carlton68 Posted August 11, 2004 Report Share Posted August 11, 2004 HT, usually I would be on your side as the guy has no paper to proove it's his money. But Jasmine told already two lawyers looked into the case and said the woman has to pay. When 'your' lawyer tells you you're not winning then your position is very bad indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 11, 2004 Report Share Posted August 11, 2004 Hi carlton, Yes....so must be more to it than what we know. Could also be the particular state they are living in, also. I'm not sure about this, but believe some states have laws where divorce means dividing up everything between partners, even if assets were acquired *before* marriage, by either person. We really have to know what state this is, and the applicable divorce laws, in existence there, to make any sense. The one given thing is, that army guy had to fill out a federal form from the financial institution that he withdrew from, explaining what the money will be used for. That is federal law, and supersedes any state laws. That is a matter of record, and would clear up, beyond reasonable doubt, of where the $50K came from. Since that seems to be the critical matter of debate, it would seem it makes a great deal of difference, concerning a settlement. It's already a matter of record, why that money was withdrawn, and it intended purpose of what it would be used for. It is illegal, in the US, for a financial institution to release $50k, without first getting Fed form filled out, and signed, by account holder. If the guy is unable to produce a copy of this form, then there is something very wrong. It *has* to exist, or the guy would have not been able to access his money. This form either states the money was for a down payment on a house, or states some other purpose. Worst case scenario is that he knew she was putting down $50K in cash, and he withdrew same amount around that time(keeping the cash), knowing he could later lay claim to house, after a short marriage. He could have easily have planned this out from the very beginning. Lots of possible angles to this. We're talking about a substantial chunk of change here. Wouldn't be the first time a single lady was robbed of her life savings. Other option is that he really did give her $50k in cash, with zero documentation. But there is documentation, or he could not have had access to the money to begin with. There has to be more to this, than meets the eye. :: HT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasmine Posted August 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2004 Hi, Thanks to you all for the responses. The latest is (from a lawyer who is taking the case) that when she put his name as the co-owner of the house, she actually GAVE him the half equity of the house, no matter where the down-payment money is from. That is the best any lawyer can do, according to a lawyer friend of mine. They can present the case to the judge, but all doubts that she will be able to get away without splitting the equity into half, that means to keep the house she must give him the half of the equity which will be a hardship for her. So people ,beware that even the house is bought prior to the marriage, if later you put someone in as a co-owner, you are actually give away half of your equity too. Jasmine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khun_Kong Posted August 12, 2004 Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 Jas- My understanding is that the bank must be involved to list somebody as co-owner. Don't know how she can do this. Maybe she just signed a paper saying that she owed him the money. Again, I don't see any way that his name can be put on the title at her mere direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sukhumvit Posted August 12, 2004 Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 That doesn't sound quite right. Are you sure that's the advice she got? By putting somebody's name on the property you're certainly giving them some financial interest, (for instance if the original owner died then the co-owner could inherit), but whether that is half of the equity is debateable. Maybe someone with recent experience of this in the US can pipe up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sukhumvit Posted August 12, 2004 Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 In fact, a further thought, why should she have to sell the property if she needs it to house herself and children? Why take any action herself. Let him as claimant/plaintiff take steps to recover his interest. It's for him to prove as people have already pointed out about the burden of proof. The Court should consider whether he needs the cash now to rehouse himself etc. Why not see if the Court puts a charge over the property in the spouse's favour which would only take effect upon some defining event such as her selling the property. If she doesn't do that then he's got a long time to wait for his cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasmine Posted August 12, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 [color:"red"]My understanding is that the bank must be involved to list somebody as co-owner. Don't know how she can do this. Maybe she just signed a paper saying that she owed him the money. Again, I don't see any way that his name can be put on the title at her mere direction. [/color] A lawyer did it for her. My Hubby did it for me once on one of the houses (he bought it in his name only and we have pre-nuptial agreement), and yes the bank (mortgage company) was informed. Also, there is no title yet becuase the house stills has a mortgage. Jasmine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasmine Posted August 12, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 [color:"red"]The Court should consider whether he needs the cash now to rehouse himself etc. Why not see if the Court puts a charge over the property in the spouse's favour which would only take effect upon some defining event such as her selling the property. If she doesn't do that then he's got a long time to wait for his cash. [/color] Hi, She does not have to sell the house, the husband just wants his money and is going after the $50,000, does not matter where from. If she has the amount, she just buys him off. Actually, you advice is good that he will have to wait until she ells the house, not forced into selling now, perhaps until her last child becomes 21 (he is only 8 now). I have not heard from her for the past 2 days, I will relay the message to her friend (who I mostly talked to). The State is FLA and in this particular town, the name of Thai women seems to be known (in not a so good way)and a couple lawyers did not want to get involved. I really don't know the detail, just was told that a few lawyers just said "Don't want to get into the divorce case of a Thai woman". :: Jasmine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khun_Kong Posted August 12, 2004 Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 jasmine said: [color:"red"]My understanding is that the bank must be involved to list somebody as co-owner. Don't know how she can do this. Maybe she just signed a paper saying that she owed him the money. Again, I don't see any way that his name can be put on the title at her mere direction. [/color] A lawyer did it for her. My Hubby did it for me once on one of the houses (he bought it in his name only and we have pre-nuptial agreement), and yes the bank (mortgage company) was informed. Also, there is no title yet becuase the house stills has a mortgage. Jasmine I must be very confused. Was this in NoVA, when your hubby did it for you.? I believe that every property has a title, mortgaged or not. Hence, the use of a "title search", which EVERY bank in the US requires before granting a mortgage to buy property. A title search will show every owner and every loan which uses the property as collateral. This title should be filed at the local tax office, I believe. I think that someone can give you a paper that says that they owe you money because you loaned them money to buy a property, but thay cannot make you a co-owner without the lender's permission. And, it would be rather foolish to loan somebody money to buy a property, as he apparently did (the other guy, not your hubby), because, until the mortgage is paid off, the BANK or lending company is the title holder. The title is only transferred after the mortgage is paid off, so the person who loaned the money cannot make a claim on the property AS AN OWNER. At least I think that's how it works. Glinn bplaa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted August 13, 2004 Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 "...The State is FLA and in this particular town, the name of Thai women seems to be known (in not a so good way)and a couple lawyers did not want to get involved. I really don't know the detail, just was told that a few lawyers just said "Don't want to get into the divorce case of a Thai woman". Jasmine..." AHAHAHA!!! Perhapes with good reason they don't want to get involved, perhapes she is known for problems etc? Thus, I go back to me previous statement, where I find her story highly suspicioua! Ans a bit more than coincidental that this guy withdrew 50K at the time she bought the house originally! Keep in mind, the longer she keeps the house, the more she may end up owing him...if it is sold in years to come, should it be decided that he currently owns 50% (or whatever) of the equitity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.