gphill
New
Reged: 09/28/08
Posts: 4
|
|
I was awarded the house in the divorce but he did not sign a quitclaim deed because in lieu of alimony he is to pay the mortgage directly. Now I can refinance and the closing is 9/30/08 and he is refusing to sign the quitclaim deed even though it would be in his intrest to do so. The final decree states he is to pay the mortgage but does not specify to whom. Is there any other way to continue the refinancing without the quitclaim deed being signed by him?
|
germangirl631
Platinum
Reged: 04/04/08
Posts: 1590
|
|
You can refinance without him signing. However, that only means he no longer is responsible for the home, but is still an owner. The quit claim allows you to take him off the deed as an owner. Why are you refinancing if he is supposed to pay the mtg? Will him payments cease once you refi? How is this written in your divorce decree?
|
gphill
New
Reged: 09/28/08
Posts: 4
|
|
He is using this to control me. The order is written as part of the child support so he has to pay til our youngest is 18 no matter who it goes to. The final deccree states I have exclusive, full ownership and use of the mairital property. What I meant to ask is how do I get his name off the deed if he won't sign and the decree says the house is mine. We both signed the decree so he is fully aware the house is mine.
Edited by gphill (09/28/08 04:49 PM)
|
beachgirl
Gold
Reged: 11/05/06
Posts: 141
Loc: FL
|
|
If you are correctly reading the settlement agreement, then you need to go back to court. I can't imagine any court approving that kind of an agreement. You may have use of the house, but that doesn't make it yours unless he signs a quitclaim deed. And even then, the decree should have given you a timeframe to refinance and remove his name from the mortgage.
Is the mortgage payment written into your agreement as child support or alimony? Also, since payments change yearly and people do sell homes, what happens when you sell or refinance? Is he off the hook from paying? I would think so unless your decree reads otherwise.
Something doesn't seem right. Right now he has a tax deduction, since he is on the mortgage and is paying it. Your way (refinance and you consider it child support) he loses the tax deducton for the mortgage or alimony payment. Doesn't seem like a fair settlement to me, which is why I question a court approving an order that was written that way.
Think you need to reread it, and check with the court.
|
gphill
New
Reged: 09/28/08
Posts: 4
|
|
My decree reads just as I presented it. The mortgage payment is included in the child support and he has to pay it no matter who it goes to. The house was awarded to me exclusively. This actually happened. There's a lot behind the divorce and he is lucky that was all the court did. Does anyone have any advice as to how I can settle the deed matter. Just because you have a hard time believing something doesn't mean it ain't so.
|
germangirl631
Platinum
Reged: 04/04/08
Posts: 1590
|
|
I guess I still don't understand why on earth you are refinancing if HE is paying the mortgage.
|
beachgirl
Gold
Reged: 11/05/06
Posts: 141
Loc: FL
|
|
Exclusive use of the house until a child is 18 does not necessarily give it to you. Either way, he does not have to sign the deed over to you until and unless the court orders him to do so unless he chooses to do so of his own free will. And since you stated that the payment is part of child support, it is subject to reduction any time he chooses to go back to court. Are you sure it wasn't part of the property settlement?
As previously asked, why are you refinancing?
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5191
|
|
You have exclusive use till the youngest is 18, after which WHAT? The answer to that will tell us whether or not he needs to sign the quitclaim or whether you are going to be able to get the judge to order him to sign it. If it's ONLY as you've presented it, then he likely believes (probably correctly) that after the youngest is 18 then you will have to sell the house and split the proceeds or pay him for his half of the equity AT THAT TIME.
This is actually not the best thing for YOU, though it may be best for the kIDS... for YOU it means that although you get to stay in the house for now at his expense, he gets to get the benefit of any increase in value tha ttakes place while you're living there...
If you were going to get the whole house, with the right to force him to sign a quitlcaim, it woudl probably have been written that you get the house and he has to pay XX amount as alimony/child support to cover the price of the house mortgage till the kids are 18.
Sorry, but it looks like you didn't get as much as you were hoping for. YOu only got the right to live there for a while and not the whole house forever.
|
gphill
New
Reged: 09/28/08
Posts: 4
|
|
This is how it is worded "Petitioner shall have exclusive ownership, use and possession of the marital residence located at..." Does this mean I have to give it up? He has to pay until our youngest is 18 but after that its up to me. The judge asked me in court what would happen to the home after that and I said the house goes to me and he (my ex) concurred. Can I go to court and ask the judge to order him to sign the quitclaim deed?
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5191
|
|
YOU said this in court and it was not written out in the decree? EEEK. You need to get it in writing or else you lose on that issue. As your decree is written, the house belongs to both of you till the youngest is 18, with you living in it during that time, and then ... probably sold and split 50-50. You REALLY need this in writing, that it's yours when the youngest turns 18, and THEN you can probably get him to sign the quitclaim and re-finance in your own name.
It's very unusual these days to have that clause wehre one gets to LIVE IN the house till the kids are 18... usually teh house goes to one or the other and they ahve to re-finance it for themselves to get the otehr off of the mortgage and make it possible for the other to move on (get his own loan on a new house, in your case)... way back when (like 10-20 years ago) it was more common to keep the house in both names and let the custodial parent continue to live in it and then sell it and split the equity after the kids are adults.
I've never heard of one parent getting to live in it till the kids are 18, never being REQUIRED to re-fi and take the other aprent's name off it ... till AFTER the kids are 18, at which time the whole house gets to be theirs? That's just odd. You need it in writing if that's the way it's supposed to be.
Oh, the more normal way to do what you wanted to do... you get the house, he gets other property. You are expected to re-finance with a certain time limit and he is expected to sign off on any quitclaim that the re-financing people need in order for this to happen. MAYBE ALSO you need to pull more money out of the house during the re-fi to pay him for his half of the equity in the hosue, if there's no other property to use to offset the value of what you get. ...
But the provision that you get to live in it is almost never required if you get to GET it in the END... usually, that provision is ONLY if you're NOT goign to get it but you DO want to keep the kids in it till they're 18. It generally requires the NCP to be willing to put thier life on hold and rent rather than buy a new place because having thier name on the loan till the kids are 18 often makes it impossible for them to get a new place of thier own.
Your particualr situation is HIGHLY unusual.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
