So he can just keep the money that belongs to me?
So he can just keep the money that belongs to me?
No, you sue him. That is what you do in a civil case.
And that costs money and time which I don’t have.
Then you are stuck I guess.
Thanks for the encouragement, much appreciated!
Few of the volunteers here are here to be cheerleaders.
Let me ask you: Are we given to understand that the divorce decree: (1) Granted you exclusive possessory rights to the home; (2) Ordered you to individually assume all future accruing costs of ownership - YET (3) left the ownership of the home unaltered leaving recorded title to the home remaining in your joint names? If not, then what are we to make of this statement: "My ex and I co-own the marital property"?!
If so, then you've got bigger concerns than quarreling over this lousy rebate check. Also, if so you must have been represented in court by a diseased squirrel. Because if so, you cannot dispose of the home nor refinance the mortgage loan without your ex husband's cooperation. And if he should die, then you'd dealing with his estate and/or heirs.
Are you aware that if so, that you two now hold title to the former love nest as cotenants the worst possible way to own real property. And although his ability to sell his one half undivided interest might be curtailed by the language in the decree, that his attaching and levying creditors would be under no such restriction?
All is correct in your statement except for the last paragraph. We do have added language to the divroce decree that protects the co-owned property against such. I am very well aware of the predicament of needing him agreeing to sell the house. I am aware I would need ot go to court to have them compel him to sell if need be. But thst is not the issue this time around, I know it will be an issue later. Everything is an issue with him.......
Where do you come by this absurd notion that the divorce decree "protects the co-owned property" against any of your ex-husband's attaching judgment creditors?
Apparently you are oblivious of the meaning of "due process of law" as if a family court would have the ability to preemptively deprive his judgment creditors - present or future - of their right to levy against his undivided one half interest in the home. Trying selling that "theory" in an attempt to abort an IRS lien!
Secondly you are dreaming if you think that "when and if needed" the court will allow you to reopen the divorce case and order your ex "to agree to sell" his undivided one half interest in the home. You can no more compel him to sell his vested interest than he could force you to sell your vested ownership.