Old Hippie Posted August 10, 2004 Report Share Posted August 10, 2004 Jas, I realize that it is possible to save the money over time, but I still find the story a bit suspect (but I am paranoid, and have heard many scams in my time...). Selling food at the temples is usually voluntary, done to raise money for the temple, at least how it works here. Selling Thai gold...unless bought at a very low price long ago, not much profit...believe me I know, as I have dabbled in gold sales...2 jobs, yes possible, but I would still question the story thuroughly. Should you help her, or be involved in a group effort, I would really check it out before doing so. How well does anyone know this woman? does she help others? does she often have her hand out? many questions...just be careful... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 10, 2004 Report Share Posted August 10, 2004 Hi Jasmine, If I've got this right, woman bought a house with $50,000 cash down payment, with her as sole owner on the deed, and the loan. 1 year later, she marries a guy, and then adds him as a co-owner, at that time. The original $50k down payment cannot be traced as to it's origins, by either party. Is all this correct? If so, then she clearly owned the home, along with any, and all equity, a full year before she married this guy. She alone applied for the loan, and she was the one to give mortgage company the $50K down payment. Unless he has some proof it was his money, it would seem he is out of luck. The house was her asset alone, before marriage. For him to lay claim to half it's value, after just 2 years of marriage, will not wash......so the most he could lay claim to, is any appreciation that might have occured during that 2 year period. Had she put him as co-owner at the time of original loan, then he might have a leg to stand on. But unless he can prove he gave her the money a year before married, and was used for that purpose, he's got a long battle in front of him, IMO. I'm not a lawyer of course, and very much is also dependant on which state they reside in, as distubution of property from a divorce, can vary widely from state to state. Bottom line is, all she has to do is say the money he took out of account around that time, was used to pay his bookie off, as he has a severe gambling problem. He has to *prove* that money was given to her, for that specific purpose. The burden of proof is on him, as she was sole owner before marriage. Anybody giving a 'friend' cash money, without getting a receipt, can usually kiss it goodbye, with little legal recourse to lay claim later. HT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlton68 Posted August 10, 2004 Report Share Posted August 10, 2004 Hi Jasmine, difficult for you and us to decide who gave the money for the downpayment. They only know what really happened. I am with HT saying if he can't proof that he payed (no contract and he wasn't put in the papers when the house was bought) then there is no way he'll get it back. On the other side the laywers say he's getting it until she can proove where the money came from (which she obviously can't). Well, I leave the leagal battle to the lawyers. Just a question, did he move in with her when she bought the house? Together with the money taken from his bank this would indicate that he doesn't lie. Judge will decide if this is good enough. Your friend isn't rich, the prospect of keeping $50K which aren't hers is tempting (I would be tempted for sure). In addition if she has to give it back she'll loose the house for her and her kids. Another reason to try and keep it. So far irrelevant if she is Thai or not. But then how many stories have we heared about Thai ladies that had ther boyfriend or husband built a house and get rid of him later, keeping the house. Many stories. I suspect htis is a variation of said schemes. And I may be miles from the truth which we will never get to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted August 10, 2004 Report Share Posted August 10, 2004 Just thought of something else, she may have to PAY HIM alimony...if all he has is a service pension, and he has become "accustomed" to her supporting him, she may have to pay him for awhile...no idea what the law is in your neck of the woods... HT, Not so easy to say he "paid his booky off. The court will set the burdon of proof on her to support this claim, and may want to know who the bookie is etc...and as he is engaging in a criminal act, this accusation is slanderish, and easily defeated...best to stick with the truth and the facts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasmine Posted August 10, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2004 [color:"red"] Math tells me if the house is sold for $105,000 and they owe $47,000 then the profit is $58,000. Split this between 2 people - you have $29,000. [/color] True, but he wants the $50,000 plus the $4,000 (profit) that he claimed he gave her as the down payment, that is the fight!!! She does not mind splitting the gain, but she wants to keep the $50,000, if it was her money, can we blame her? Jasmine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 10, 2004 Report Share Posted August 10, 2004 Hi, >>>The court will set the burdon of proof on her to support this claim,<<< Why? She has to prove nothing. If he has no suporting evidence that he gave her $50K, and she then used said monies to make down payment for said house, she does not have to prove shit. All she has to do, is say she say she saved it up, working 2 jobs, for 10 years. The house was 100% in her name, along with all payments, up until the time of marriage. Simple as that. That is what all documents show. She has *NO* burden of proof. Her free and clear title/deed to property, prove her claim, without impunity. Guy wants to take claim to property, then he will have to make his case, as to why is entitled. From what we know here, he has no case. What entitles him to make claim to 50% of house value? Absolutely nothing. Verbal agreement? Not a chance. If so, I could lay claim to anyone's property, simply by saying I was the one who gave them cash for initial down payment. If I can't back that up with legal paperwork, then I am fucked, just like he is. Court will only see that girl made the loan, with $50K of her own money down. That was accepted, and recorded, at the time of recording the sale. Her, and her alone. That is the long, and the short of it. Army guy was nowhere in the picture, from what has been stated here, at least in the legal sense. HT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sinsin2 Posted August 11, 2004 Report Share Posted August 11, 2004 "The kids are from her previous marriages (2 marriages), not his so they are out of the equation" Methinks the lady is already an expert in divorce law. Signed over $50,000....highly unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted August 11, 2004 Report Share Posted August 11, 2004 HT, You missed the point dude, you said she could claim he with drew $50,000 from his accounts to pay off a bookie, never a good idea to lie. He claims it was for the house, should she make a claim that he used it to pay off a bookie, as you suggest, then she has to prove he did so. Sure he could argue that it was for the house, as they planned to wed etc, and thus he has no paper to prove it, weak case for him, but looks better for him especially if she were to make a rediculis claim (fabricated) which could not be substantiated, she then looks like a liar, loses all credibility and thus her money, if it is her money, frankly, I would tend to go with the guy, as there is no other apparent explanation as to why he withdrew $50K and then married the woman...but I know neither party, just basing it on what has been told here by Jasmine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 11, 2004 Report Share Posted August 11, 2004 Hi OH, Point taken. Actually, I don't think she needs to say a thing, other than, "I don't know what he's talking about". The part I'm finding strange here, is the fact down payment was *cash* money. If retired army guy really did give the money, it is almost certain it would have been a check from his account. If money was in some form other than deposited in a checking account (CD, savings acct., stocks/bonds, etc.), them almost anyone would have money transfered to checking acct., and then write a check to either her, or direct to lending institution. In US, there is paperwork to be filled out, if withdrawing anything larger than $10,000 cash (so US can keep an eye out for drug deals, money laundering, etc.) On that form, you must state purpose of withdrawl. That's his proof right there, if indeed was his money. To me, that is the key. What did he state on these Federal forms, as the purpose for such a large withdrawl. If he stated anything other than for a down payment for girls house, he is truly screwed. If he stated that is was for that purpose, then he is home free. If he cannot/unwilling to produce these forms, then Thai girl's attorney should petition court to make these available to her. At the time of withdrawl, he *had* to state the intended pupose, and is a matter of record. HT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gummigut Posted August 11, 2004 Report Share Posted August 11, 2004 The thing that doesn't make sense to me is that the guys supposedly has an amount close to the downpayment "withdrawn a week prior to her purchase of the house". Now, an immigrant with no trust in banks I can see saving cash at home, but an American? Taking 50k in cash and keeping it in his house? No way. He'd either take it out in cash the day it was needed or use a cashier's check. That just doesn't make sense. Sounds like the guy's lawyer is trying to make the wife believe the burden of proof is on her. The wife should take this to the judge. She owned the house outright before marriage. If he says she gave him the money for the downpayment, the wife can say to the judge, "IF he did, which I deny, why can't I say he gave it to me as a gift?". Can also say that she put him as co-owner of the house because he was paying half the mortgage during the marriage and it only seemed fair. Didn't realize the repercussions it would have. I'd contact more lawyers because the burden of proof shouldn't be hers. <<burp>> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.