to be fair, if somebody owed me thousands of dollars and asked for an extension on repayment but not because they were having hard times, just because they spent their money elsewhere (i.e., not "mandatory" things, luxuries), i would be annoyed. if it was me who owed somebody even $500 bucks, i wouldn't be out buying starbucks and shopping for new shoes until it was paid off, but maybe that's just me.
but, i don't really 100% understand if that is what is happening here, and the rest of this is so insane i can't really focus on anything else. lol
Yes, this needs explained better to me. Ethically, he does still owe her this, yes? It's not alimony, it's her share of the house they shared and were paying for together? I understand that he is legally scot-free now that she lied and forged and said he was done paying her, which is flamable, but he SHOULD still give her her money, right?
Feel free to pat me on the head and move along.
Well sure ETHICALLY he owes her, but why should he be ethical when she isn't?
Honestly, i felt a little uncomfortable bringing it up, but that incident seemed to be the catalyst for her divorce, so they divorced, he's moved on, and now she's effing him over again.
I will just say since that incident her attitude about her Ex-H has always rubbed me the wrong way. I can't put my finger on it because you know like I give a fuck if she is disrespectful to him. But she just always came off as if she thought was better than him? And she was the one screwing around on him to begin with.
I will just say since that incident her attitude about her Ex-H has always rubbed me the wrong way. I can't put my finger on it because you know like I give a fuck if she is disrespectful to him. But she just always came off as if she thought was better than him? And she was the one screwing around on him to begin with.
I really do feel sorry for her XH. lol
Yep.
And her FI might want to think about dodging the bullet.
to be fair, if somebody owed me thousands of dollars and asked for an extension on repayment but not because they were having hard times, just because they spent their money elsewhere (i.e., not "mandatory" things, luxuries), i would be annoyed. if it was me who owed somebody even $500 bucks, i wouldn't be out buying starbucks and shopping for new shoes until it was paid off, but maybe that's just me.
but, i don't really 100% understand if that is what is happening here, and the rest of this is so insane i can't really focus on anything else. lol
I agree with this statement even though I don't understand the whole situation either..
But if someone also owed me money, I would pretty be annoyed if they were going on vacations all the time and buying expensive things. It would not be a jealousy thing for me.
Post by thinkofthesoldiers on Jun 6, 2013 9:16:25 GMT -5
It isn't like he isn't paying her. He asked for a few extra months. The total was supposed to be paid by December 2013. He told her it might take to March 2014. The outrage isn't necessarily that he is taking some time to pay her or that she wants the money. The outrage came from her defrauding the bank and getting pissy about the extra time he asked for, threatening contempt and charging interest.
It isn't like he isn't paying her. He asked for a few extra months. The total was supposed to be paid by December 2013. He told her it might take to March 2014. The outrage isn't necessarily that he is taking some time to pay her or that she wants the money. The outrage came from her defrauding the bank and getting pissy about the extra time he asked for, threatening contempt and charging interest.
oh i agree that the rest of that is outrage-worthy.
i was just saying that in response to people saying "you're jealous of his lifestyle" or "you don't approve of how he spends his money." for me, it wouldn't have anything to do with being jealous or similar, i would just be annoyed that it was inconsiderate of the person to not prioritize their obligations over their wants, because i would never do that to someone i owed to.
but i get that she has also been inconsiderate, and i would not commit fraud over it. lol
I'm not completely up to speed here. If, on paper, he no longer owes her the money then wth is going on? That was the trade she was making to get out of the house, she knew that.
Post by cheeseandcrackers on Jun 6, 2013 9:21:00 GMT -5
I get that, and that is a shitty thing to do.
Speaking from my point of view of course, and I know people are different, if I owed a loan to someone, especially an ex, I would be more concerned about paying the loan off quicker to them rather than buying expensive things I didn't need.
Yes, this needs explained better to me. Ethically, he does still owe her this, yes? It's not alimony, it's her share of the house they shared and were paying for together? I understand that he is legally scot-free now that she lied and forged and said he was done paying her, which is flamable, but he SHOULD still give her her money, right?
Feel free to pat me on the head and move along.
I'm here. I think it was shady as hell to do in the first place, but I'm otherwise not seeing the big deal. He owes her the money. If someone owed me a shitload of money, and I did them an (unethical, but still) favor to keep them in compliance with the divorce decree, I'd be pissed they weren't paying me back in a timely manner.
I still feel like there had to be a better way to deal with making sure she got her share of the equity, but that she got off the mortgage, than this. I'm not sure what that would be, maybe some sort of secondary agreement between them regarding when the house were to sell, or get refinanced/have equity pulled from it down the road, etc....There had to be a better way than this to protect both of their interests. But, I don't play in matters of real estate.
It isn't like he isn't paying her. He asked for a few extra months. The total was supposed to be paid by December 2013. He told her it might take to March 2014. The outrage isn't necessarily that he is taking some time to pay her or that she wants the money. The outrage came from her defrauding the bank and getting pissy about the extra time he asked for, threatening contempt and charging interest.
oh i agree that the rest of that is outrage-worthy.
i was just saying that in response to people saying "you're jealous of his lifestyle" or "you don't approve of how he spends his money." for me, it wouldn't have anything to do with being jealous or similar, i would just be annoyed that it was inconsiderate of the person to not prioritize their obligations over their wants, because i would never do that to someone i owed to.
but i get that she has also been inconsiderate, and i would not commit fraud over it. lol
Yeah, I don't know that she is jealous, I mean after all she "traded up" with her ering and house. LOL Her comment in the OP about how he spends his money kind of was WTF, but I think a lot of people are guilty of judging how people spend their money when they are in debt. If someone owed me a bunch of cash and was taking a nice vacation, I would be frustrated for sure. However, I think she lost all credibility when she lied to him and the bank.
I'm not completely up to speed here. If, on paper, he no longer owes her the money then wth is going on? That was the trade she was making to get out of the house, she knew that.
It wasn't a trade; it was in the decree: my name off of the loan and a portion of the equity figure. That's it. He wanted to stay in the house, but wouldn't be able to do both and stay. This was the best solution for our situation to get what I wanted.
For me the issue is lying, cheating, then claiming to be "taken advantage of."
Also, the bank/lender wouldn't let her off of the house loan because they knew he'd default on it with his current income (or whatever!) and so she lied to get herself off of it and is now all pissy that he's, you know, defaulted on a loan.
Also, while I don't condone cheating, it's kind of shitty to bring the hotel thing up. That's the point for me when a post stops being about the topic at hand and starts being a pile-on.
I thought it was relevant because it shows her overall nonchalance about screwing this guy over, during and after marriage.
No matter the route we took, he would have had to have my name off the loan and pay me. This way, he got what he wanted - to stay in the house. The benefit to me of doing it this way is nothing other than not being a jerk and asking for a lump sum.
My name off the loan = decree. Judgement = decree
How is that what I wanted? It was in our settlement, so it was agreed upon by both of us. This way, he stayed in the house, too. He wouldn't have been able to do that if I wouldn't have signed the judgement.
Threatening to charge interest on money she signed a document saying he doesn't even owe.
I wrote a whole big long thing but this is what it boils down to.
This is still what I'm getting out of it
That and the fact that he, you and the lender must have known that, even though he just wanted to stay in the house, it wasn't possible for him to make the mortgage payments on his salary alone and he would have to sell.
Lucy, he's not trying to not pay the money. He asked to pay in March instead of December.
Of course ethically he still owes her the money. No one is arguing that he doesn't or that he should stop paying her. My outrage is over her threatening him with interest- she has no legal ground to do this, and in fact, legally he doesn't owe her anything.
And if someone came to the board and said their ex-husband was threatening to screw her out of money, we'd tell her to lawyer up and take him to court.
He still owes her money. She might have signed something saying he doesn't, and he'd win if he ever tried to get out of the debt, but the debt is still there.
If someone came on the boards and said, "My ex-husband agreed to sign something saying I already paid him the equity in the house, but I haven't paid him anything, and I'm just going to screw him out of the money because ha ha," that person would be run out of here on a rail.
I get what you're saying, that he doesn't legally owe the money according to the lender -- but he STILL OWES HER MONEY. And while it's unethical of her to want to charge interest, it's just as unethical and shitty if he decides not to pay the money that he does, in fact, owe.
Nobody has contested that he doesn't "owe" her the money - ethically/morally speaking. And he ISN'T threatening to not pay it back. He just asked for more time, which Bree doesn't want to grant because he's getting married two weeks after her and having a baby.
I think he probably should pay the money back because it seemed that they'd had a pretty amicable split up to this point. However, for her to come in here playing the victim, acting like he is taking advantage of her, when she said point blank that he doesn't understand what's going on and that the paperwork was all done behind his back after the divorce is just shady as shit. And, frankly, combined with some of the other shitty stuff she's posted in the past is enough for me to think Bree has spent a lot of time being bitchy and manipulative and then using her "Gee golly gosh I had no idea!" big eyes bewilderment look to get away with her poor behavior.
I have nothing more to add to this but the fact that my girl crush on thinkofthesoldiers is solidified thanks to this thread.
This won't end well for you.
Huh? Why? Because she's saying what a lot of people are thinking...sure she can be a bitch sometimes but I guarantee that she says what is on half of the peoples minds that are too afraid to post it. I don't get the TOTS hate...
No matter the route we took, he would have had to have my name off the loan and pay me. This way, he got what he wanted - to stay in the house. The benefit to me of doing it this way is nothing other than not being a jerk and asking for a lump sum.
My name off the loan = decree. Judgement = decree
How is that what I wanted? It was in our settlement, so it was agreed upon by both of us. This way, he stayed in the house, too. He wouldn't have been able to do that if I wouldn't have signed the judgement.
So which is it? The decree states that you had to be off or you wanted off for your own credit reasons?
The decree is typically based on what both parties agree to based on what they want. So the decree probably states that she has to be off BECAUSE she wants off for her own credit reasons.