Question about a JSR agreement in Virginia

[KingOfTheHill]

What is the name of your state? Virginia

I'm asking this for a friend who isn't very comfortable with the internet.

Her and her husband are in the middle of a divorce. They had a JSR and reached an agreement. After signing the JSR it was discovered that there is an error in the math of it. My friend is to get $30k more from the sale of the marital home to recoup her down payment and improvements that she solely paid for. The agreement is written that from the proceeds of the house my friend is to get that $30k off of the top. The remaining proceeds will be split 50/50. The math works out like this.

$300k selling price for ease of math minus the $30k leaves $270k. That gives each $135k. My friend would then have $165k.

If the math is done as a 50/50 split first and then she receives the $30k excess and that would give her $180k, as it should have been. The agreement as written will unfairly cost her $15k and enrichen her former husband by $15k. She brought this up to her lawyer and he said what is done is done. It doesn't seem fair whatsoever.

The former husband was directed to pay half of the homeowner's insurance and property taxes. He shorted the first check for the taxes. That is not following the JSR.

My question is, can a JSR be rescinded by one party in the interest of fairness?

 

[adjusterjack]

Sorry, but you've got it backwards. The proper way is for her to get her $30k off the top and split the rest.

And even that doesn't work because the cost of sale comes off the top. Realtor commission and closing costs. Let's estimate that at $20,000 leaving $280,000. She gets $30,000., leaving $250,000. Divided by 2 gives her $125,000 + $30,000.

Your way splits the $280,000 into $140,000 each.

Then what, you want the husband to give her $30,000 out of his $140,000?

Then she gets $170,000 and he ends up with $110,000, her being $60,000 to the good instead of $30,000.

Good luck with that.

 

[not2cleverRed]

I'm backing AJ on this.

You and your friend are lacking in mathematical literacy.

 

[Taxing Matters]

What is the name of your state? Virginia

The agreement is written that from the proceeds of the house my friend is to get that $30k off of the top. The remaining proceeds will be split 50/50.

That's the way it is supposed to work. You friend gets $30k off the top. Then rest is split. That is the fair way to do it. The way you want to do it is unfair to the other spouse and gives her and undue advantage.

My question is, can a JSR be rescinded by one party in the interest of fairness?

No. You have to go back to court and convince the judge to make the change. I think that's likely to be a losing proposition here.

 

[stealth2]

ISTM that your friend should've read the agreement thoroughly and done the math *before* signing.

Same friend?
https://forum.freeadvice.com/threads/questions-about-equitable-distribution-in-virginia.661693/

 

[Ohiogal]

Are you her new boyfriend or just trying to be the KISA?

 

[zddoodah]

They had a JSR and reached an agreement.

Just FYI, I googled "Virginia JSR," and the first two results were for J. Sargent Reynolds Community College and The Journal of Scriptural Reasoning (I even added "divorce" to the search query and got nothing). It doesn't appear that it matters, but it's best not to use acronyms whose meanings aren't widely understood.

My friend is to get $30k more from the sale of the marital home to recoup her down payment and improvements that she solely paid for. The agreement is written that from the proceeds of the house my friend is to get that $30k off of the top. The remaining proceeds will be split 50/50. The math works out like this.

OK...so what's the problem? How is this "an error in the math"?

If the math is done as a 50/50 split first and then she receives the $30k excess and that would give her $180k, as it should have been.

Huh? You told us the intent was for your friend "to get $30k more from the sale." You didn't say more than what, but I assume it's that she's supposed to get $30k more than her husband. What you described the agreement as saying accomplishes that result. Giving her $180k (from $300k net proceeds of sale) would mean her husband would get $120k, which would result in her getting $60k more.

Regardless of all of the above, if your friend believes the written agreement didn't accurately reflect what the parties mutually intended, she can seek to have it reformed. I'm sure her lawyer knows that but also knows that it would be a losing proposition and would cost a bunch of money in legal fees.

 

[Zigner]

If the intent was for the wife to receive $30k more than the husband, then the house should have been sold and the proceeds split as follows:

Wife gets (net proceeds/2) +$15k and the husband gets what's left.

If their agreement was different, then the agreement should be followed.

The wife already knows this because the wife has already consulted with her attorney.

As you were told in your other thread, the actual party to the matter should log on and ask his/her own questions.

 

[adjusterjack]

Just FYI, I googled "Virginia JSR," and the first two results were for J. Sargent Reynolds Community College and The Journal of Scriptural Reasoning (I even added "divorce" to the search query and got nothing). It doesn't appear that it matters, but it's best not to use acronyms whose meanings aren't widely understood.

I think Joint Settlement (something). The R is beyond me.

Wait, I've got it.

Joint Settlement Ripoff is what the wife wants.

 

[adjusterjack]

Are you her new boyfriend or just trying to be the KISA?

Speaking of acronyms.

Kinetic Impact Shock Absorber came up in my search, among others.

Or maybe KISA is short for kiss ass.

 

[Just Blue]

Speaking of acronyms.

Kinetic Impact Shock Absorber came up in my search, among others.

Or maybe KISA is short for kiss ass.

lol...It took me a min to get it. Knight In Shining Armor.

 

[not2cleverRed]

I think Joint Settlement (something). The R is beyond me.

Wait, I've got it.

Joint Settlement Ripoff is what the wife wants.

My thoughts as well.

 

[Litigator22]

I think Joint Settlement (something). The R is beyond me.

Wait, I've got it.

Joint Settlement Ripoff is what the wife wants.

The verbiage, "joint settlement" is a patent redundancy. (Reminiscent of New Yorker Truman Capote's "living and dying in LA"!)
_________

Just some thoughts in commenting on the legal aspects of the post:

We are told that the $30K figure comprised monies contributed by the wife towards improvements to the marital home and the initial down payment for its purchase.

Here is where I think the husband may have been shortchanged and perhaps improperly professionally advised, if at all.

First, we must assume that the wife's mentioned contributions came from her sole and separate property. Otherwise, the intended credit would be an outright gift.

And speaking of gift-making and without knowing all of the significant, conversation, conditions and circumstances it might be reasonably have been argued that all of the wife's contributions were a gift to the marital estate. Especially so if the home was taken in their joint names. (Here if the roles were reversed there would be a rebuttable presumption that the husband intended it as a gift to the marital estate.)

Concerning the matter of allowing credit for monies paid towards improvements to the home:

In no way in the jurisdiction where I practiced law would the wife (or either) be entitled to a dollar-for-dollar credit. The claim would rest entirely on proof of the added value to the property, not how much was spent, and that can be an insurmountable task!

Ta ta

 

[Bali Hai Again]

Are you her new boyfriend or just trying to be the KISA?

What is the name of your state? Virginia

I'm asking this for a friend who isn't very comfortable with the internet.

Her and her husband are in the middle of a divorce. They had a JSR and reached an agreement. After signing the JSR it was discovered that there is an error in the math of it. My friend is to get $30k more from the sale of the marital home to recoup her down payment and improvements that she solely paid for. The agreement is written that from the proceeds of the house my friend is to get that $30k off of the top. The remaining proceeds will be split 50/50. The math works out like this.

$300k selling price for ease of math minus the $30k leaves $270k. That gives each $135k. My friend would then have $165k.

If the math is done as a 50/50 split first and then she receives the $30k excess and that would give her $180k, as it should have been. The agreement as written will unfairly cost her $15k and enrichen her former husband by $15k. She brought this up to her lawyer and he said what is done is done. It doesn't seem fair whatsoever.

The former husband was directed to pay half of the homeowner's insurance and property taxes. He shorted the first check for the taxes. That is not following the JSR.

My question is, can a JSR be rescinded by one party in the interest of fairness?

I think Joint Settlement (something). The R is beyond me.

Wait, I've got it.

Joint Settlement Ripoff is what the wife wants.

Are you her new boyfriend or just trying to be the KISA?

Are you her new boyfriend or just trying to be the KISA?

Maybe a CPA wa

The verbiage, "joint settlement" is a patent redundancy. (Reminiscent of New Yorker Truman Capote's "living and dying in LA"!)
_________

Just some thoughts in commenting on the legal aspects of the post:

We are told that the $30K figure comprised monies contributed by the wife towards improvements to the marital home and the initial down payment for its purchase.

Here is where I think the husband may have been shortchanged and perhaps improperly professionally advised, if at all.

First, we must assume that the wife's mentioned contributions came from her sole and separate property. Otherwise, the intended credit would be an outright gift.

And speaking of gift-making and without knowing all of the significant, conversation, conditions and circumstances it might be reasonably have been argued that all of the wife's contributions were a gift to the marital estate. Especially so if the home was taken in their joint names. (Here if the roles were reversed there would be a rebuttable presumption that the husband intended it as a gift to the marital estate.)

Concerning the matter of allowing credit for monies paid towards improvements to the home:

In no way in the jurisdiction where I practiced law would the wife (or either) be entitled to a dollar-for-dollar credit. The claim would rest entirely on proof of the added value to the property, not how much was spent, and that can be an insurmountable task!

Ta ta

They have made an agreement. One party gets 30k more than the other without splitting the hairs that you suggest. My guess is that if it were ligated to reduce that amount because of “actual value added to the property” the 30k or more would end up in YOUR the other lawyer’s pockets.

 

[not2cleverRed]

They have made an agreement. One party gets 30k more than the other without splitting the hairs that you suggest. My guess is that if it were ligated to reduce that amount because of “actual value added to the property” the 30k or more would end up in YOUR the other lawyer’s pockets.

Repeating for emphasis.

It is very easy to spend more on legal fees than one can hope to get awarded. In this case, if the wife shares OP's attitude, putting things before a judge might result in the "equitable distribution" skewed in favor of the other party.