property unsettled

[.katiefleming]

What is the name of your state? Mississippi
I got a divorce in 91. The house was to be sold. It didn't sell so I asked my ex if I could live there until It did. I am still living there. He has not paid his half of the note since April of 91.That was also in the divorce. Can I get this house deed in my name?What is the name of your state?

 

[Bali Hai]

What is the name of your state? Mississippi
I got a divorce in 91. The house was to be sold. It didn't sell so I asked my ex if I could live there until It did. I am still living there. He has not paid his half of the note since April of 91.That was also in the divorce. Can I get this house deed in my name?What is the name of your state?

Sure you can. After you pay over his equity on the fair market value of the property as of the date of the order in "91".

He may want some rent money for all those years you lived there.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state? Mississippi
I got a divorce in 91. The house was to be sold. It didn't sell so I asked my ex if I could live there until It did. I am still living there. He has not paid his half of the note since April of 91.That was also in the divorce. Can I get this house deed in my name?What is the name of your state?

I would suggest that you negotiate with your ex. If you refinance the home into your own name (assuming that there is still a mortgage on the home) he might be willing to negotiate a settlement with you for a share of the equity.

Otherwise, you would have to take it to court, and hope that the judge would agree that he wouldn't be entitled to 1/2 of today's equity.

 

[Bali Hai]

I would suggest that you negotiate with your ex. If you refinance the home into your own name (assuming that there is still a mortgage on the home) he might be willing to negotiate a settlement with you for a share of the equity.

Otherwise, you would have to take it to court, and hope that the judge would agree that he wouldn't be entitled to 1/2 of today's equity.

OP says the order in '91 provided for both parties to divide and each pay the mortgage until the house sold. The other party did not do that.

It would certainly be a big stretch for the court to order half the equity to the other party at today's value when that particular party is technically in contempt of court.

But you never know.

 

[LdiJ]

OP says the order in '91 provided for both parties to divide and each pay the mortgage until the house sold. The other party did not do that.

It would certainly be a big stretch for the court to order half the equity to the other party at today's value when that particular party is technically in contempt of court.

But you never know.

She didn't specifically say that he was ordered to pay half of the mortgage until the house was sold. If he was, then yes, it would certainly put her in a strong position. However, even if he wasn't she has a decent chance that the judge will agree that he isn't entitled to 1/2 of today's equity.

 

[Bali Hai]

She didn't specifically say that he was ordered to pay half of the mortgage until the house was sold. If he was, then yes, it would certainly put her in a strong position. However, even if he wasn't she has a decent chance that the judge will agree that he isn't entitled to 1/2 of today's equity.

"He has not paid his half of the note since April of 91.That was also in the divorce".

 

[LdiJ]

"He has not paid his half of the note since April of 91.That was also in the divorce".

Ok...breaking those two sentences out separately makes it read differently to me. I now understand what you meant.

 

[nextwife]

The house was ordered sold. The poster has been living there instead, sitting on his equity. Which, if invested elsewhere would surely ahve accrued appreciation in all these years.

Sure it is fair to ask that his share of payments be deducted IF he is also CREDITED with his share of the marjket rent he could have been collecting.

As his equity is still tied up, not working elsewhere for him, of course he should be entitled to any appreciation that has occured. After all, if he had had use of that money, say, in the stock market since then, it would have grown significantly. I mean, I bought my house in 96 and it has more than doubled in value. And this goes back to 91!

 

[Bali Hai]

The house was ordered sold. The poster has been living there instead, sitting on his equity. Which, if invested elsewhere would surely ahve accrued appreciation in all these years.

Sure it is fair to ask that his share of payments be deducted IF he is also CREDITED with his share of the marjket rent he could have been collecting.

As his equity is still tied up, not working elsewhere for him, of course he should be entitled to any appreciation that has occured. After all, if he had had use of that money, say, in the stock market since then, it would have grown significantly. I mean, I bought my house in 96 and it has more than doubled in value. And this goes back to 91!

Very astute insight and clearly stated. I think you would make a fair judge.

We need to populate the legal system with people with common sense.

But normally judges were attorneys with the benefit of higher education.

There goes common sense out the window.

 

[LdiJ]

The house was ordered sold. The poster has been living there instead, sitting on his equity. Which, if invested elsewhere would surely ahve accrued appreciation in all these years.

Sure it is fair to ask that his share of payments be deducted IF he is also CREDITED with his share of the marjket rent he could have been collecting.

As his equity is still tied up, not working elsewhere for him, of course he should be entitled to any appreciation that has occured. After all, if he had had use of that money, say, in the stock market since then, it would have grown significantly. I mean, I bought my house in 96 and it has more than doubled in value. And this goes back to 91!

Well...I agree that he would be entitled to interest on his equity. That would be totally equitable. I could even see some rationale for appreciation INSTEAD of interest. (although I would argue against appreciation since he wasn't participating in the maintenance of the home) However, rent on top of interest or appreciation? As a financial person to me that is a "double dip".

 

[nextwife]

Well...I agree that he would be entitled to interest on his equity. That would be totally equitable. I could even see some rationale for appreciation INSTEAD of interest. (although I would argue against appreciation since he wasn't participating in the maintenance of the home) However, rent on top of interest or appreciation? As a financial person to me that is a "double dip".

Rent against his portion of payments is what I stated. Poster was annoyed he was no longer paying hyalf the holding costs for HER residence. If she wants him to paay his half of payments, he should also be getting his half of "rent" that COULD be obtianed from the property.

POster has been residing in the property. Ex has had NEITHER use of the property, nor rent from the property, nor use of the money tied up in the property. He has had to pay to live elsewhere.


And yes, persons invested in real esate do both collect rent and enjoy any appreciation that occurs when the place is sold. That's pretty standard.

 

[LdiJ]

Rent against his portion of payments is what I stated. Poster was annoyed he was no longer paying hyalf the holding costs for HER residence. If she wants him to paay his half of payments, he should also be getting his half of "rent" that COULD be obtianed from the property.

POster has been residing in the property. Ex has had NEITHER use of the property, nor rent from the property, nor use of the money tied up in the property. He has had to pay to live elsewhere.


And yes, persons invested in real esate do both collect rent and enjoy any appreciation that occurs when the place is sold. That's pretty standard.

I understand your point, and if he had been required to continue to pay his share of the mortgage and maintenance I could see your point. I misunderstood you to mean that he should still receive a full, or nearly full share of today's equity, despite the fact that he has not contributed to the mortgage or maintenance of the home for 15 years.