Ex Wife Got House in Divorce, Then Walked Away

[lxrdrblk]

In 2008 my ex wife got the house in a divorce. There was no way for her to refinance it in her name b/c of market at the time--she was $50,000 upside down and didn't have the money. It was best for the kids to stay where they were, so I just let let it ride. The Final Decree had very specific language about her financial responsibility. She moved to a new state a year later, in 2009, and hasn't made a payment on the house since then. I did have my name legally removed from the deed, but that is not the mortgage. I know. I know. I should have made her refinance it. I didn't--my mistake. But I didn't expect her to do what she did. Because my name was on the mortgage, the subsequent foreclosure is now on my credit. Is there any way to get the foreclosure and payment history removed from my credit?

 

Somehow, she's managed to buy two houses in her new state; however, I just tried to refi my current house and couldn't do it because of the negative payment history and foreclosure. I hate that I tried to do the right thing by the kids and that now I'm stuck with a major credit downgrade because of her financial irresponsibility. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

[breeze]

You need to take your ex back to family court and have the order enforced.

 

If she owns property, she has financial resources to have paid the mortgage. With kids involved, this happens a lot. You're not the first and you won't be the last.

[Kuuner]

to your question, no. There is no way to have it removed. It's a legitimate foreclosure and family law does not trump contract law regardless of what's in the decree. Don't ask me how I know that to be fact (Being the foreclosure manager for a lender AND going through a divorce with the same situation?). What you CAN do is show a potential lender the divorce decree and see if that will have any bearing or weight on your situation. It might.

[Calidreaming]

Something similar happened to my hubby. Their decree provided that his ex was to make half of the payments until their house sold, but this was in 2007-08 so it didn't and was massively underwater to boot. It's totally unfair but you're stuck with the foreclosure.

 

I totally agree with breeze. If you take her back to court she can be held in contempt. You are very lucky that she seems to have a ton of assets. My hubby's ex was broke so filing for contempt would have been a fruitless endeavor for us.

[breeze]

Really, people should just refuse terms like this when divorcing. I cannot imagine a lawyer who's supposed to be looking out for you, knowing all this - and they do know it - putting his client into this situation. I guess the lawyers are more concerned with keeping their buds at the courthouse than wrangling a deal that's in their client's best interest.

 

People who agree to this kind of arrangement ought to know, they need to pay the house payments, and have the ex pay them the money, or have them pay the court if they don't want any dealings.

 

This just happens over and over, when it could be prevented. Someone should start teaching "divorce and money" classes, maybe on some cable TV channel, so people know all the financial pitfalls.

[Kuuner]

Lawyers care about getting their money and nothing else. They follow the code and the statute. They don't care what happens to their client or anyone else's client. Any lawyer that says otherwise is lying (Is that a double negative?).

[breeze]

[IndyPoolPlayer]

Former Co-worker had his divorce attorney tell him to file a quitclaim on the house and it will relieve him of the obligations of the mortgage. Of course ex-wife quit making payments so they came after co-worker. Co-worker ended up filing BK.

 

I told co-worker he should have his BK attorney file a lawsuit against the divorce attorney for malpractice. Of course - lawyers give each other backrubs and HJ's so nothing ever happened there.

[breeze]

I wonder why they tell you to take your name off the deed, or quitclaim, when your name is still on the loan. Makes no sense whatsoever.

[IndyPoolPlayer]

I wonder why they tell you to take your name off the deed, or quitclaim, when your name is still on the loan. Makes no sense whatsoever.

I guess the standards of admission to most law schools must be pretty darn low.

[doodlebugger]

I wonder why they tell you to take your name off the deed, or quitclaim, when your name is still on the loan. Makes no sense whatsoever.

Ain't that the truth! It might remove your name from the deed, but it doesn't change the financial obligation.

 

I don't know if it will help the OP or not, and if it will even work, but I recall recently seeing that there are ways to dispute on TU - you can check a box that states that you are not obligated due to a divorce decree or something like that? Can the OP dispute it like that first or would it be better for him to take his ex back to court first? When you have kids involved, and especially if you ever had any custody issues, it will surely make things more difficult to go back to court, especially if it hurts her in some way (financially or otherwise). But, you have to decide if you want to save your own skin or save hers in this situation. Tough call. Good luck OP!

[breeze]

I think it's a personal choice whether to take the ex back to court. Personally, I think I would. He can always decide not to have any order enforced, or he can use other means to make sure his kids are taken care of. The OP actually hasn't been back since his first post, but it might help others to see the discussion.

 

One problem with just disputing it off is that it is a public record, so it doesn't really go away. I've known people who just wanted it gone, and were willing to take their chances on it coming back. As long as they know what can happen, it's up to them. The thing about public records is they just don't go away. After some time has passed and the record can't be found, the chances of it showing up unexpectedly decline.

 

The other issue with removing one's name from the deed, or filing a quitclaim, is that he's given up ownership of a house he is obligated to pay for. So not only is it not doing him any good, it's actually doing him harm - but it is the advice most often given in this situation. I would retain ownership of the home, make the mortgage payments, and have the ex send her payment to the court, so that if she defaults, she can't just walk away and have it fall on me. Then I could have a chance of having the order enforced by the court by having her pay or bank account garnished for the money. If she has moved, I might be able to have her name taken off the deed, and then rent the house out at market value.

 

But most people just don't know enough about what's going on, and they're in the middle of an emotionally charged situation, so they sign the paper that seems to give them a way out while making sure their kids have a home to live in with their mother. They don't think much further ahead.