[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference quark::human_relations

Title:	What's all this fuss about "sax and violins"?
Notice:	Please read all replies to note 1
Moderator:	QUARK::LIONEL

Created:	Thu Jan 21 1993
Last Modified:	Fri May 09 1997
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	133
Total number of notes:	1901

52.0. "Playing by the rules" by QUARK::MODERATOR () Wed Nov 24 1993 13:42

    The following entry has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to QUARK::MODERATOR, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached  unless you request otherwise.

				Steve






    I decided  to place the following message in this notes file to get
    your reaction and to let others know what they may have to go through
    after a divorce when property may be part of the settlement.
    
    In 89 I was divorce and part of the divorce decree was that my x wife
    could live in the house for 4 years, which she hasn't.  At the end of
    this term she would either have to sell the house or  refinance and
    give me xxxx$ plus interest,pay all legal cost,taxes and  mortgage to
    date of closing which had been determined at the time of the  divorce.
    This amount and conditions were also spelled out in a mortgage 
    agreement and a promissory note by my x.
    
    I recently went to a lawyer and showed him the papers and he told me
    that she is not responsible to pay me the full amount due because of
    the slump in the market,and that because she has not paid last years
    taxes I would have to sue her after closing to regain whats owed me.
    
    I believe in being fair but in none of the papers did it say it was
    contingence on the market. Three appraisers had determined what I had
    put in as value and the court had determined what interest.
    
    This is like the court telling me "Oh by the way your divorce was never
    finalized".

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
52.1	Just bad luck	MR4DEC::MAHONEY		`Thu Dec 02 1993 12:53`	17
	Marriage is a "lotery", either you win or lose, and the market is the same, either it goes up, or down. If the value of your house is down I don't think it is your ex wife's fault... it is the economy. It seems to me that you put a lot more importance in the value a your properyy than in the value of your marriage, and if your marriage ended in 1989 is a bit difficult to expect that the market value of your house "do not move" in 4 years. It would have been a lot easier to include market fluctuations in the original contract... and it if was not included, it is not your ex's fault either, but whoever did the contract. The value of my own home today is less than what it was 4 years ago, there is NOTHING I can do about it, right? I'll just keep it and hope than in 10 years from now it'll be worth more than it is today, that's all.
52.2	Keep asking questions	TLE::JBISHOP		`Thu Dec 02 1993 14:39`	10
	If the papers have no market contingency, I don't see how she can get out--maybe you need a different lawyer. This sounds very odd, unless the asset mentioned is the house and not the cash value. You should keep asking questions until you're sure you understand what the situation is. If she doesn't have any assets, you may be out of luck, even if you're in the right and win a court case. -John Bishop
52.3	Put it all in perspective	LEDS::BRAUN	Rich Braun	`Thu Dec 02 1993 14:43`	28
	Re: -1 I think there are probably other facts in this case which haven't been spelled out here. Sounds like the spouse agreed to pay a certain sum of money. There was no contingency for market conditions. That shouldn't really affect the sum of money due. So either there are elements of the agreement which haven't been spelled out here, or there are provisions of state law which apply in situations like this. I'd say if you don't like what one attorney tells you, try another. If it's a lot of money you're talking about, and you think there's some way of recovering it, then it's worth pursuing. If it's not much money, or it becomes obvious that the likelihood of collecting on a judgment is low, then you should just put the whole thing behind you as soon as possible for your emotional health. (How does one define a "lot of money"? Well, keep in mind that what seems like a lot today might not in the future. Probably two years worth of headaches could be avoided by writing off $20,000 or $30,000. Yet many people will gladly take on years of headaches over sums of less than $1000.) -rich Mass Storage Engineering OEM D&SG SHR1-3/O13 DTN: 237-2124 Work: braun@leds.enet.dec.com 508-841-2124 Home: richb@pioneer.ci.net
52.4	real estate is down!	VAXWRK::STHILAIRE	smog might turn to stars someday	`Fri Dec 03 1993 14:01`	10
	Then again, real estate values are in a horrible depression in Massachusetts/New England. This past summer my ex-husband and I sold a house at a $50,000. loss. By that I mean, we actually lost $50,000. and the bank lost an additional $20K which they agreed to write off. The house had been purchased in 1987 for $70K more than it sold for this past summer. When real estate values drop this much it has to be taken under consideration. Lorna
52.5	times are tough all over	VAXWRK::STHILAIRE	smog might turn to stars someday	`Fri Dec 03 1993 14:04`	6
	re .4, we had to sell the house because my ex was layed off from Digital last December and is still unemployed. He is a software engineer. Lorna
52.6		HDLITE::ZARLENGA	Michael Zarlenga, MRO AXP BPDA	`Mon Dec 06 1993 17:24`	9
	Sorry, when the divorce agreement was signed, she became the owner, at the appraised and agreed upon value, just as if she'd bought the house. Well, that's the way a smart divorcee would've written the agreement, If it then drops in value, the owner and the bank can lose money, not any prior owners. A good divorce lawyer would've protected the guy from this loss.
52.7		NOVA::FISHER	US Patent 5225833	`Tue Dec 14 1993 10:54`	4
	A business or gov't entity would have to stick to the contract. I wouldn't be surprised if there are loopholes for probate court. ed