Ex-wife says I'm in non-compliance with a court order

[Nephler]

I'm in Michigan.
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?

 

[Zigner]

You should speak with your divorce attorney to have this ambiguous order explained to you. You may, in fact, end up in court to get it clarified.

 

[Zigner]

While I agree he needs to speak with his attorney, I don't see the ambiguity. He was supposed to hand the Jeep clear of any debt.

That's exactly opposite of what (that portion of) the order says:

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.”

Wife gets the jeep and husband has no further claim on it. Wife will assume any debt "on the vehicle".


The reason I say it's ambiguous is because we don't know the exact nature of the loan, and also because the order states that there is no other marital debt, yet they've signed on a loan together...clearly a marital debt. "Ambiguous" may be the wrong term. In any case, as you and I can both agree, an attorney is the best bet to get this straightened out.

 

[Nephler]

While I agree he needs to speak with his attorney, I don't see the ambiguity. He was supposed to hand the Jeep clear of any debt.

The second phrase shouldn't apply because it isn't "individual debt" they both signed for it. But it does bring up the question if there was an agreement between the OP and his ex if there was any agreement how the $9000 would be repaid?

No, there wasn't any agreement between the two of us. I figured I took out the loan, so I'm paying the payment.

 

[Nephler]

That's exactly opposite of what (that portion of) the order says:


Wife gets the jeep and husband has no further claim on it. Wife will assume any debt "on the vehicle".


The reason I say it's ambiguous is because we don't know the exact nature of the loan, and also because the order states that there is no other marital debt, yet they've signed on a loan together...clearly a marital debt. "Ambiguous" may be the wrong term. In any case, as you and I can both agree, an attorney is the best bet to get this straightened out.

That's my real question I guess, about the Wife will assume any indebtedness on the vehicle.
I don't have an attorney, and neither of us used one during the divorce process.

 

[Zigner]

No, there wasn't any agreement between the two of us. I figured I took out the loan, so I'm paying the payment.

If this was a "title loan" wherein the lender is now the lienholder on the vehicle, then it could be argued that you have no obligation to make the payments.

Let me clarify that: You still have an obligation to the lender which is not impacted by the court order, however, your ex-wife is supposed to make the payments. If she doesn't, you could make the payments and then seek reimbursement from your ex-wife. If the loan is not paid per the terms of the loan, then the lender can take all actions available to them. To be clear: Your contractual obligations to the lender are not reduced or eliminated based on the orders in your divorce. The lender is not a party to your divorce.

You NEED to speak to an attorney who can review the entire order and give an opinion on it before you do anything else.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

That's exactly opposite of what (that portion of) the order says:

RIght, I misread.