Final court order

[dantarantado]

And yes, I have my contribution for child support.

 

[t74]

Your bias is showing again.

In my city, with today's interest rates a median three bedroom house with a mortgage costs less than a median two bedroom apartment.

The cost of the mortgage is only a small part of home ownership. The AC compressor died a month ago; that was a $6,000 bill to replace it and it was only 12 years old. Will the heater go next winter for another 6 grand? Who knows. When we had to replace the roof years ago, it was $18,000; I dread to think the cost now. And I live in a relatively low cost area.

Add the problem of a single parent having the time to do "everything" - childcare, househo,d chores, the yard, shopping and a job ... Taking the easy way out means getting rid of the least important things.

And as for my bias, I think BOTH partners are in bad positions due to inadequate consideration on the full situation.

 

[t74]

Our house isn't big. It is actually situated in a "low-income" residential area.
I suggested selling the house, so we could just split the money. But it was my ex who didn't want to sell it.

But if he wanted it, why did you not have him buy you out?

I am disappointed that the two of you have seemed to create unnecessary problems that will likely adversely affect your co-parenting relationship. You are at risk if your ex decides to violate the agreement and not pay the mortgage - or if he dies or becomes disabled. Please consult an attorney and accountant for a review of your long term situation. You need a backup plan.

 

[bcr229]

So going back to my first question, is it possible for him to make an appeal? And what are the chances that the judge will reverse the decision?

Your ex has 30 days from the date of judgment to file the appeal. So, in the next three weeks he will need to find an attorney, find one willing to represent him, pay for the attorney to get up to speed on the case, have the attorney draft and file the appeal, etc. All of this is do-able but it won't be cheap and he would have paid less overall had he been represented during the divorce.

Appealing is not a DIY process and typically you don't get a do-over because you don't like the outcome of the ruling. As was pointed out, your ex might be granted some leeway because he was unrepresented.

 

[Litigator22]

Your ex has 30 days from the date of judgment to file the appeal. So, in the next three weeks he will need to find an attorney, find one willing to represent him, pay for the attorney to get up to speed on the case, have the attorney draft and file the appeal, etc. All of this is do-able but it won't be cheap and he would have paid less overall had he been represented during the divorce.

Appealing is not a DIY process and typically you don't get a do-over because you don't like the outcome of the ruling. As was pointed out, your ex might be granted some leeway because he was unrepresented.

Pardon me for asking, but how do you know that the "ex has 30 days to appeal"? Are you privy to information concerning the divorce proceedings that the rest of us lack? Like whether or not the ex husband made a formal appearance in the lawsuit.

Because if he failed to appear in the lawsuit either by way of written motion or a response to the OP's petition for dissolution of the marriage - and there is not indication in the thread that he did so - then that failure alone would deny him standing to appeal the final order.

Secondly, to suggest that the rules governing the appellate process would be less demanding of him because he was without legal representation - that he "might be granted some leeway" - is a figment of the imagination of a person such as you that knows nothing whatsoever of the subject matter!

 

[not2cleverRed]

You were now claiming that you were represented by a lawyer? That an attorney is responsible for this predicament?

Or is it more likely that you created the mess by your lonesome and now wish to cast blame elsewhere? The probability of which seems enhanced by your belated and singular mention of having a lawyer.

Whatever, in the interest of fair-mindedness its probably well that the proceedings end in such a muddle regardless of who was responsible. Otherwise, your hapless ex might be permanently stuck with buying you a house! (Not that he isn't as time and the course of future events may reveal.)

What COULD have happened - had you been competently represented - is that the decree that came down would have included a full and accurate legal description of the property; not merely a street address. PLUS, a specific order awarding the home to as your sole and separate property free of any right, title, claim or interest in the defendant husband.

Thus enabling a certified copy of the decree or an abstract thereof to be recorded in the county land office. In other worlds, wrapping it up in one final unconditional, neat package and not dependent on some subsequent event at the caprice of a financially mistreated defendant.

Incidentally, the term "quitclaim deed" consists of two and not three words. Your use of "quit claim" [sic] as supposedly taken from the decree itself seems a further indication that there is no lawyer to blame.

The cost of the mortgage is only a small part of home ownership. The AC compressor died a month ago; that was a $6,000 bill to replace it and it was only 12 years old. Will the heater go next winter for another 6 grand? Who knows. When we had to replace the roof years ago, it was $18,000; I dread to think the cost now. And I live in a relatively low cost area.

Add the problem of a single parent having the time to do "everything" - childcare, househo,d chores, the yard, shopping and a job ... Taking the easy way out means getting rid of the least important things.

And as for my bias, I think BOTH partners are in bad positions due to inadequate consideration on the full situation.

Gee, I wonder why anyone is a landlord if it's always cheaper to rent.

But if he wanted it, why did you not have him buy you out?

I am disappointed that the two of you have seemed to create unnecessary problems that will likely adversely affect your co-parenting relationship. You are at risk if your ex decides to violate the agreement and not pay the mortgage - or if he dies or becomes disabled. Please consult an attorney and accountant for a review of your long term situation. You need a backup plan.

Yes, OP should just tolerate her husband's numerous extramarital affairs, and just hope that she doesn't get an STD, or the complications of marital assets supporting his affairs and progeny. The focus on his various paramours could not possible result in less family time, less work on the endless honey-do list of homeowners, and certainly would never result in wasteful dissipation of marital assets on the object of affection du jour.

It takes 2 to make a marriage. We don't know how many times OP has been betrayed over the past dozen years, thinking that she was in a committed relationship, while her legal husband acted as though the marriage license was just a piece of paper on the level of importance of last week's grocery list.

Look, I get that you think that everyone should act like sensible adults. But when one party breaches the marital trust, that doesn't mean the other party didn't try hard enough. And I get that Dr Laura's book, "The Proper Care And Feeding Of Husbands", has some good practical advice, but it only is useful advice if you are dealing with a good man. Not all men are good.

Your posts brow beating women as not being good enough, flexible enough, understanding enough are not useful - legally or emotionally.

And the husband did not want the house in the divorce - he just would not agree to it being sold. There is a difference. It may seem impossible to you that someone could be so illogical, but in reality it's only improbable: some people really are that difficult. He wants control. If OP gets control, she could sell the house. He does not want that.

 

[stealth2]

And the husband did not want the house in the divorce - he just would not agree to it being sold. There is a difference. It may seem impossible to you that someone could be so illogical, but in reality it's only improbable: some people really are that difficult. He wants control. If OP gets control, she could sell the house. He does not want that.

Yup. I would've loved to hear t's comments when I was getting divorced. And my ex refused to settle unless I agreed to taking the kids & moving away. Otherwise, he threatened to bury me in a custody fight. Improbable and illogical, both. And perhaps today I would've made him "try it". But back then? I wasn't strong enough. Nor willing to risk the consequences. Some people really are that difficult.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Pardon me for asking, but how do you know that the "ex has 30 days to appeal"? Are you privy to information concerning the divorce proceedings that the rest of us lack? Like whether or not the ex husband made a formal appearance in the lawsuit.

Because if he failed to appear in the lawsuit either by way of written motion or a response to the OP's petition for dissolution of the marriage - and there is not indication in the thread that he did so - then that failure alone would deny him standing to appeal the final order.

Secondly, to suggest that the rules governing the appellate process would be less demanding of him because he was without legal representation - that he "might be granted some leeway" - is a figment of the imagination of a person such as you that knows nothing whatsoever of the subject matter!

Pardon me for asking, but what is your experience in marital law?

A person has up to 30 days in Washington to file an appeal. You can file an appeal even if you don't have legal grounds for an appeal - it just won't go far.

And since you like to argue semantics, "might" is not synonymous with "will" in the context of "might be granted some leeway". My observation is that yes, there is some minor leeway that some judges will give a party representing themselves. Emphasis on "minor". As in, just enough rope that the party representing themself can hang themselves.

 

[bcr229]

Because if he failed to appear in the lawsuit either by way of written motion or a response to the OP's petition for dissolution of the marriage - and there is not indication in the thread that he did so - then that failure alone would deny him standing to appeal the final order.

If that is the case then OP's ex will get that bit of bad news when he goes shopping for an attorney.

 

[LdiJ]

Guys and Gals, from what I read the ex husband SIGNED OFF on the agreement. I do not believe that someone can appeal an agreement that they signed off on.

I understand that he has buyer's remorse now, but unless I totally misunderstood what was posted by the OP, he DID sign off on it.

 

[dantarantado]

Guys and Gals, from what I read the ex husband SIGNED OFF on the agreement. I do not believe that someone can appeal an agreement that they signed off on.

I understand that he has buyer's remorse now, but unless I totally misunderstood what was posted by the OP, he DID sign off on it.

Yes, he signed the petition. He agreed to everything that was written on the documents. I was the only one who appeared in court (with my lawyer of course) and my lawyer said that my ex didn't have to be there. My ex signed documents that say i was allowed to do that.

 

[dantarantado]

But if he wanted it, why did you not have him buy you out?

He wanted to keep the house for our son.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

my lawyer said that my ex didn't have to be there.

If it was your lawyer that told him that he didn't have to be there that may problematic.

 

[LdiJ]

If it was your lawyer that told him that he didn't have to be there that may problematic.

Not if all that was happening was the attorney submitting previously signed agreements to the judge.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

I've seen court sessions where one party was represented and the other pro se and in almost every case the judge took special care to make sure the pro se party knew what they were agreeing to.