Spousal Support - could not afford after 9 years - court hearing scheduled

[Zigner]

If that were the case, I believe it should be the burden of the ex (who I perceive has no conception about money or what it takes to earn it) to submit evidence and prove that to the judge. Not the judge's gut feeling.

If the OP was ordered to sell it, then it will be on the OP to prove that he's made appropriate efforts to do so.

ETA: Actually, it looks like maybe the OP wasn't actually ordered to sell it. In that case, the house is irrelevant and all that matters is that he hasn't paid what he was ordered to pay.

 

[trueheart0923]

I see one potential problem in this whole thing that has not been addressed yet. It appears that your house has been on the market since mid 2010. That is 3 1/2 years. What explanation are you going to give to the judge that will justify the house not selling in 3 1/2 years? Unfortunately it could look to the judge like you have deliberately priced the house NOT to sell.

Valid point. All I can say is that three years ago the price was unreasonably high. Two years ago it came down, better, but not enough. During these two years, yes, I kept it up there a bit to hopefully make myself the best deal I could, while not feeling the pinch yet to be more competitive and sell?

Last year ago, came down again, and I was priced competitively if not aggressively. A different motivated broker, with 17 lookers in a 50 day period. Unfortunately, 17 lookers equates out to 2-3 serious ones. I'm in the "wheelhouse" at this point price wise, and I have a next door comp and an appraisal to back that up. Just met with my broker this AM, and he is convinced the supply of properties like mine are dwindling and sees no reason to move off the price point. If anything, he sees it being even more attractive this coming season. At my level, he is expecting activity high and soon ..... once summer arrives. It's very seasonal here with a 4-6 month "hot" selling season per year.

The truth is I would prefer not to sell, but I am priced at this point such that it will likely happen unless I can come with another alternate plan. Hey, getting debt free is a pleasant notion too.

I don't think the judge will get into suggesting that I "price fixed", but if he does I'll have to deal with that. I do have some support for the number I'm at now. Also, it's not as though the judge can tell me to leave money on the table either.

Did I mention I'm absorbing interest on the past due spousal support? That mitigates the price question some. I'm paying something for delay.

 

[Zigner]

Did I mention I'm absorbing interest on the past due spousal support? That mitigates the price question some. I'm paying something for delay.

Oh, perfect. You not only aren't paying the money, you aren't paying the interest. I'm sure the other party appreciates all that extra money they aren't putting in their pocket. (Sorry, that just seems like an absurd point to try to make in your defense.)

 

[Bali Hai]

Oh, perfect. You not only aren't paying the money, you aren't paying the interest. I'm sure the other party appreciates all that extra money they aren't putting in their pocket. (Sorry, that just seems like an absurd point to try to make in your defense.)

Sounds like a great plan that won't work.

 

[trueheart0923]

Oh, perfect. You not only aren't paying the money, you aren't paying the interest. I'm sure the other party appreciates all that extra money they aren't putting in their pocket. (Sorry, that just seems like an absurd point to try to make in your defense.)

The interest is small, 3%. Matches the ex's HELOC. It does make a difference. If you're using someone else's money, even if it isn't with their consent, if you're covering their cost, there is at least some argument that can be advanced they aren't out that cost. Loss of use yes, but not a "cost" burden.

Compare this to situation where no interest is being accrued, then you have the uphill battle on argument that even cost of money is being lost. In this example, receiving party would have a better chance of getting the judge to lean more heavily.

 

[Bali Hai]

The interest is small, 3%. Matches the ex's HELOC. It does make a difference. If you're using someone else's money, even if it isn't with their consent, if you're covering their cost, there is at least some argument that can be advanced they aren't out that cost. Loss of use yes, but not a "cost" burden.

Compare this to situation where no interest is being accrued, then you have the uphill battle on argument that even cost of money is being lost. In this example, receiving party would have a better chance of getting the judge to lean more heavily.

That's all good, 3 percent is decent these days. Be prepared to tell the judge WHEN will the receiving party see any money. Not sure, but I think that's what the motion to show cause is all about.

 

[trueheart0923]

That's all good, 3 percent is decent these days. Be prepared to tell the judge WHEN will the receiving party see any money. Not sure, but I think that's what the motion to show cause is all about.

Of course I don't really know yet what is behind the methodology of actions taken. I might not find out either. But I suspect it is emotions, and I know four reasons why and those must remain private.

As for when she will see the money, she is reasonably well off. Driving a new car, taking trips, massages, $20+/day doggie day care, etc. I do not begrudge her these things, but they don't bark poverty. If her money is secured, she can sleep.

Finally, she should be careful she doesn't tarnish that halo of hers (blinding me you know) in the eyes of our daughters. My girls know the extra lengths I've gone to for them. They won't stand for kicking dad.

 

[trueheart0923]

If that were the case, I believe it should be the burden of the ex (who I perceive has no conception about money or what it takes to earn it) to submit evidence and prove that to the judge. Not the judge's gut feeling.

"who I perceive has no conception about money or what it takes to earn it"

Bali Hai, the last six words? A huge bulls eye on that!

 

[trueheart0923]

That's all good, 3 percent is decent these days. Be prepared to tell the judge WHEN will the receiving party see any money. Not sure, but I think that's what the motion to show cause is all about.

So I lost in court .... not having the funds on the pay date is the reason for non payment, but that is not a valid defense per judge. The judge sentenced me to 25 days, then suspended that, and no fine imposed. My house is for sale, which is the asset my ex and I had previously agreed would be used to satisfy the remaining obligation. Judge is attempting to get me to lower the price on my house for it to sell faster, or at least for now to rethink the listing price, while my ex doesn't quite agree with the notion of punishing me to that degree. We'll see when the order shakes out, but hamstringing me on the sale of my house, after I have paid out 94% of the max total she was allowed to collect under the MSA over 11.5 years, is not what she is about. I was experiencing hardship in 2010 (promissory note due to be went bad) and rather than go to court to appeal for some relief, the ex and I agreed that if I could delay it, then I could use house proceeds to take care of debt.

I mentioned earlier in this post that the ex doesn't need the money, and she has acknowledged this to others .... family members.

I do think the judge will continue to pressure me on the sales price, but can he order me to lose money? What if ex doesn't want to press me too hard initially, can judge over ride that? My property is not in the state of jurisdiction. Thanks.

 

[Zigner]

I mentioned earlier in this post that the ex doesn't need the money...

So?

 

[Bali Hai]

So I lost in court .... not having the funds on the pay date is the reason for non payment, but that is not a valid defense per judge. The judge sentenced me to 25 days, then suspended that, and no fine imposed. My house is for sale, which is the asset my ex and I had previously agreed would be used to satisfy the remaining obligation. Judge is attempting to get me to lower the price on my house for it to sell faster, or at least for now to rethink the listing price, while my ex doesn't quite agree with the notion of punishing me to that degree. We'll see when the order shakes out, but hamstringing me on the sale of my house, after I have paid out 94% of the max total she was allowed to collect under the MSA over 11.5 years, is not what she is about. I was experiencing hardship in 2010 (promissory note due to be went bad) and rather than go to court to appeal for some relief, the ex and I agreed that if I could delay it, then I could use house proceeds to take care of debt.

I mentioned earlier in this post that the ex doesn't need the money, and she has acknowledged this to others .... family members.

I do think the judge will continue to pressure me on the sales price, but can he order me to lose money? What if ex doesn't want to press me too hard initially, can judge over ride that? My property is not in the state of jurisdiction. Thanks.

YOU agreed to pay the money, so pay it. Your used car sales training won't help soften the judge. Your ex can be nice or not nice time and again. She has the trump card and will use it. Pay her the money that you agreed to pay her and move on.

 

[LdiJ]

So I lost in court .... not having the funds on the pay date is the reason for non payment, but that is not a valid defense per judge. The judge sentenced me to 25 days, then suspended that, and no fine imposed. My house is for sale, which is the asset my ex and I had previously agreed would be used to satisfy the remaining obligation. Judge is attempting to get me to lower the price on my house for it to sell faster, or at least for now to rethink the listing price, while my ex doesn't quite agree with the notion of punishing me to that degree. We'll see when the order shakes out, but hamstringing me on the sale of my house, after I have paid out 94% of the max total she was allowed to collect under the MSA over 11.5 years, is not what she is about. I was experiencing hardship in 2010 (promissory note due to be went bad) and rather than go to court to appeal for some relief, the ex and I agreed that if I could delay it, then I could use house proceeds to take care of debt.

I mentioned earlier in this post that the ex doesn't need the money, and she has acknowledged this to others .... family members.

I do think the judge will continue to pressure me on the sales price, but can he order me to lose money? What if ex doesn't want to press me too hard initially, can judge over ride that? My property is not in the state of jurisdiction. Thanks.

You do realize that the judge only suspended your 25 days in jail? If you do not get this dealt with, quite quickly, you may end up having to serve that 25 days. I still sense a great deal of ambivalence in your attitude towards all of this. You need to price the house to sell, and sell quickly.

 

[trueheart0923]

YOU agreed to pay the money, so pay it. Your used car sales training won't help soften the judge. Your ex can be nice or not nice time and again. She has the trump card and will use it. Pay her the money that you agreed to pay her and move on.

No used car sales training here, and I'm not ambivalent about paying what I owe. I realize I owe and intend to pay it. I always have intended to pay it. That's why I created the addendums saying so. Not having the $$$ to pay it immediately is the problem. To get those $$$, I must sell my house.

 

[trueheart0923]

You do realize that the judge only suspended your 25 days in jail? If you do not get this dealt with, quite quickly, you may end up having to serve that 25 days. I still sense a great deal of ambivalence in your attitude towards all of this. You need to price the house to sell, and sell quickly.

I absolutely realize the judge has that power. Realistically speaking, making matters worse for me, which he could do, is not the quickest and/or easiest solution or the best solution, and I do believe he realizes this to some degree. Damaging me further, if that were to a great degree, an unrealistic degree, is not the intention of the ex. We're on the home stretch after 94% has been paid.

My question in this is if the ex has the capability and the willingness to wait until I get a reasonable price for the house, does the judge have the power to override that?

 

[LdiJ]

I absolutely realize the judge has that power. Realistically speaking, making matters worse for me, which he could do, is not the quickest and/or easiest solution or the best solution, and I do believe he realizes this to some degree. Damaging me further, if that were to a great degree, an unrealistic degree, is not the intention of the ex. We're on the home stretch after 94% has been paid.

My question in this is if the ex has the capability and the willingness to wait until I get a reasonable price for the house, does the judge have the power to override that?

Technically yes, the judge does. On top of that, if your ex was truly willing to wait, you wouldn't be in the position that you are in now. I honestly believe that you are burying your head in the sand because you really don't want to sell at all.