|
House that was originally in hubby's and prior wife's name (they
separated in 1995 and their divorce was finalized in early 1999) was
refinanced yesterday. Notary came and the note (loan), deed (title)
all states: "(husband's name), a married man as his sole and separate
property."
Brief history: When we were first married in 1999, I asked my hubby,
if after 5 years, if we could sell this house and buy one of our own?
I really had hoped we could have a 'home of our own.' We can certainly
afford one of our own. My hubby said that he thought this was
reasonable request. When this was brought up a couple of months ago
(we've been married for five years), he said that because housing
rates are so high now, it made the most financial sense for us to
refinance the house we are in, adding that I could be added to the
note (loan) and put on the title. This is not what happened.
My husband said that the lender recommended he not put me on the note
(loan) due to my prior 1995 Bankruptcy and foreclosure, as it could
possibly affect our ability to qualify for the low interest rate. My
hubby said that he needed to take out the loan alone, but would still
put me on the title. The paperwork I saw last night does not include
me at all. My FICO score is above 750 right now, so I am not sure
how I could have adversely affected our ability to qualify for a good
loan?
California is a community property state...how is it that the lender
would have processed all the paperwork with only my husband's name?
Is it possible that the lender does not understand California law?
Shouldn't have I been required to sign something last night (like a
quit claim deed, or financial waiver, etc.)? How is it that my
husband was able to do all of that, without my participation?
Also, what is entailed in getting the deed/title modified to include
me? Is it complicated? It seems it should have been done now while
all this stuff is being filed. It doens't make much sense to me. Is
it possible the lender messed up, and won't admit it? My husband
mentioned that the lender only provides a free "courtesy deed", and
this is probably why I was excluded...as he is the only one named on
the note (loan). Where do we go to take care of this?
Thank you so much!
|
| |
| |
On 28 Apr 2004 09:15:54 -0700 Sheridan <sg4bb@yahoo.com> whittled these words:
House that was originally in hubby's and prior wife's name (they
separated in 1995 and their divorce was finalized in early 1999) was
refinanced yesterday. Notary came and the note (loan), deed (title)
all states: "(husband's name), a married man as his sole and separate
property."
My husband said that the lender recommended he not put me on the note
(loan) due to my prior 1995 Bankruptcy and foreclosure, as it could
possibly affect our ability to qualify for the low interest rate. My
hubby said that he needed to take out the loan alone, but would still
put me on the title.
No way is the lender going to permit that. The lender does not want an
unbound party on the title. It complicates things too much.
The paperwork I saw last night does not include
me at all. My FICO score is above 750 right now, so I am not sure
how I could have adversely affected our ability to qualify for a good
loan?
That's a guideline but lenders can and do use other criteria, especially
in the current market.
California is a community property state...how is it that the lender
would have processed all the paperwork with only my husband's name?
Is it possible that the lender does not understand California law?
Shouldn't have I been required to sign something last night (like a
quit claim deed, or financial waiver, etc.)? How is it that my
husband was able to do all of that, without my participation?
Because he did so "as his sole and separate property."
Also, what is entailed in getting the deed/title modified to include
me? Is it complicated? It seems it should have been done now while
all this stuff is being filed. It doens't make much sense to me. Is
it possible the lender messed up, and won't admit it? My husband
mentioned that the lender only provides a free "courtesy deed", and
this is probably why I was excluded...as he is the only one named on
the note (loan). Where do we go to take care of this?
Sounds like there is a disconnect in the communication between your
husband and yourself. Usually such issues are broader than a single
incident. Hopefully not and you can just talk with him calmly about
these decisions. I'm not placing any bets on mistakes on the part of the
lender. Of course it could be. But in that case your husband should be
as eager as you are to make the correction. The paperwork involved is
not that burdensome.
--
Diane Blackman
http://dog-play.com/
http://dog-play.com/shop2.html
|
| |
| |
Thank you, Diane, or, TOTE@dog-play.com. I appreciate your candor. I
don't wish to read between the lines in your response, but I certainly
feel discouraged. My BK and foreclosure of 8+ years ago was
essentially involuntary, and the causation of it (my ex) is now buying
his own home at this time. I got dragged down a dirty road, more ways
than one. I vowed never to let it happen again. I find it odd that my
ex is now able to qualify for his new home loan with the 1995
foreclosure, yet I am unable to be put on a loan with my husband, when
my income and credit are more than reasonable. I have been extremely
financially responsible for over 8+ years. Never a late anything,
never a problem. Regardless, are you saying that it is possible for
someone in the state of California to acquire property/real estate as
'sole and separate' property without a spouse's consent?
It is sad to think, that I have been married to a man I love,
contributing between $59,000 and $68,800 annually all along, with
absolutely nothing to show for it. He has two other properties that I
agreed to not be a part of...but he told me that he wanted me to be a
part of this property "our home", the one we live in together, and
have been in together for nearly six years. I am not married to my
husband to seek financial gain, but going home day after day, knowing
that he could kick me to curb with nothing while he benefits from the
gain of the market in the home we live, is his 'sole and separate
property.' Even if I calmly 'discussed' this matter with him, he may
suggest that I don't trust his actions (he has suggested this before,
making it clear to me that the matters of the property and paperwork
have been beyond his control and he has done all to try to include
me). So, it's not that I don't trust him. It is just disappointing,
very disappointing. So, I will go on, realizing that I am now in a
situation that is what it is. Thank you...
|
| |
| |
On 28 Apr 2004 16:15:48 -0700 Sheridan <sg4bb@yahoo.com> whittled these words:
I am not married to my
husband to seek financial gain, but going home day after day, knowing
that he could kick me to curb with nothing while he benefits from the
gain of the market in the home we live, is his 'sole and separate
property.' Even if I calmly 'discussed' this matter with him, he may
suggest that I don't trust his actions (he has suggested this before,
making it clear to me that the matters of the property and paperwork
have been beyond his control and he has done all to try to include
me). So, it's not that I don't trust him. It is just disappointing,
very disappointing. So, I will go on, realizing that I am now in a
situation that is what it is. Thank you...
If you had more information you might not feel so out of control in the
situation. There are dozens of good reasons for you to become educated
regarding financial matters. Finding time is always a challenge but
making the time will be one of the best investments you could ever make.
You will proabbly feel less awkward and more motivated in an actual
physical class of others who also need to learn the basics. There is a
lot to be gained in hearing each other's "stupid questions" which are not
at all stupid, just a matter of not knowing. You can often find the kind
of classes you need in Adult Continuting Education or Community Collge
programs. Women's centers also often offer semniars and classes.
If physical classes are out the question there are always on-line clases.
I don't know about you but I need a real "class" type approach to learn
this kind of material because too much of it can't be done for real.
Without learning by doing its too easy to not know when I've misunderstood
something, and without some kind of test its too easy to zone out and skip
lightly over something that challenges my understanding.
Its not such a bad thing to substitute knowledge for blind trust. Not to
be morbid about it but the very best relationships can suffer tragic
losses. His financial arrangements are most certainly designed to see to
your financial welfare in the event of his untimely demise. But that
thoughtful arrangement can be made much more useful to you if you can
today gain the knoweldge you would need to know should tragety occur. So
you learning isn't a matter of lack of trust, its just learning what you
may need to know, and hope will remain forever unimportant. You may not
*wnat* to benefit from that insurance, but it is a wise move to have it.
And you may not *want* to learn finances, but it is a wise move
nonetheless.
--
Diane Blackman
http://dog-play.com/
http://dog-play.com/shop2.html
|
| |
| |
Sheridan wrote:
It is sad to think, that I have been married to a man I love,
contributing between $59,000 and $68,800 annually all along, with
absolutely nothing to show for it.
If any of your income was used to pay the mortage it may no longer his
seperate property but may now be community property. Before jumping to
conclusions about being taken advantage of talk with a lawyer.
|
| |
| |
|
