Mortgage responsibility after divorce? Judge says no

[kmerr98277]

My wife bought a condo with her previous husband a couple years before they divorced. We have court documents signed by her, her previous husband, and the county judge which states the husband now has complete ownership of the condo and the liability of the mortgage. Now, five years later, a bank we are trying to get a home improvement loan through is considering her previous mortgage in our debt-to-income ratio. Some banks just want to see our paperwork and make sure that's the case, but this one says we are liable if her previous husband defaults. Doesn't seem right to me. Thoughts? Thanks! We live in WA.

 

[single317dad]

The bank is correct. The divorce court judge only has authority to decide matters between the husband and wife, not the husband/wife and the mortgage holder. Their original agreement stands as written.

While some banks may be willing to deviate from their DTI standards since your wife hasn't been making the payments on the condo, they're not required to and in fact it's probably a bad business move. Being financially responsible for a property that one has no interest in is not a good position to be in.

ETA: To be clear, your wife's liability is to the bank. Your liability is none. Your wife's ex-husband's liability may be to your wife, depending on the language of the divorce order.

 

[kmerr98277]

So can he only sell the condo if my wife signs with him? We've been told the mortgage would have to be refinanced in order to remove her name.

 

[single317dad]

If your wife signed a "quit-claim" deed at the time of the divorce, then she may have relinquished ownership interest in the property. That ownership right is separate from the financial responsibility of the original mortgage agreement.

 

[kmerr98277]

Ok. Thanks.

 

[LdiJ]

My wife bought a condo with her previous husband a couple years before they divorced. We have court documents signed by her, her previous husband, and the county judge which states the husband now has complete ownership of the condo and the liability of the mortgage. Now, five years later, a bank we are trying to get a home improvement loan through is considering her previous mortgage in our debt-to-income ratio. Some banks just want to see our paperwork and make sure that's the case, but this one says we are liable if her previous husband defaults. Doesn't seem right to me. Thoughts? Thanks! We live in WA.

The bank is correct. The original mortgage company is not a party to their divorce and therefore your wife is still bound by the mortgage contract. Therefore yes, they would go after her if he defaults. Her solution would then be to go after her ex for not living up to his side of the divorce decree.

 

[latigo]

The bank is correct. The original mortgage company is not a party to their divorce and therefore your wife is still bound by the mortgage contract. Therefore yes, they would go after her if he defaults. Her solution would then be to go after her ex for not living up to his side of the divorce decree.

Considering that you have never read the divorce decree and thus haven't a bloody clue of the nature and extent of the ex-husband's "side" of it, would you care to favor us with your "nonprofessional opinion" as to what legal "solutions" might be available to the OP's spouse should the mentioned mortgage go into default?

Suppose his "side" of it is that the property is merely set over to him subject to the mortgage sans an indemnity and hold harmless clause. Then what recourse would she have other than to paying off the loan and seeking contribution?

 

[stealth2]

Considering that you have never read the divorce decree and thus haven't a bloody clue of the nature and extent of the ex-husband's "side" of it, would you care to favor us with your "nonprofessional opinion" as to what legal "solutions" might be available to the OP's spouse should the mentioned mortgage go into default?

Suppose his "side" of it is that the property is merely set over to him subject to the mortgage sans an indemnity and hold harmless clause. Then what recourse would she have other than to paying off the loan and seeking contribution?

Why don't YOU clue Op in?