obtaining a mortgage for rental property purchase from father

[STEPHAN]

what does a BK that's off my credit history and a divorce half to do with buying a house back from my father??

Did you report the agreement with your father and your possible equity in the house during your BK?

THAT is the question.

 

[ShyCat]

I'm not sure what you are referring to about a gift in relation to creditors and ex wife? I just removed my name from the title.

When you "just removed [your] name from the title", you made a gift of your equity in the home to your father. You gave away something of value in which (a) your ex-wife may have had a marital interest that would need to be addressed in the divorce proceedings, and (b) your creditors probably would have been very interested in during your bankruptcy proceedings. And you should have filed a Federal gift tax return (and possibly one for your state).

 

[LdiJ]

EXCEPT, you had a BK and divorce between then and now. I suspect you will be estopped from claiming any ownership under the only theory possible. A resulting trust (Your theory on how you have ANY rights.) cannot be illegal under trust law as a theory. It seems your former wife and former creditors were hurt by your gift that was not recorded in the proper way.

I care nothing of your theory. I care nothing of your justification. I see no way to your victory. Especially when compared to what I think your goals are. (As related to the specific questions asked and not answered.)

The answer is no. You get nothing.

For more, see an attorney who will charge a lot for a hard fight. (Depending on who opposes.)

They paid 176k for the property in 1999. It was refinanced in 2004, and the mortgage balance NOW is 210k...10 years later. Obviously equity was pulled out at the time of the refinance in 2004. Therefore its questionable as to whether or not there was any equity that could have been tapped by the ex wife or bk creditors. 2004 WAS a big year for refi's...I remember that because I refi'd my own house that year.

 

[STEPHAN]

It was not up to you to determine that.

You made statements in court that were incorrect (under oath).

You choose foul play, not it bites you.

 

[tranquility]

what does a BK that's off my credit history and a divorce half to do with buying a house back from my father?? Doesn't seem like rocket science to me? I'm trying to avoid attorney's. A mortgage broker I'm consulting with said I just need to be able to qualify for a mortgage and based on my yearly income and being at my current job for 20 years now should be satisfactory along with credit score of 680. This isn't some legal battle where im looking for a victory? I'm not sure what you are referring to about a gift in relation to creditors and ex wife? I just removed my name from the title. Please explain estopped? not sure of that verbage

I know a painter that will say you can paint your house green if you own it. How does that relate to who owns the property? The reason you need an attorney is because you have been peddling baloney for a decade and now you want us to think it prime ribeye. It's not. Since you don't seem to like to answer simple questions, this is probably my last post. I don't know how long it will be, I'll start writing and then stop. I don't know where it will go--an adventure for both.

Father advise me to quit claim the property to him(2004) so he could refi the property(lower rates).

Father was on the original title which made him a co-owner. He did NOT have to be on title because he co-signed, you both just decided to do so. (The reasons could be many. Some nefarious--especially with a person with bad credit.) At this point, look up two legal terms:
1. Quit claim
2. Resulting trust

The legal theory you are grappling with that I have mentioned already is a resulting trust. Father holds the property for you for some reason. There are multiple problems with this. We shall ignore the statute of frauds and the fact you quit claimed 1/2 to father and not the whole property (As dad was already co-owner.) and the problem related to what the purported trust actually holds. We shall only look to the creation of the trust itself. Trusts are old law and there is amazingly little that is needed to create a valid trust. One of the few requirements is it cannot be for an improper or illegal purpose. Here, let me count the ways:

1. California is a community property state. Some of the money paid for the property gave wife either equity ownership (If paid from joint account.) or right or reimbursement (If paid from a separate account with community/earned funds.). I find it unlikely there was a separate account with separate funds that was paying the rent/mortgage/baloney. The divorce should have included this asset. I am uncertain as to if the OP thinks he has a resulting trust for the whole property or just 1/2. Either way, wife had some rights to it.

2. The bankruptcy must include any assets/liabilities the OP owns or is responsible for. Was it included? Were the purported rights in the trust included in the BK? I suspect not. Now, that does not mean the creditors were harmed by the lack of inclusion, it's just that it had to be included.

3. Father treated the whole property as a rental. One does not rent to an owner. The father, if this was a resulting trust, committed tax fraud. He should not have been depreciating the property. He should not have been deducting expenses except for investment interest on schedule A for the 1/2 that he owned. (None if the purported trust is for the whole property.)

Because the OP made legal claims to the reality of the situation in 1 and 2 above, even though the statute of limitations may have run, he would probably be legally estopped (prevented) from making a contrary legal claim now. Something about having cake and eating it too as a legal principal. As to 3, I see no legal way to unwind the situation as father's return may have materially understated and the IRS will be able to go back six years. Again, actual numbers would help. But, even there, tax fraud is an improper purpose. Just as the potential fraud to the divorce or the BK.

Now, about the refinance in father's name, who got the extra money? I don't know if it is that important, it is just one of the fuzzy facts missing.

Some questions to the OP:

1. Who paid the down payment on the house?

2. Were you married when the house was bought?

3. How much of the house do you think you own? Why?

4. How much do you want to borrow to buy the whole/half house now?

 

[emtp]

They paid 176k for the property in 1999. It was refinanced in 2004, and the mortgage balance NOW is 210k...10 years later. Obviously equity was pulled out at the time of the refinance in 2004. Therefore its questionable as to whether or not there was any equity that could have been tapped by the ex wife or bk creditors. 2004 WAS a big year for refi's...I remember that because I refi'd my own house that year.

ex-wife and I were on good terms at the time of divorce she had no interest in the house and never had any intentions of any sort in regards to equity or half when divorce became finalized which was done at the court house in span of 30 minutes. no divorce lawyers no animosity.

 

[tranquility]

ex-wife and I were on good terms at the time of divorce she had no interest in the house and never had any intentions of any sort in regards to equity or half when divorce became finalized which was done at the court house in span of 30 minutes. no divorce lawyers no animosity.

She DID have an "interest" in the house. Perhaps part of the reason why she did not try to enforce that interest was because of the difficulty it would have been to disgorge your property rights from father's ownership or from the titling of co-owners if it had not been quit claimed as yet. That would have taken an attorney and no one seemed to have the money to do so here. Yet another 1/2 answer from the OP.

 

[emtp]

She DID have an "interest" in the house. Perhaps part of the reason why she did not try to enforce that interest was because of the difficulty it would have been to disgorge your property rights from father's ownership or from the titling of co-owners if it had not been quit claimed as yet. That would have taken an attorney and no one seemed to have the money to do so here. Yet another 1/2 answer from the OP.

Well that chapter in my life is over, she has since remarried she's not too bright when it comes to those types of life matter's. Life goes on! Main focus is getting this house and getting some the equity.

 

[justalayman]

Well that chapter in my life is over, she has since remarried she's not too bright when it comes to those types of life matter's. Life goes on! Main focus is getting this house and getting some the equity.

So screw the legalities you want your money regardless, right?


Why ask questions if you are going to ignore the answers provided?

 

[emtp]

I know a painter that will say you can paint your house green if you own it. How does that relate to who owns the property? The reason you need an attorney is because you have been peddling baloney for a decade and now you want us to think it prime ribeye. It's not. Since you don't seem to like to answer simple questions, this is probably my last post. I don't know how long it will be, I'll start writing and then stop. I don't know where it will go--an adventure for both.

Father was on the original title which made him a co-owner. He did NOT have to be on title because he co-signed, you both just decided to do so. (The reasons could be many. Some nefarious--especially with a person with bad credit.) At this point, look up two legal terms:
1. Quit claim
2. Resulting trust

The legal theory you are grappling with that I have mentioned already is a resulting trust. Father holds the property for you for some reason. There are multiple problems with this. We shall ignore the statute of frauds and the fact you quit claimed 1/2 to father and not the whole property (As dad was already co-owner.) and the problem related to what the purported trust actually holds. We shall only look to the creation of the trust itself. Trusts are old law and there is amazingly little that is needed to create a valid trust. One of the few requirements is it cannot be for an improper or illegal purpose. Here, let me count the ways:

1. California is a community property state. Some of the money paid for the property gave wife either equity ownership (If paid from joint account.) or right or reimbursement (If paid from a separate account with community/earned funds.). I find it unlikely there was a separate account with separate funds that was paying the rent/mortgage/baloney. The divorce should have included this asset. I am uncertain as to if the OP thinks he has a resulting trust for the whole property or just 1/2. Either way, wife had some rights to it.

2. The bankruptcy must include any assets/liabilities the OP owns or is responsible for. Was it included? Were the purported rights in the trust included in the BK? I suspect not. Now, that does not mean the creditors were harmed by the lack of inclusion, it's just that it had to be included.

3. Father treated the whole property as a rental. One does not rent to an owner. The father, if this was a resulting trust, committed tax fraud. He should not have been depreciating the property. He should not have been deducting expenses except for investment interest on schedule A for the 1/2 that he owned. (None if the purported trust is for the whole property.)

Because the OP made legal claims to the reality of the situation in 1 and 2 above, even though the statute of limitations may have run, he would probably be legally estopped (prevented) from making a contrary legal claim now. Something about having cake and eating it too as a legal principal. As to 3, I see no legal way to unwind the situation as father's return may have materially understated and the IRS will be able to go back six years. Again, actual numbers would help. But, even there, tax fraud is an improper purpose. Just as the potential fraud to the divorce or the BK.

Now, about the refinance in father's name, who got the extra money? I don't know if it is that important, it is just one of the fuzzy facts missing.

Some questions to the OP:

1. Who paid the down payment on the house?

2. Were you married when the house was bought?

3. How much of the house do you think you own? Why?

4. How much do you want to borrow to buy the whole/half house now?

The refinance, he took the money as we did some upgrades to the house. (1.) He loaned me the down payment which has been paid back( 2.) yes I was married, separated after 2 years/ divorced final n 04 (3.) verbal agreement with father stating house is mine (4.) buy house outright and need $90,000. House valued as of today @420,000 balance on first is $210,000.

 

[justalayman]

The refinance, he took the money as we did some upgrades to the house. (1.) He loaned me the down payment which has been paid back( 2.) yes I was married, separated after 2 years/ divorced final n 04 (3.) verbal agreement with father stating house is mine (4.) buy house outright and need $90,000. House valued as of today @420,000 balance on first is $210,000.

So how was your share dealt with in the divorce and bankruptcy? Did you conceal your interest? Did you disclose your gift to your father? While you can legally give away what you own free and clear, you cannot hide assets to avoid dealing with them in a divorce or bankruptcy. So far you have refused to answer the questions dealing with those issues.

 

[emtp]

So screw the legalities you want your money regardless, right?


Why ask questions if you are going to ignore the answers provided?

I'm not trying to screw anything! Look I've made every payment on that house and was claiming the write off's up until I quit claim in 04 and father refied house soley into his name in 04. I'm hardly trying to cheat or defraud as some people are suggesting, I pay my taxes and file them appropriately. If my father is doing something shady with his tax guy I hardly doubt it, that's the last thing as a retired senior he wants hanging over his head. Just trying to educate myself aand gather as much info on this matter as I can as it seems like it's complex, hell had i'd know all this madness would have been the horizon I would have never have quit claimed the deed to father. My current wife seems to think he's stealing the house from me! That's a whole another issue i'm dealing with , the strife that it has caused between my wife and father. Very stressful.

 

[emtp]

So how was your share dealt with in the divorce and bankruptcy? Did you conceal your interest? Did you disclose your gift to your father? While you can legally give away what you own free and clear, you cannot hide assets to avoid dealing with them in a divorce or bankruptcy. So far you have refused to answer the questions dealing with those issues.

I have answered them look at pervious posts. Moving on

 

[justalayman]

I'm not trying to screw anything! Look I've made very payment on that house and was claiming the write off's up until I quit claimed and father refied house soley into his name in 04. I'm hardly trying to chaet or defraud as some people are suggesting, I pay my taxes and file them appropriately. If my father is doing something shady with his tax guy I hardly doubt it, that's the last thing as a retired senior he wants hanging over his head. Just trying to educate myself aand gather as much info on this matter as I can as it seems like it's complex, hell had i'd know all this madness would have been the horizon I would have never have quit claimed the deed to father. My current wife seems to think he's stealing the house from me! That's a whole another issue i'm dealing with , the strife that it has caused between amy wife and father. Very stressful.

You did not make mortgage payments. You made rent payments. Remember your father treated it as a rental and you have been the tenant. Your father made the mortgage payments.


And your father isn't stealing the house from you. It is legally his house. He already owns it so how do you steal something you already own?

And yes it is complex. That is why you were directed, by a guy very knowledgeable in this sort of matter, to speak with an attorney face to face.

 

[emtp]

So how was your share dealt with in the divorce and bankruptcy? Did you conceal your interest? Did you disclose your gift to your father? While you can legally give away what you own free and clear, you cannot hide assets to avoid dealing with them in a divorce or bankruptcy. So far you have refused to answer the questions dealing with those issues.

Was not advised on any gift filings , told to quit claim and that was it. moving on