property division after final divorce

[mistoffolees]

thanks for helping me with this.
My ORDER said my x-wife will get X$ first and I will get Y$ next. If house is sold over then the equity then split in half.
As I said, the Judge gave out the Equity without considering of the realtor and costing fee when selling the house.

We're not interested in your interpretation of what the order says. Tell us what it says about the house - WORD FOR WORD but without the names.

 

[ecmst12]

Does the order say anything about WHEN the house is to be placed on the market?

 

[htofu]

Does the order say anything about WHEN the house is to be placed on the market?

it is said the house will be in the market for 15 days after divorce. For the first 181 days, the x will be at the house, I still keep paying mortgage.
After 181 days if the house is not sold, then house is in my full duty.
if no party agrees on the housing selling price, then the court will point out a master to sell for both parties.

Problem is the house market value is lower than the amount on the decree said. and decree points out the exact number of money that both parties should have after selling the house.


House is in market now. but the X tries to force to sell with any low price so the X can have money and don't care other party have left.

Sorry for ...writing too long...

 

[mistoffolees]

it is said the house will be in the market for 15 days after divorce. For the first 181 days, the x will be at the house, I still keep paying mortgage.
After 181 days if the house is not sold, then house is in my full duty.
if no party agrees on the housing selling price, then the court will point out a master to sell for both parties.

Problem is the house market value is lower than the amount on the decree said. and decree points out the exact number of money that both parties should have after selling the house.


House is in market now. but the X tries to force to sell with any low price so the X can have money and don't care other party have left.

Sorry for ...writing too long...

It's not that complicated. You have to follow the court order. The order says that you have to agree on the selling price and if you can't agree, then the court will appoint a master to sell it. So don't agree to any price that you're not happy with. Of course, the Master might not be able to get any more than the offers you receive, so there's a risk that things could be even worse if you let a master sell it - they simply want to get it sold and don't have any incentive to get the best price.

 

[htofu]

It's not that complicated. You have to follow the court order. The order says that you have to agree on the selling price and if you can't agree, then the court will appoint a master to sell it. So don't agree to any price that you're not happy with. Of course, the Master might not be able to get any more than the offers you receive, so there's a risk that things could be even worse if you let a master sell it - they simply want to get it sold and don't have any incentive to get the best price.

Thanks, my question is If I could go to the court ask for the clarification on the amount that decree says, since decree pointed out the equity without the costing fee. And based on the old appraisal is really higher than the current market value.

 

[mistoffolees]

Thanks, my question is If I could go to the court ask for the clarification on the amount that decree says, since decree pointed out the equity without the costing fee. And based on the old appraisal is really higher than the current market value.

Since you're still refusing to give us the EXACT wording, no one can say.

However, it is unlikely that you'll get the order changed at this point. There's no change of circumstances and you're well past the date when you could have asked for the judge to reconsider.

You had the right to use a more recent appraisal. You had the right to get the house on the market right away to have a better chance of getting your money. You had the right to file for reconsideration or appeal. You did none of those things. The court is not going to protect you when you didn't do anything to protect yourself. "I messed up" is not a legal argument which will justify reconsideration.

 

[Ohiogal]

Put it on the market at the price your wife wants to sell it for. THEN YOU BUY IT (refinance it) and when the market rebounds YOU sell it for whatever you want.

 

[htofu]

Put it on the market at the price your wife wants to sell it for. THEN YOU BUY IT (refinance it) and when the market rebounds YOU sell it for whatever you want.

Thanks I like this idea So I have to pay to her whatever on decree said i guess without contesting.

 

[mistoffolees]

Put it on the market at the price your wife wants to sell it for. THEN YOU BUY IT (refinance it) and when the market rebounds YOU sell it for whatever you want.

That's certainly possible, however it is likely to incur greater costs (which reduces the amount either of them will receive). For example, just having a realtor list it will probably cost you 6-7% of selling price.

I would first offer the wife to give her the amount she would get based on her target price, but to do it via refinancing and a quit claim deed instead of an actual purchase. If she refuses, you can always buy it as OG suggested.

 

[nextwife]

IMHO: many of thse matters should be allocated by a percentage of proceeds, rather than a fixed dollar amount. Unless the disposition of the proper ty occurs then and there, there is no good way to know sale proceeds on some theoretical future date, as prorations, etc change based on point in year and/or quarter. Special Assessmants can occur, and all sort of unknowns required to be paid by seller out of proceeds at closing.. Personally, I get stuck in the middle of these real estate arguements all the time, and life would be way easier if the courts did not set out unachievable orders in many of these cases. Such as ordering an upside down property sold, yet failing to also address who should be responsible for the shortfall or how much each should contribute toward it.

 

[mistoffolees]

IMHO: many of thse matters should be allocated by a percentage of proceeds, rather than a fixed dollar amount. Unless the disposition of the proper ty occurs then and there, there is no good way to know sale proceeds on some theoretical future date. Personally, I get stuck in the middle of these real estate arguements all the time, and life would be way easier if the courts did not set out unachievable orders in many of these cases. Such as ordering an upside down property sold, yet failing to also address who should be responsible for the shortfall or how much each should contribute toward it.

Not always. For example, let's say wife gets to keep $50 K in a savings account in her name. In that case, it might be completely reasonable for husband to keep first $50 K from home proceeds - and split the rest.

For the average transaction where home equity is being split, I agree with you, though. The same thing applies to retirement funds, brokerage accounts, etc - anything that fluctuates in value. It also strongly suggests that it's in everyone's interest to get the deal done quickly rather than letting it drag out for years.

 

[htofu]

Not always. For example, let's say wife gets to keep $50 K in a savings account in her name. In that case, it might be completely reasonable for husband to keep first $50 K from home proceeds - and split the rest.

For the average transaction where home equity is being split, I agree with you, though. The same thing applies to retirement funds, brokerage accounts, etc - anything that fluctuates in value. It also strongly suggests that it's in everyone's interest to get the deal done quickly rather than letting it drag out for years.

We are done with division property. Just the house is left.
And I am sure other party will hold up the amount I have to pay for her based on decree. That is why I try to find an option if possible to go to court to adjust the amount of money I have to giver her , adding the costing fee. My lawyer told me that no way I could appeal if the Judge announced. I didn't know where I got ...my lawyer like that now everything too late for appeal. Just hope for some clarification to the court?

Yes, it would be better if the Judge put the percentage instead of the exact amount on the decree.

 

[tuffbrk]

IMHO: many of thse matters should be allocated by a percentage of proceeds, rather than a fixed dollar amount. Unless the disposition of the proper ty occurs then and there, there is no good way to know sale proceeds on some theoretical future date, as prorations, etc change based on point in year and/or quarter. Special Assessmants can occur, and all sort of unknowns required to be paid by seller out of proceeds at closing.. Personally, I get stuck in the middle of these real estate arguements all the time, and life would be way easier if the courts did not set out unachievable orders in many of these cases. Such as ordering an upside down property sold, yet failing to also address who should be responsible for the shortfall or how much each should contribute toward it.

This is exactly why I keep writing to my legislators that certified tax analysts should be part of the divorce process. Too many attorneys and jusges either don't consider all of the implications and/or do not have the knowledge to consider the implications.

 

[nextwife]

Not always. For example, let's say wife gets to keep $50 K in a savings account in her name. In that case, it might be completely reasonable for husband to keep first $50 K from home proceeds - and split the rest.

For the average transaction where home equity is being split, I agree with you, though. The same thing applies to retirement funds, brokerage accounts, etc - anything that fluctuates in value. It also strongly suggests that it's in everyone's interest to get the deal done quickly rather than letting it drag out for years.

Any non-marital accounts should generally just be retained by the owner, period, so neither dollar amounts nor percentages should be needed in those cases, as in "account X at institution Y, (which was brought to the marriage/inherited) belongs solely to spouse C and is solely thiers following the divorce.

I was not referring to such holdings. I was referring to "moving target assets", especially such as real estate. Heck even closing at the beginning vs end of a given month or quarter can affect proceeds! For a non-escrowed loan, with an average 6-7k in annual property taxes, year end vs early in year can make a big difference. Or say the municipality requires sewer system hookup, and assesses an average 22k per tax parcel later that year- proceeds can suddenly change big time!

 

[mistoffolees]

Any non-marital accounts should generally just be retained by the owner, period, so neither dollar amounts nor percentages should be needed in those cases, as in "account X at institution Y, (which was brought to the marriage/inherited) belongs solely to spouse C and is solely thiers following the divorce.

Yes, but the problem is that the 'moving target asset' may be used to offset a fixed asset.

Let's take the simplest example. Couple has only two assets. A savings account in wife's name worth $50,000 and a home with $200,000 in equity which will be sold. There are two options:

1. Each person gets $25 K from the savings account and then the home is sold and each gets 50% of the proceeds.
or
2. Wife keeps $50,000 savings account. In exchange, husband gets the first $50,000 of the home and they split the rest.

Mathematically, the results are the same and it shouldn't matter. But what if the $50,000 is a valuable antique? The only option is for one person to keep the antique and the other person to get the first $50,000 from the home sale and they divide the rest (assuming that someone wants to keep the antique and neither of them wants or can afford the home).

It's not always that way and there are certainly plenty of cases where non-moving value assets should be divided separately. But there are times when it makes sense to do it this way.

I was not referring to such holdings. I was referring to "moving target assets", especially such as real estate. Heck even closing at the beginning vs end of a given month or quarter can affect proceeds! For a non-escrowed loan, with an average 6-7k in annual property taxes, year end vs early in year can make a big difference. Or say the municipality requires sewer system hookup, and assesses an average 22k per tax parcel later that year- proceeds can suddenly change big time!

I agree. And the same thing applies to brokerage accounts which can vary widely in value. In general, I've always advocated dividing accounts like that separately via a percentage. Same thing with retirement accounts. Wherever possible, I believe that pre-tax accounts and after-tax accounts should be divided separately.

I just disagree with the statement that they should ALWAYS be divided separately on a percentage basis. There are cases (like the one above) where that doesn't make sense.