilet and therefore most houses are not fairly valued...and MANY people are upside down who did not take out risky mortgages.

So, someone with a 200k home could have a 100k deficit. Under your theory, the person not keeping the house should have to cough up 50k towards the deficit. However, 5 years from now the market rebounds, housing goes back up to its proper value, and the 100k is recouped via appreciation, not via housing payments. Is your theory still fair or did the person who kept the house simply get a free 50k windfall?

Lets try another....a married couple each puts 5k towards a downpayment on a house. Six months later the marriage falls apart and because they just purchased the house, it doesn't actually have any equity, its upside down by 2k. So the person not keeping the house not only loses their 5k down payment, but also has to pay another 1k? Do you think that is fair?

What if a couple owned the house back when home values were overpriced? The leaving spouse would get a huge windfall leaving the other holding the bag when the bubble burst.

In your scenario, the spouse keeping the house could sell, force the leaving spouse to cough up half the deficit then simply repurchase the house at the depressed value.

 

[nextwife]

Ok...let's break it down....right now the housing market is in the toilet and therefore most houses are not fairly valued...and MANY people are upside down who did not take out risky mortgages.

So, someone with a 200k home could have a 100k deficit. Under your theory, the person not keeping the house should have to cough up 50k towards the deficit. However, 5 years from now the market rebounds, housing goes back up to its proper value, and the 100k is recouped via appreciation, not via housing payments. Is your theory still fair or did the person who kept the house simply get a free 50k windfall?

Lets try another....a married couple each puts 5k towards a downpayment on a house. Six months later the marriage falls apart and because they just purchased the house, it doesn't actually have any equity, its upside down by 2k. So the person not keeping the house not only loses their 5k down payment, but also has to pay another 1k? Do you think that is fair?

People need to STOP treating real estate like a pair of pants you simply shed when it no longer fits (ones desires). Don't buy a house with someone you have no clue whether you can stay with long term, and if you do, don't feel entitled to an easy out.

Yes, it is fair that both parties are responsible to cover the deficit, especially if one got out from under payment responsibilities by walking away!

Just because only one party will be able to remain in the house does NOT mean that the parties do not JOINTLY have a contractual responsibility to make certain the lender they agreed to pay back is paid when the property is sold, if a deficit exists. Most often, this means BOTH parties need to expect to pony up toward the deficiency, as neither one solo, in most cases, has the ability to do so. Perhaps BEFORE splitting up assets, they should escrow joint assets into an escrow account, with an agreement that reduces the non occupants shortfall contribution share as equity returns.

 

[gteal]

following

Ive been following everyone and i didnt mean to anger anyone or get anyone Angry with me. Simple as it is..i am dumb to this...no i didn't want the divorce but im going through with it. I never wanted my marriage to end. I hate the fact its happend. I bought a house thinking it would last forever , stupid i know now..im not looking to juke on my responsibilities. I am working but its not enough to support what i need to do... so i am getting a second job.

 

[Bali Hai]

Please, make sure this is YOUR lawyer. DO NOT try to go on the el-cheapo here. This is not the place to scrimp. You have a job, you are making some money. Protect yourself. Hire an attorney to represent YOU and let this attorney advise you. It's pretty obvious you're a decent person trying to get by and that you're pretty clueless about this process. It sounds as though your husband may be trying to hustle you into signing something, threatening you that you'll go bankrupt or be foreclosed on....get an attorney. Sooner rather than later.

I'm sure her attorney will try to get some leverage from the underwater house that she has only a token interest in, in which case if I were the stbx, simply sell it and hand her 50% of the marital debt. Now who is hustling her? STBX or her attorney?

 

[nextwife]

My husband and I own a house. We found out yesterday that I am not on the mortgage, but I am on the deed

If the house is underwater, and you are NOT on the mortgage, you may be able to walk away from the underwater house without any ding to your credit.

 

[Bali Hai]

If the house is underwater, and you are NOT on the mortgage, you may be able to walk away from the underwater house without any ding to your credit.

Which is what her stbx is trying to get her to do. But she and others here smell a rat in the wood pile. In the end her name will be removed from the title with no monetary gain. So she gets greedy and pays a lawyer to complicate what should be a very simple and straight forward fair compromise.