Tammy Wynette cannot be reached for help-Divorce advice

I agree. I'm forced to be tied to my ex by virtue of a kid. With no children? No way. While you both seem reasonable now and what you are considering sounds reasonable, what if her new boyfriend/husband is an asshole and convinces her to act in her best interests, and not in the spirit of the agreement? What if her life turns to shit and she starts looking at your great life and begins to act vindictively?

ETA: all that said, I went against all the well-meaning and good advice I received and it all turned out ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Art Shirk

I’m kinda with Adiron here. Keeping running obligations is a recipe for disaster regardless of the status of your relationship. I’d take the interest rate hit now and refi individually when you can. If your ex decides to stop contributing on either, your fucked as the only way forward is for you to continue paying on both or sell, with proceeds still heading the ex’s way.

There’s little solace better than a clean split with settled and separate obligations.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

Thanks - I appreciate it but not looking for advice in terms of how to move forward. Both of us are committed to each other's well-being, and of course there is always the possibility of us losing our job, etc.


We're doing what's right for us, which admittedly might not be right for you or for others or for most people in most situations.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tgapp

Hey I have a really simple divorce question that I need help with. I know there are a couple lawyer mags, could I mail one of you a bag of coffee for seriously a two minute question? Thanks in advance

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

---

well you did ask

in 40 yars I've watched my ex wife do the stupidest things, I just laughed whenever I hear the latest calamity but I never laughed when I was in any way legally connected to her and that is the big difference

I was just wondering to my self how any woman that silly could produce 2 so smart so togetehr sons ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXX-er

well you did ask

in 40 yars I've watched my ex wife do the stupidest things, I just laughed whenever I hear the latest calamity but I never laughed when I was in any way legally connected to her and that is the big difference

I was just wondering to my self how any woman that silly could produce 2 so smart so togetehr sons ?

---

And hopefully they got her spelling skills too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tgapp

We have two properties to our name - both with sub-3% interest rates, and what we want to happen is that we want to continue on both title and mortgage for each of them until rates go down (5% or under), but then when we refi, she'll keep the one house and I'll keep the other.

---

The rates might never go down. Do you, by any chance, have both loans through a local credit union or at least the same financial institution?

IME if yew kin fix stuff, it doesnt matter how you spel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tgapp

Thanks - I appreciate it but not looking for advice in terms of how to move forward. Both of us are committed to each other's well-being, and of course there is always the possibility of us losing our job, etc.


We're doing what's right for us, which admittedly might not be right for you or for others or for most people in most situations.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

---

You should not take this the wrong way, but she has already proven to you that she isn't looking out for your best interest. If she was committed to your well being she wouldn't have fucked around on you, not only the first time, but notably while you both "agreed" to try and reconcile.

The only reason she wants this is she can't afford the house otherwise, not some bs line about looking out for each other. This is right financial move for her, not you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXX-er

IME if yew kin fix stuff, it doesnt matter how you spel

---

Except you sound like an idiot when you spell like that.

to whom do you really think i care what this lot thinks ? that misconception would say something about your cognitive abilities
and so if it pisses you off
great

I have a friend in a marginally similar situation, and they were able to remove a name from the mortgage via paperwork without refinancing or changing the mortgage/mortgage rate. It might be worth asking the bank about that and then being done. If you've already done that, given the complexity here and the potential for shit to go sideways, I would get a lawyer involved. If 2-3 percentage points hinges on her ability to afford the place, there's little room for life-changing curveballs and rates could be north of 5% for 6 months or 6 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXX-er

IME if yew kin fix stuff, it doesnt matter how you spel

---

If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.

In WA, you would need to change the status on the title to 'tenants in common' or some entity that isn't a marital household if you both wanted to stay on the mortgage which also protects you to some degree individually. if you do both stay on it, remember it will effect your credit and ability to borrow or get another mortgage if one of you wants to do so.

When you do split them up you'll 'quit claim' to the other, and if both of you are well qualified, a refi shouldn't be to much of a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXX-er

to whom do you really think i care what this lot thinks ? that misconception would say something about your cognitive abilities
and so if it pisses you off
great

---

You spend a fuck ton of time here for someone that doesn’t care what this lot thinks.
And that was much better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oftpiste

In WA, you would need to change the status on the title to 'tenants in common' or some entity that isn't a marital household if you both wanted to stay on the mortgage which also protects you to some degree individually.

---

Why? Tenants in common is a totally different thing (with many possible nightmare scenario outcomes) and you do not need to be married to own something as joint tenants with a right of survivorship.

I agree with dschane and that's why I asked if the loans were at the same place. Presumably, if each person earned similar amounts, a bank holding two loans with two people on the hook might be willing to let one person off of each. Regardless of how much trust I might have with an ex, sharing two mortgages seems like a recipe for disaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RootSkier

I agree with dschane and that's why I asked if the loans were at the same place. Presumably, if each person earned similar amounts, a bank holding two loans with two people on the hook might be willing to let one person off of each. Regardless of how much trust I might have with an ex, sharing two mortgages seems like a recipe for disaster.

---

Yup. +1000.

Frorider Esq ain’t an expert on Utardian law but if there’s a way to accomplish the title change w/o negative ramifications or if there’s a way to accomplish the loan ‘swap’, we all seem to be recommending that.

In every circumstance I know of vaguely similar to the one you’re describing, both parties sincerely were 1000% sure they wanted to look out for the interests of the other & said things eerily similar to what you’ve been saying about how your situation is ‘different’. In all honesty, I was in a smaller scale version of this in my twenties and was so focused on taking the high road on a medical loan…anyway long story short, two years later after the breakup she screwed me over on that one. In retrospect a couple of my more mature friends were trying to nudge me in the right direction but I didn’t listen. “Your advice makes sense for most people but not for us” was my response.

She hadn’t lied and destroyed trust to the level yours has, and im sure she sincerely thought she wasn’t going to end up screwing me over 2 years later, but life happens and shit changes.

The bank doesn’t have to do anything you agree to in court, and they won’t do anything that puts them in a worse position. They also have to deal with their investor (typically Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac) and adhere to those rules. You can ask, but you will probably be told no without a refinance.

When getting a new mortgage, if you can show that your ex is responsible for the entirety of the mortgage (per the court order) they can remove it from your debt ratio calculations, so that helps.

In my divorce, I agreed to wait 7 years to be removed and have equity paid out when she refinanced. That put my youngest in high school and the other two off at college or whatever they do post-HS. About 18 months ago (4 years in) I told her she should maybe do that now, since rates were at all time lows. She informed me that she asked friends of hers who know about these things and they told her it wouldn’t be worth it to refinance then (already had a pretty good rate). I didn’t argue, but she’ll be trading 3% for 6%+ in about a year and a half. Joke’s on her, I guess, but I feel sorta bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdironRider

I'm not divorced, but keeping tied up with your ex with two major real estate assets sounds like a terrible idea. Whatever money you think you are saving is not worth it.

---

Yeah. That’s fucked.

But. Assuming you can finalize the all clear divorce that you both have joint title of the two properties. Then enter into a contract regarding your mutual understanding. Point being let the divorce go. And shift to a regular contract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tgapp

We have two properties to our name - both with sub-3% interest rates, and what we want to happen is that we want to continue on both title and mortgage for each of them until rates go down (5% or under), but then when we refi, she'll keep the one house and I'll keep the other. We DO NOT want either of us to be removed from title until after the refi happens (whenever in the next ten years), since that would leave either of us in a position with liability and no asset. Do we just put something in the divorce agreement that stipulates that we will both remain on our respective titles unless & until we both refinance our respective properties?

---

tgapp, have you contacted the serving lender (that you make your payments to) and ask if they will allow the soon to be ex-spouse off the loan with proof the other spouse qualifies without them? For some reason I thought that was allowed without refinancing. You can definitely state who gets what property in the divorce degree and that it is their sole and separate property and obligation to pay the debt on it.

Work with the lender on an assumption of the mortgages. This allows one person to be removed without changing the terms/ interest rate of the mortgage. Each of you “assumes “ the property you are keeping.

Sure sure… you should ask. I’d put it at 85%+ that it’s a “no” though. There’s no benefit to the lender to let you off, especially in the current rate environment.

You can state who pays what in the divorce decree, but the bank couldn’t give a fuck; none of that modifies your contract with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mustonen

but the bank couldn’t give a fuck.

---

FIFY

Dammit this is TRG, we have standards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frorider

FIFY

Dammit this is TRG, we have standards

---

Thank you for your service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buzzworthy

You spend a fuck ton of time here for someone that doesn’t care what this lot thinks.
And that was much better.

---

yeah thats cuz in all the time I posted the almost 30,000 posts i havent had a job so for > 18 yars I could wake up late make 4 or 5 espressos and wank about on TGR until it was time to go sking or biking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mustonen

Sure sure… you should ask. I’d put it at 85%+ that it’s a “no” though. There’s no benefit to the lender to let you off, especially in the current rate environment.

---

That's why I asked if both loans were held by the same lender, and even better if it was a local credit union or something. There may be a benefit to the lender in that if one person loses their job or whatever, there are not two separate loans at risk. But I'm sure some fucking nerd actuary will tell me I'm wrong or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RootSkier

That's why I asked if both loans were held by the same lender, and even better if it was a local credit union or something. There may be a benefit to the lender in that if one person loses their job or whatever, there are not two separate loans at risk. But I'm sure some fucking nerd actuary will tell me I'm wrong or something.

---

Yeah, not usually. Better to have a deadbeat to maybe collect from than no deadbeat. Chances are great that it’s a Fannie or Freddie too, which typically precludes any assumption right out of the gate.