where do I stand with this

[Tyler98]

My name Tyler

My ex-wife and I were divorced just over a year ago. She was awarded the house and 2015 Jeep, both paid off by her. Prior to our divorce, my ex had moved away, but I was trying to help her out money wise the best I could. At this time I took out a loan on the Jeep for $10,000 and gave her $9,000 of it. She co-signed on the loan. I am still paying on the loan. She now wants to sell the Jeep but can’t due to it having a loan on it.

The other day I received a text from her stating – “I really need you to take care of the jeep loan it was supposed to been taken care right after the divorce but I see it hasn’t. I am going to sell the jeep and need the loan cleared asap. This was part of the conditions of the divorce that you take care of what was yours.”

I replied saying I am paying the loan and that is the best I can do.

She then texted me saying – “Then call 4 front and use your house as collateral and get it taken off the jeep or I will have to haul you into court for non-compliance with a court order. I have already spoken with an attorney and it is within my rights to do so.”

Within the Dissolution of Marriage it states – “Petitioner, (ex-wife name) is awarded the 2015 Jeep automobile free and clear of any claim of the Respondent, (my name). (ex-wife name) assumes indebtedness on the vehicle, if any.”
Also within the Dissolution it states – “The parties are responsible for any individual debt and shall hold the other party harmless from same. It was represented to the Court that the parties have no joint marital debts.”

My question is, where do I stand with this?

 

[Just Blue]

My name Tyler

My ex-wife and I were divorced just over a year ago. She was awarded the house and 2015 Jeep, both paid off by her. Prior to our divorce, my ex had moved away, but I was trying to help her out money wise the best I could. At this time I took out a loan on the Jeep for $10,000 and gave her $9,000 of it. She co-signed on the loan. I am still paying on the loan. She now wants to sell the Jeep but can’t due to it having a loan on it.

The other day I received a text from her stating – “I really need you to take care of the jeep loan it was supposed to been taken care right after the divorce but I see it hasn’t. I am going to sell the jeep and need the loan cleared asap. This was part of the conditions of the divorce that you take care of what was yours.”

I replied saying I am paying the loan and that is the best I can do.

She then texted me saying – “Then call 4 front and use your house as collateral and get it taken off the jeep or I will have to haul you into court for non-compliance with a court order. I have already spoken with an attorney and it is within my rights to do so.”

Within the Dissolution of Marriage it states – “Petitioner, (ex-wife name) is awarded the 2015 Jeep automobile free and clear of any claim of the Respondent, (my name). (ex-wife name) assumes indebtedness on the vehicle, if any.”
Also within the Dissolution it states – “The parties are responsible for any individual debt and shall hold the other party harmless from same. It was represented to the Court that the parties have no joint marital debts.”

My question is, where do I stand with this?

What state?

 

[LdiJ]

My name Tyler

My ex-wife and I were divorced just over a year ago. She was awarded the house and 2015 Jeep, both paid off by her. Prior to our divorce, my ex had moved away, but I was trying to help her out money wise the best I could. At this time I took out a loan on the Jeep for $10,000 and gave her $9,000 of it. She co-signed on the loan. I am still paying on the loan. She now wants to sell the Jeep but can’t due to it having a loan on it.

The other day I received a text from her stating – “I really need you to take care of the jeep loan it was supposed to been taken care right after the divorce but I see it hasn’t. I am going to sell the jeep and need the loan cleared asap. This was part of the conditions of the divorce that you take care of what was yours.”

I replied saying I am paying the loan and that is the best I can do.

She then texted me saying – “Then call 4 front and use your house as collateral and get it taken off the jeep or I will have to haul you into court for non-compliance with a court order. I have already spoken with an attorney and it is within my rights to do so.”

Within the Dissolution of Marriage it states – “Petitioner, (ex-wife name) is awarded the 2015 Jeep automobile free and clear of any claim of the Respondent, (my name). (ex-wife name) assumes indebtedness on the vehicle, if any.”
Also within the Dissolution it states – “The parties are responsible for any individual debt and shall hold the other party harmless from same. It was represented to the Court that the parties have no joint marital debts.”

My question is, where do I stand with this?

You have contradictory language in your order. The order indicates that she assumes any indebtedness on the vehicle. However the order also clearly states that each of you are responsible for any individual debt and shall hold the other party harmless from same. You also represented to the court that you had no joint debt.

During the last year you have, by action, indicated that the debt was yours. In the end, I think that its likely that your ex will prevail. If I were in your shoes I would try to refinance the debt to get it off the jeep.

 

[stealth2]

I wonder if you have any documentation that the $9k you "gave" her was a loan vs a gift.

 

[adjusterjack]

I disagree.

1 - The loan was taken out before the divorce.
2 - H and W both signed for the loan.
3 - H is making no claim on the Jeep.
4 - W assumed the indebtedness on the Jeep.
5 - They are responsible for their individual debts.
6 - They both represented to the court that they have no joint debts so I don't believe that either can use that against the other.

Options:

Tell ex-wifey to pound sand.
Tell ex-wifey to sign the Jeep over to him so he can get the benefit of paying on the loan.
Tell ex-wifey to find buyer who will pay enough to cover the loan balance.

And my last bit of advice:

Never take legal advice from the enemy.

 

[Zigner]

You have contradictory language in your order. The order indicates that she assumes any indebtedness on the vehicle. However the order also clearly states that each of you are responsible for any individual debt and shall hold the other party harmless from same. You also represented to the court that you had no joint debt.

During the last year you have, by action, indicated that the debt was yours. In the end, I think that its likely that your ex will prevail. If I were in your shoes I would try to refinance the debt to get it off the jeep.

Interestingly enough, using the same set of facts, I think the OP is more likely to prevail if this goes to court because the order is clear that the wife is to assume any indebtedness on the truck. It's my opinion that the additional language is meant to deal with anything remaining after the previously allocated debt.

 

[adjusterjack]

I wonder if you have any documentation that the $9k you "gave" her was a loan vs a gift.

He didn't "give" her anything. She's a borrower on the loan with the Jeep as collateral.

 

[LdiJ]

Interestingly enough, using the same set of facts, I think the OP is more likely to prevail if this goes to court because the order is clear that the wife is to assume any indebtedness on the truck. It's my opinion that the additional language is meant to deal with anything remaining after the previously allocated debt.

Then the OP should likely consult a local attorney to see what their interpretation of the order and the subsequent actions of the parties.

 

[Zigner]

Interestingly enough, our OP seems to prefer avoiding the question about his state. This is the third thread so far that he's failed to provide his state name.

https://forum.freeadvice.com/threads/drop-training-progamme.657434/
(That thread refers to a now-deleted thread where the OP also refused to name his state)

 

[ShyCat]

Based on the programme spelling of that other thread's title, OP is unlikely to be in the US.