• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.
  • FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

What are my legal rights as far as living in our marital home?

MTS1960

Junior Member
#1
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA
Hi
What are my rights as far as our family home?

( judgment was Oct this yr, decree final in Feb 2018)

In our divorce settlement , (we didn’t stipulate other than a 50/50 split in
The equity of the sale of our house ) because I was told by both my
Ex and his realtor the house would sell right away( it’s been 2 mths and
Not one offer yet)

Well my ex is moving out of state 12/1 and indicated that both myself ( disabled)
And my disabled son will have to pay all ($ 2203 mortgage ) and all utilities but
The pge n water ( appx $200) but he is still entitled to 50/50 of the equity when
The house sells
Something is not right about that ( not to mention he’s getting a family home,
no rent ) only utilities

Also I’m afraid when I bring this concern up to him( I wanted to get good advice
1st) he will prob just say we’ll just foreclose (he has nothing to lose he has a place scot free for life )
 


HRZ

Senior Member
#2
Well you both can quickly drop the price so that it does sell

IN a way you are getting free use of his share unIl it does sell...and all you need to pay is mortgage and utilities etc... ...his equity share is trapped until the place gets sold . ( as is your share )

He might be smart to press for an immediate big price reduction .
 
#3
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA
Hi
What are my rights as far as our family home?

( judgment was Oct this yr, decree final in Feb 2018)

In our divorce settlement , (we didn’t stipulate other than a 50/50 split in
The equity of the sale of our house ) because I was told by both my
Ex and his realtor the house would sell right away( it’s been 2 mths and
Not one offer yet)

Well my ex is moving out of state 12/1 and indicated that both myself ( disabled)
And my disabled son will have to pay all ($ 2203 mortgage ) and all utilities but
The pge n water ( appx $200) but he is still entitled to 50/50 of the equity when
The house sells
Something is not right about that ( not to mention he’s getting a family home,
no rent ) only utilities

Also I’m afraid when I bring this concern up to him( I wanted to get good advice
1st) he will prob just say we’ll just foreclose (he has nothing to lose he has a place scot free for life )
You can live there but you have to pay for it. He doesn't have to pay unless there is a court order stating he has to pay. You sound jealous. Does your ex pay child support if the child is your mutual son?
 

latigo

Senior Member
#4
Well you both can quickly drop the price so that it does sell

IN ]a way you are getting free use of his share unIl [sic]it does sell...and all you need to pay is mortgage and utilities etc... ...his equity share is trapped until the place gets sold . ( as is your share ) He might be smart to press for an immediate big price reduction .
She's getting "free use" at $2400 per month? Rather sophistic logic it seems to me.

And why would he be eager to sell?!

Are you ignoring that we are told that he has other living quarters at no cost; that he's managed to bury the hapless ex wife in this lop-sided property settlement agreement allowing him to sit tight and let her eat away at the principle balance of mortgage month by month increasing his equity?

What she needs to do is to hire a lawyer and move to have that property settlement agreement thrown out! Because I will lay you odds that she never once had the benefit of independent counsel advising her of her legal rights and options.
 

HRZ

Senior Member
#5
I doubt the principle reduction component of the mortgage is a big factor in the overall picture for the time period in question.

THere is no real relevancy to whatever other housing option one of them may have ...a 50/50 split of the equiy does not support that anyone is getting zapped....and for t hat matter nobody addressed who put in what historical share of equity ...yes it's CA and much is community property anyway .

Apparently as worded she has leverage to hold his equity share hostage until place gets sold ...and he gets no return on waiting but for 1/2 of any monthly additions to principal she makes ...HE has the lousy end of an unwise deal that does not put direct pressure on both to get it sold and adjust price to do so. ANd if she trashes or lays waste to property..he takes a hit too.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
#6
I doubt the principle reduction component of the mortgage is a big factor in the overall picture for the time period in question.

THere is no real relevancy to whatever other housing option one of them may have ...a 50/50 split of the equiy does not support that anyone is getting zapped....and for t hat matter nobody addressed who put in what historical share of equity ...yes it's CA and much is community property anyway .

Apparently as worded she has leverage to hold his equity share hostage until place gets sold ...and he gets no return on waiting but for 1/2 of any monthly additions to principal she makes ...HE has the lousy end of an unwise deal that does not put direct pressure on both to get it sold and adjust price to do so. ANd if she trashes or lays waste to property..he takes a hit too.
I do not agree with your logic.

He is moving into a home that he will be getting rent free. He does not intend to participate in paying the mortgage on the marital home until it sells.

Other than a potential desire for cash in his pocket, he has no motivation to reduce the price so that the home will sell more quickly. If fact, he has every motivation for refusing to agree to reduce the price so that it sells more quickly.

The OP, on the other hand, will not be going into free housing and will be stuck with a high mortgage payment therefore the OP needs the house to sell quickly, but will not have the authority to reduce the price without the agreement of the ex.

I do not see how anyone could possibly say that the ex has the lousy end of the deal.