Is a subpoena valid when...

[LdiJ]

And there you go again trying to legally justify theft.

Nope, its not theft. There was a legal agreement, a contract for a specific sum of money. She performed under that contract.

If the contract had specified the equity amount only, and said that they would split the equity amount equally after selling costs, it would be a different story. However it did not. It named a specific sum. I can just about bet too that the ex insisted on a specific sum, out of concern that the housing market would tank. He wanted to be guaranteed his money.

 

[Bali Hai]

Nope, its not theft. There was a legal agreement, a contract for a specific sum of money. She performed under that contract.

If the contract had specified the equity amount only, and said that they would split the equity amount equally after selling costs, it would be a different story. However it did not. It named a specific sum. I can just about bet too that the ex insisted on a specific sum, out of concern that the housing market would tank. He wanted to be guaranteed his money.

Yeah well, I can just about bet that he agreed to the 28k in selling costs with the understanding that this money would be used for exactly that and NOT something else.

He had no knowledge that numb nuts would be sticking his share of the 28k in his pocket.

 

[fairisfair]

Yeah well, I can just about bet that he agreed to the 28k in selling costs with the understanding that this money would be used for exactly that and NOT something else.

He had no knowledge that numb nuts would be sticking his share of the 28k in his pocket.

So, it wasn't fair.

and it is legal.

He should have protected himself Bali, he should have made a qualification that in the event that the costs were less than estimated, that 50% of the difference would be added to his total proceeds. He didn't.

 

[Bali Hai]

So, it wasn't fair.

and it is legal.

He should have protected himself Bali, he should have made a qualification that in the event that the costs were less than estimated, that 50% of the difference would be added to his total proceeds. He didn't.

Let me suggest that you change your forum name to "fairislegal".

 

[fairisfair]

Let me suggest that you change your forum name to "fairislegal".

No, I am thinking of changing it to "sickofsomeofthesmartasseswhoposthere" will that fit? No inference to you of course, thinking of some other threads that are currently irritating me. Oh, still waiting by the way. LOL

 

[kevinblackwell]

It's interesting how Bali has jumped to a conclusion that my wife's ex husband is a victim, that she’s getting money which is not hers...and that my nuts are numb, but I digress.

My wife received her right to stay in the house until sold or 2012 when the kids were all off to school. No mention of home repairs for sale were calculated which stands at over $43,000 now. While my wife was responsible for the maintenance and upkeep, she was not supposed to be solely responsible for major home repairs. She waived 45% of her share of his pension (he's currently employed making more than our incomes combined) which her share would have paid out about $1 million over the next 30yrs. This she did against all advice of counsel of a legal office which helps folks file uncontested divorces. He would not have been able to contest this money, it was hers. However, she felt she did not earn his career or income, even though she is a well educated woman who had to postpone her career for his, so she waived a $2800/per month indexed pension (which is due to increase yearly 2.8%). So much for her female chivalry and feminism. But she has raised some great kids.

I asked a simple question regarding a subpoena; I was asked more info for clarity, so then the paragraph I posted was apparently viewed as the total holdings up for consideration in the MSA! I did not go into a character assassination of her ex, yet Bali Hai felt the need to jump to conclusions and insults! No need to respond again to this thread. Thanks for the input folks.

 

[LdiJ]

It's interesting how Bali has jumped to a conclusion that my wife's ex husband is a victim, that she’s getting money which is not hers...and that my nuts are numb, but I digress.

My wife received her right to stay in the house until sold or 2012 when the kids were all off to school. No mention of home repairs for sale were calculated which stands at over $43,000 now. While my wife was responsible for the maintenance and upkeep, she was not supposed to be solely responsible for major home repairs. She waived 45% of her share of his pension (he's currently employed making more than our incomes combined) which her share would have paid out about $1 million over the next 30yrs. This she did against all advice of counsel of a legal office which helps folks file uncontested divorces. He would not have been able to contest this money, it was hers. However, she felt she did not earn his career or income, even though she is a well educated woman who had to postpone her career for his, so she waived a $2800/per month indexed pension (which is due to increase yearly 2.8%). So much for her female chivalry and feminism. But she has raised some great kids.

I asked a simple question regarding a subpoena; I was asked more info for clarity, so then the paragraph I posted was apparently viewed as the total holdings up for consideration in the MSA! I did not go into a character assassination of her ex, yet Bali Hai felt the need to jump to conclusions and insults! No need to respond again to this thread. Thanks for the input folks.

Bali Hai is a male who feels that the system screwed him. As a result he makes pronouncements here that often don't have any legal basis. As a result we often end up with threads like this one.

The bottom line is that your wife's ex has nothing to go on. However, please get a consult with a local attorney to get that verified

 

[Bali Hai]

Bali Hai is a male who feels that the system screwed him. As a result he makes pronouncements here that often don't have any legal basis. As a result we often end up with threads like this one.

The bottom line is that your wife's ex has nothing to go on. However, please get a consult with a local attorney to get that verified

Yes by all means do that. Because you can bet the ex-husband will do everything in his power to keep his money out of YOUR pocket. Even if he pays more to an attorney than what he would recover.