divorce - house goes to wife, but mortgage in husband's name?

[jnorman34]

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

my son just got divorced, and the judgment indicates that the house goes to his wife. however, the house title is in my son's name only, and his name is the only name on the mortgage. per the judgment, she is responsible to pay the mortgage - but, my son is now unable to qualify for a new house. how is he supposed to get the mortgage and title in her name so he can move on financially?

 

[Zigner]

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

my son just got divorced, and the judgment indicates that the house goes to his wife. however, the house title is in my son's name only, and his name is the only name on the mortgage. per the judgment, she is responsible to pay the mortgage - but, my son is now unable to qualify for a new house. how is he supposed to get the mortgage and title in her name so he can move on financially?

He should ask her to refinance the house in her name. He will be required to sign over the deed (so to speak) as a part of that process. His attorney should be able to assist.

 

[FlyingRon]

Yep, the lawyer should insist that the deed only be executed coincident with his liability for the loan being released.

 

[LdiJ]

Yep, the lawyer should insist that the deed only be executed coincident with his liability for the loan being released.

I agree with this and with the previous response...but sigh, this should have been addressed in the divorce decree/property settlement. Its just that much more difficult that it was not...and possibly irreparable if the divorce is final.

 

[jnorman34]

thanks for the responses. he did not have a lawyer - just me...

the wife is not qualified for the loan. also, she is not interested in doing anything to help my son. my son cannot afford a lawyer, and doesn't know how to proceed. the court would give no assistance even in trying to understand the judgment. her lawyer, likewise, is completely unhelpful. i'm sure it would cost him thousands to resolve this somehow. :-(

 

[Zigner]

I agree with this and with the previous response...but sigh, this should have been addressed in the divorce decree/property settlement. Its just that much more difficult that it was not...and possibly irreparable if the divorce is final.

It may very well have been addressed - the OP wasn't a party to it.

 

[Ladyback1]

thanks for the responses. he did not have a lawyer - just me...

the wife is not qualified for the loan. also, she is not interested in doing anything to help my son. my son cannot afford a lawyer, and doesn't know how to proceed. the court would give no assistance even in trying to understand the judgment. her lawyer, likewise, is completely unhelpful. i'm sure it would cost him thousands to resolve this somehow. :-(

The court is not suppose to provide assistance, and really? You want the attorney SHE paid for to help your son?

If you want to help him, then you should help him obtain legal counsel.

 

[Bali Hai]

thanks for the responses. he did not have a lawyer - just me...

the wife is not qualified for the loan. also, she is not interested in doing anything to help my son. my son cannot afford a lawyer, and doesn't know how to proceed. the court would give no assistance even in trying to understand the judgment. her lawyer, likewise, is completely unhelpful. i'm sure it would cost him thousands to resolve this somehow. :-(

Since you screwed up your son's divorce, you should foot the bill for a real lawyer to unscrew it.

 

[stealth2]

thanks for the responses. he did not have a lawyer - just me...

the wife is not qualified for the loan. also, she is not interested in doing anything to help my son. my son cannot afford a lawyer, and doesn't know how to proceed. the court would give no assistance even in trying to understand the judgment. her lawyer, likewise, is completely unhelpful. i'm sure it would cost him thousands to resolve this somehow. :-(

YOu have, unfortunstely, cost him more thsn a lawyer would have.

 

[latigo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oregon . . my son just got divorced, and the judgment indicates (?) that the house goes to his wife. however, the house title is in my son's name only, and his name is the only name on the mortgage. per the judgment, she is responsible to pay the mortgage - but, my son is now unable to qualify for a new house. how is he supposed to get the mortgage and title in her name so he can move on financially?

These are issues that should have been addressed and satisfactory solutions found BEFORE the decree was entered.

Like your son's lawyer insisting that the decree order that the wife either obtain refinancing of the existing mortgage note within a fixed period of time or that it be listed and remain listed until sold. Plus that he would not be obligated to divest himself of his interest in the home except upon either a refinance or a sale.

It's spilled milk now, daddy-o, and nothing whatsoever can be done about it other than her voluntarily agreeing to sell.

Obviously someone here thought that were saving themselves a hunk of change by not hiring a lawyer and now the are suffering for it. And the person suffering is not your ex daughter-in-law.

Furthermore, pop, court orders to not "indicate". They dictate!

 

[jnorman34]

thanks again for the many replies. we reviewed the petition carefully, and there simply was nothing in there that we felt we needed to contest. we did offer a draft settlement agreement to the wife's lawyer, which they completely ignored. what I do not understand is why the court would issue dictates in the judgment which cannot apparently be fulfilled or even understood, and then refuse to clarify what the intent of the judgment is.

 

[Ohiogal]

thanks again for the many replies. we reviewed the petition carefully, and there simply was nothing in there that we felt we needed to contest. we did offer a draft settlement agreement to the wife's lawyer, which they completely ignored. what I do not understand is why the court would issue dictates in the judgment which cannot apparently be fulfilled or even understood, and then refuse to clarify what the intent of the judgment is.

QUIT! Just quit. You are admitting to practicing law without a license which is a crime. Your son needs counsel. Your son needs an attorney. Your son needs to pay someone to bail him out of this and have the court clarify the judgment -- if that is even possible. You have caused a lot of issues for your child by "playing lawyer". That game is very expensive.

 

[Just Blue]

thanks again for the many replies. we reviewed the petition carefully, and there simply was nothing in there that we felt we needed to contest. we did offer a draft settlement agreement to the wife's lawyer, which they completely ignored. what I do not understand is why the court would issue dictates in the judgment which cannot apparently be fulfilled or even understood, and then refuse to clarify what the intent of the judgment is.

Are you an attorney? If not you are breaking the law.

 

[latigo]

thanks again for the many replies. we reviewed the petition carefully, and there simply was nothing in there that we felt we needed to contest. we did offer a draft settlement agreement to the wife's lawyer, which they completely ignored. what I do not understand is why the court would issue dictates in the judgment which cannot apparently be fulfilled or even understood, and then refuse to clarify what the intent of the judgment is.

What clarification is needed to explain the admitted fact that the divorce decree awarded the ex-wife the home subject to the existing mortgage?

Did you naively think that by assigning the mortgage indebtedness to the wife that it somehow relieved your "client" of further responsibility. And now finding that it doesn't, that you can reopen the case "to clarify the intent of the judgment" and get off of the hook?

You are grasping at straws trying to overcome the fact that you stuck you nose where it didn't belong. Because in the least the decree should have contained a save and hold harmless clause by which the ex-wife indemnified you son of further liability. In which case should she default on the loan he would have legal recourse. And without, he has none. Including no right of subrogation because of the fact that she is not a party to the loan agreement.

 

[Zigner]

Are you an attorney? If not you are breaking the law.

Shhh - the OP doesn't want to hear this.