Credit Card Debt

[billm]

Bill, I get what you're saying, but my example is, a family vacation 5 years ago. I paid for it in cash. You paid for it on credit, and have just been carrying the debt.

Why should you get to split that cost with your ex, but I have to eat it? You get to split it because you put it on credit? That is the diff?

I totally agree that there are things that are arguable about debt, and if you can show debt was for the benefit of the family, there's discretion built into the system and a judge should see it split fairly.

But the basic system is fair, IMHO. I took on debt in my marriage, it was in my name and as far as I was concerned at the time, I would be paying it off. That doesn't change just because we divorced.

Okay, we differ. I don't see the difference between assets and debt. What if you took on an asset, like stock, during the marriage - would you want to keep that too? I don't see the difference.

The concept is that you share all money equally and all things while you are married. Given that, all debt and assets should be split equally. Simple.

But if you are saying that in your divorce you both agreed to the concept that you maintained financial independence during the marriage and want to divide assets and debts that way, that works for me to. It is just not the way my marriage was.

I think the concept of the divorce law is that you split everything 50/50 and that magically does not change simply because a debt happens to be exclusively in one name.

If I had taken some money out of my paycheck and bought stock with it, kept the stock in my name, that would be split equally. If I purchased a cottage during marriage and for convenience it was put in my name, that is split 50/50.

There is no reason that debts should be treated differently. I think that is the law. Also, in my marriage, for 12 years I was the only one with an income, yet it never felt like my money, it felt like family money. So I'm good with the whole concept of splitting everything 50/50, but its opportunistic to claim that some of the debt should not be, simply because of the name on the credit card, or even the reason for the debt. This ONLY makes sense if you treat the assets the same way and do complete accounting of spending during the marriage.

[Mess]

Again, I see your point. I don't think you're wrong, but I see it a bit different is all.

[TLCRN]

bilm: it's one thing to give example but another to be in the situation where you would end up having to pay for debts incured in your name which was as in my case, for my father in law's house. No one predicted a separation/divorce and realized after the fact that I should not have put these expenses on my credit card and did it to help out which was obviously a mistake.

You are saying that no matter what, we should be penalized for our mistakes and pay no matter what?
It turns out, the house was sold for over half a million dollars two years later which again no one predicted would happen.

If the Judge would have agreed with you, I would still be paying for debts, credit card while my ex father in law and ex would be enjoying a debt free house? How fair is this??

Luckily we had a Judge who understood the situation and surely he didn't break the Law by writing a Court Order which states credit cards were not to be payed 50/50. Like I said, every situation is different and have to be looked differently. I understand some lawyers/parties do out of spite as they don't want to pay but that is not everyone.

[TLCRN]

Credit Card Debt

The TV/Camera's etc...who will keep possession of them? If it's YOU then that part of the CC debt is yours. (You have the asset that going along with the debt).

If it's HER, then she should be paying it off (asset tied to debt). As long as the balances are similar (ie. within 2000 of each other) call it a day, you'll easily spend that in legal fees anyway.

Rent/utils she can pound sand on.

NBDad: you are correct and exactly what the Judge explained. My ex wanted the lawn tractor on my credit card, then he paid my credit card, same with the expenses for my ex father in law's house. Why should I have to pay for something that I don't own, never used or benefit....I wasn't about to go and start demolishing bricks, dry wall, kitchen cupboard to get money back to pay for my credit card or get something out of it. COMMON SENSE!
bilm: I undertand your point of view but there are special circumstances, situation the Judge look at.

[billm]

bilm: it's one thing to give example but another to be in the situation where you would end up having to pay for debts incured in your name which was as in my case, for my father in law's house. No one predicted a separation/divorce and realized after the fact that I should not have put these expenses on my credit card and did it to help out which was obviously a mistake.

You are saying that no matter what, we should be penalized for our mistakes and pay no matter what?

Ahhh, no I am not saying that. So in your case, you fixed up the father in law's house and expected a return on that investment (how you funded it is not relevant).

That is a separate issue. You are saying your father in law owes you money - that would simply be a marital asset, also to be split.

So if your ex received that asset (the benefit of money spent on the father in laws house), that would be considered, as the judge did.

Divide by 2! Not that hard!

[Mooner43]

Matrimonial Home

just got a letter from son's ex-wife lawyer stating that the matrimonial home (owned by us , his parents) is deemed to be held "in trust" for him to be inherited later.... and is asking for 50% of the increased value of the home during their 4 year marriage. Son originally purchased the home with a different common law wife and when they split we purchased it at fair market value and the common law wife got 50% of the increased value... (which mostly went to pay for her lawyer)...

what are your thoughts on this new scenario that it could be held in trust, but that is not stated on the deed or title to the property... thanks

[HammerDad]

My simple answer to this is don't rely on the ex, or the ex's lawyer, for legal advice. It will never be in your interest, let alone neutral.

I would simply state that it is not a matrimonial asset as the son is not the registered owner. The husband and wife resided within the house as tenants and as such have no interest in the lands.

I am sure they will deem it anyway that benefits them, but they will have to argue the point in court to prove it. Unless they have proof that it is being held in trust, they have an uphill battle. They were tenants and should be treated as such.

[billm]

just got a letter from son's ex-wife lawyer stating that the matrimonial home (owned by us , his parents) is deemed to be held "in trust" for him to be inherited later.... and is asking for 50% of the increased value of the home during their 4 year marriage. Son originally purchased the home with a different common law wife and when they split we purchased it at fair market value and the common law wife got 50% of the increased value... (which mostly went to pay for her lawyer)...

what are your thoughts on this new scenario that it could be held in trust, but that is not stated on the deed or title to the property... thanks

Sounds like lawyer BS to me. You're not dead yet!

In a way, all of a parent's assets may be "deemed to be held "in trust" for him to be inherited later.".

It seems clear to me that it is your house and not your son's.

Why is it your house - why didn't your son buy it?

Do you have other children? What was the deal you made with your son, if any? Does he pay rent? Who pays the taxes?

What if you (and your wife) died before they split - would the house simply have been part of your assets to be divided equally among your children?

I wonder if there is case law on this type of situation....

[Mooner43]

we received $900/month rent which included all utilities, gas, hydro, water and we also paid the $3200/year taxes.
I know the lawyers just love to keep it going, pitting one against the other to pad their invoicing. We also have another son who will share equally in the estate. Thanks for your input, it helps to ease the anxiety... we did it this way to protect our sons from losing all the equity we put into the house.....her lawyer is asking again for mortgage statements and balance owing on the house.

[hadenough]

It's definitely lawyer bs and scare tactics. His name is not ON title. Why should they DEEM it to be in trust? It either is, or it isn't. If your names and your son's were on title: she would likely have claim to one half of his THIRD.

My EX owes me a lot of money - most of which I will probably never recover. He is an undischarged bankrupt but he makes plenty of money. The mat home (he's married w/2 kids) is in his wife's name, and her parents. There is nothing I can do (ie: register a lien) b/c his name is not on title. I looked into all of this thoroughly, and consulted with a lawyer.

[HammerDad]

Do you have a valid purchase and sale agreement? I assume you used a lawyer to deal with the purchase from your son and his 1st ex wife and to register you on title.... (please remind your son never to marry again by the way and if he says he is engaged again, please smack him....)

Unless your tenancy agreement provides for some sort of interest in the property, your son and his ex were normal tenants whose sole interest in the lands were as residents.

However, I would be VERY careful about making comments like:

we did it this way to protect our sons from losing all the equity we put into the house

The residence is yours. Should both you and your spouse decease, it would form part of your estate. But the first person with interest is your spouse, or should she pre-decease you, then your estate as provided for in your will.

[hadenough]

Too Funny and Too RIGHT HammerDad "(please remind your son never to marry again by the way and if he says he is engaged again, please smack him....)"

No way in hell am I ever going to make the mistakes I've made, again. Prob is Still trying to get out from the rubble. So what should they provide the lawyer with? Just what you indicated above? Yes - bang on - say nothing or very little (nothing better) to the other solicitor.

[Mooner43]

Yes we have a valid Purchae & Sale agreement completed by a lawyer and deed registered in our names ONLY.
its nice to see a little humour on this site.. to lighten up the tense issues...
Our lawyer replied that there is no way she is going to get any money from the matrimonial home notwould she get any compensation for property that does not belong to her. just wondering if her lawyer will start family court proceedings on this? seems like a waste of time and money
thanks for your input...

[arabian]

Lawyers exceed in wasting time and money Mooner43. I swear they take "wasting your clients time and money 101" in law school. In graduate school they take "keeping the divorce from being settled."

[HammerDad]

just wondering if her lawyer will start family court proceedings on this? seems like a waste of time and money...

A lawyer will do what their client tells them to do......even if they highly recommend against it. That is what they are paid to do. However, should they attempt to go after the house, you ask for costs as part of your response.

Are they likely to succeed? Depends on what evidence they can bring that shows you are holding the house in trust for your son. If they have no evidence, their chances of success are likely NIL.