Need help understaning wording in a divorce decree

[farangman]

Arizona (Sorry, original post was blank)

I need some help understanding the wording in a divorce decree.

My ex-wife and I received a divorce decree from an Arizona court in September 2012. The provision of the decree that addresses the disposition of our jointly owned (I believe titled as jointly owned with rights of survivorship) house states (after describing the house and lot) "This home shall be sold by the agreement of the parties and the net proceeds shall be divided equally among the parties on the date of escrow."

Toward the end of the document, another section of the decree states, in part "Parties shall sign all documents necessary to complete the transfer of title ordered in this Decree, such as motor vehicles, real property, and bank accounts. The parties shall transfer all real and personal property as above-described to the other party within 30 days of finalization of this Decree unless stated otherwise above."

Neither my ex-wife nor I live in the house.

The problem is that my ex-wife wants to hold onto the house for a few years and I want to sell it now. Does the language in the decree require that the house be sold within any particular timeframe?

If the answer is that the decree does not set a period during which the house must be sold, my followup question is "Is there a way I can force the sale in the near future even though my wife does not want to do so?"

 

[Ohiogal]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

Much much more information is necessary -- such as the actual wording AND your state.

 

[wavehopper27]

The preview function in these forums eats posts.

 

[farangman]

Thank you for clearing up that mystery, wavehopper27. I have restored the original post.

 

[Zigner]

The two of you need to arrange it - but there is no time frame. You could go back to court to get this clarified. However, if the house sells now, will it be sold at a loss?

 

[Proserpina]

Arizona (Sorry, original post was blank)

I need some help understanding the wording in a divorce decree.

My ex-wife and I received a divorce decree from an Arizona court in September 2012. The provision of the decree that addresses the disposition of our jointly owned (I believe titled as jointly owned with rights of survivorship) house states (after describing the house and lot) "This home shall be sold by the agreement of the parties and the net proceeds shall be divided equally among the parties on the date of escrow."

Toward the end of the document, another section of the decree states, in part "Parties shall sign all documents necessary to complete the transfer of title ordered in this Decree, such as motor vehicles, real property, and bank accounts. The parties shall transfer all real and personal property as above-described to the other party within 30 days of finalization of this Decree unless stated otherwise above."

Neither my ex-wife nor I live in the house.

The problem is that my ex-wife wants to hold onto the house for a few years and I want to sell it now. Does the language in the decree require that the house be sold within any particular timeframe?

If the answer is that the decree does not set a period during which the house must be sold, my followup question is "Is there a way I can force the sale in the near future even though my wife does not want to do so?"

I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but it would appear that the answer is "no". There IS a set time in which the transfer of titles must be completed, but this does not equate to a time period in which the house must be sold.

And in this market? I'm not sure that's even feasible.

 

[wavehopper27]

The final paragraph seems to give 30 days from the time the decree was finalized. If 30 days has passed and she still refuses to cooperate in the sale of the home, file a contempt complaint.

 

[Proserpina]

The final paragraph seems to give 30 days from the time the decree was finalized. If 30 days has passed and she still refuses to cooperate in the sale of the home, file a contempt complaint.

I'm not reading that the same way. The decree is specific about when titles have to be exchanged.

It does not address the actual sale of the home.

 

[LdiJ]

The final paragraph seems to give 30 days from the time the decree was finalized. If 30 days has passed and she still refuses to cooperate in the sale of the home, file a contempt complaint.

I disagree completely....

Toward the end of the document, another section of the decree states, in part "Parties shall sign all documents necessary to complete the transfer of title ordered in this Decree, such as motor vehicles, real property, and bank accounts. The parties shall transfer all real and personal property as above-described to the other party within 30 days of finalization of this Decree unless stated otherwise above."

I believe this paragraph is talking about property that each of them is keeping, separately, and the necessary documents to make that happen.

The deets on the house are "stated otherwise above"., which is:

"This home shall be sold by the agreement of the parties and the net proceeds shall be divided equally among the parties on the date of escrow."

 

[Ohiogal]

The court will most likely look at the house being put up for sale in a "reasonable period of time" sufficient to meet the decree.

 

[latigo]

Arizona (Sorry, original post was blank)

I need some help understanding the wording in a divorce decree.

My ex-wife and I received a divorce decree from an Arizona court in September 2012. The provision of the decree that addresses the disposition of our jointly owned (I believe titled as jointly owned with rights of survivorship) house states (after describing the house and lot) "This home shall be sold by the agreement of the parties and the net proceeds shall be divided equally among the parties on the date of escrow."

Toward the end of the document, another section of the decree states, in part "Parties shall sign all documents necessary to complete the transfer of title ordered in this Decree, such as motor vehicles, real property, and bank accounts. The parties shall transfer all real and personal property as above-described to the other party within 30 days of finalization of this Decree unless stated otherwise above."

Neither my ex-wife nor I live in the house.

The problem is that my ex-wife wants to hold onto the house for a few years and I want to sell it now. Does the language in the decree require that the house be sold within any particular timeframe?

If the answer is that the decree does not set a period during which the house must be sold, my followup question is "Is there a way I can force the sale in the near future even though my wife does not want to do so?"

Your are not going to be able to understand the decree because it doesn't say anthing!

But isn’t it rather evident from its quoted wording that the decree DOES NOT impose a fixed period of time within which the home MUST BE SOLD?

Nor as written does it allow you to force a sale of the house; at least not through the authority of the decree.

What it has done is to stupidly create a patent incongruity in that whereas the divorce process was directed at a final division of the marital property, all this incompetent piece of trash does is to convert an estate of marital ownership into one of cotenancy.

In other words, you and your ex-wife now each own an undivided one half interest in the property. The status of ownership is known as tenants in common or cotenants.

_________________

What can you do about it?

You will have to return to court and bring attention to the imbecile of a judge that signed it that its from is so ambiguous as not to be enforceable and thus needs to be clarified to reflect the court’s intent or what should have been the court’s intent. Which obviously was not to leave the parties where they were before.

If you were represented by counsel, you need to demand that he or she fix it! If you didn't have benefit of counsel, you got what you paid for.
__________________

But a couple of questions.

Was the ex given the right to exclusively occupy the home pending its sale?

(If not, and she remains obstinate, I would have you rent out a portion of it to some homeless family. I'm serious!)

I assume that there is a mortgage lien against the home and if so, who was made responsible to keep up the payments, pay the property taxes, the homeowner insurance premiums, etc.?

Because if you were not specifically ordered to assume those expenses, I would tell her to starting cutting checks.

 

[farangman]

Latigo wrote:
"But a couple of questions.

Was the ex given the right to exclusively occupy the home pending its sale?

(If not, and she remains obstinate, I would have you rent out a portion of it to some homeless family. I'm serious!)

I assume that there is a mortgage lien against the home and if so, who was made responsible to keep up the payments, pay the property taxes, the homeowner insurance premiums, etc.?

Because if you were not specifically ordered to assume those expenses, I would tell her to starting cutting checks. "

Right to occupy the house: Neither of us occupy the house. It is currently rented.
There is no mortgage but there are the other expenses such as you mentioned and the decree did not assign responsibility for those expenses.
It is clear that if I don't want to be a co-tennant with my ex-wife, my only recourse is to go to the court and ask them to put some constraints on the period in which the house must be sold.

Thank you all for your analysis, I appreciate it greatly.

If I am permitted a follow-up question:
As I recall, the title of the house is "joint tenants with rights of survivorship", Would that necessarily mean that if I die and don't (or can't) change the title on the house before its sold, that she will own the house 100%?

Again, thank you.

 

[latigo]

Latigo wrote: .. . . . . . . . As I recall, the title of the house is "joint tenants with rights of survivorship", Would that necessarily mean that if I die and don't (or can't) change the title on the house before its sold, that she will own the house 100%? . . . .

(Maybe that is why she is stalling.)

I would think that the divorce decree in ordering the house sold, etc ., would have dissolved the j/t/r/s ownership. But the question would need to be researched. Perhaps some others in here more acquainted with the issue will respond.

In any event, I see no reason why it could not be expressly done so in conjunction with the other nun pro tunc orders.

With respect to the interim expenses incident to maintaining the house, my belief is that, where not mentioned in the decree they would be treated the same as in any cotenancy ownership, the co-owners sharing equally.

 

[farangman]

The replies on this thread have been most helpful in getting my thinking straight about the situation, and I offer my thanks for those.

It occurred to me that I might be able to pressure her to cooperate by disallowing renting of the property. If we are listed as "joint tenants with rights of survivorship", would I be able to do that?