I'm going to try to ask my question(s) without going into too much unnecessary detail, yet giving you the information I think you need.

Scenario: Wife (prior to marriage) purchased a house from former in-laws and fiancé moves in. Several years later, after their marriage, they talk the new husband's mother into withdrawing approx. $21,000.00 from her IRA and using that to purchase the property adjoining the wife's residence. There was no written contract between the wife, new husband and new mother-in-law, but there was a verbal agreement and other witnesses to said agreement. A bank account had even been opened into which the monthly payments were to be deposited. A year and a half later, new husband leaves wife, who had always been in charge of their bank accounts and made payments on bills/debts. She had never made one payment to the new mother-in-law per the verbal agreement. (Yes, he realizes now that he should have been a party to the money disbursement, etc. and vows to never not be party to it again, but that's another issue altogether.) During the divorce proceedings, and without giving the new mother-in-law time to discuss how the property was obtained and that there had been a verbal agreement (he handled the entire case this way), the judge declared the property was marital and declared it should be auctioned with the parties dividing the proceeds. However, all liens, if any, were to be paid off first.

Now, in the meantime, between the time the husband has moved out and the final divorce hearing, he has been paying his mother back at the rate of $400.00+ a month. The wife still has not paid a dime, and even lied about it on the stand, claiming the property was a gift from the new mother-in-law. Unfortunately for the new mother-in-law, her name is nowhere on the title or deed.

Does the new mother-in-law have any recourse in this matter? Or is she just up a creek without a paddle, leaving her son to pay the entire debt, with both learning a valuable if very hard lesson? Can she file a judgment on a verbal agreement? And then file a lien?

Thanks in advance.

P.S. As far as property tax laws, etc. we're in Arkansas...

In most places that I am aware of, all real estate purchases to be legal have to be in writing, so if there was a verbal agreement to purchase a home, by most state laws in the US it would not be binding.

I'm not sure the mother-in-law has any recourse. Technically she is the owner of the property as she is the one who purchased it. She has the option of holding her son and soon-to-be ex daughter-in-law to the terms of the agreement or not. It's kind of surprising that the judge declared the property in question "marital property" ; that seems to me a bit of a stretch. She can try suing the soon-to-be ex daughter-in-law for her share of the payments. A judge may or may not consider an enforceable contract to be in effect. I'm not sure a lien is in anyone's best interests at this point as the mother-in-law owns the property and doesn't want a lien imposed on herself. However, if the judge that heard the divorce proceeding intends on going through with ordering the sale of the property as part of the "marital" estate, you could file a lis pendens on the property while awaiting the hearing in Superior Court, when you'll ask that the family court's ruling be overturned and the contract be enforced on the daughter-in-law. If the judge then rules in your favor, a lien will be placed on the daughter-in-law's "share" of the property until she satisfies her portion of the debt.

Unfortunately in this proceeding, the judge seemed to side entirely with the soon-to-be-ex. I'm not saying that because I am partial to the husband and mother-in-law, but as a former legal assistant, I was dumbfounded by some of the things he let slip through on behalf of the wife (he awarded her several pieces of property that didn't even exist or that were pre-marital or didn't belong to them at all but to some of his friends -- still more of her lies -- and because he did not make her provide a complete property listing prior to the hearing, and then went completely on her property listing at the final hearing -- the husband didn't have time to review what she had listed. The judge even gave her property that she actually stated was pre-marital or belonged to the husbands' friends. So the property issue here didn't surprise me at all.

There was no home on this property, just the property itself. The judge declared the home to be non-marital, even though she was, technically, married at the time of the purchase. Another of his brilliant judgments... Seems to me the whole thing needs to be re-heard in front of a more competent and willing-to-listen judge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlightsOfFancy

Seems to me the whole thing needs to be re-heard in front of a more competent and willing-to-listen judge.

---

Hello Flights:

I don't know. I read and read and read... I didn't read anything about your son's lawyer. Why is that?? He didn't have one?? Oh, that's not good. Maybe if he did, the judge would have been a little more competent.

excon

Actually, he's not my son, and yes, he did have a lawyer, and even with a lawyer, the judge was not competent. But that's not what I have a question about. The question was about the son's mother's ability to get her money back from the soon-to-be-ex...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Flights:

I dunno. I read and read and read.... I didn't read anything about your son's lawyer. Why is that???? He didn't have one???? Oh, that's not good. Maybe if he did, the judge would have been a little more competent.

excon

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlightsOfFancy

The question was about the son's mother's ability to get her money back from the soon-to-be-ex...

---

Hello again, Flights:

Oh, I understand what the question was...

I was just trying to disabuse you of the notion that "fair" happens in court... It doesn't. WINNING or losing happens in court - nothing else. Fair has nothing to do with it. Usually the guy with the bigger gun wins - it doesn't matter too much who is right.

So, that's why I was talking about your gunfighter, not the law.

excon

Sadly, at times, I tend to be the eternal optimist, always thinking the bad guys will lose, or at least "get theirs" one day... And, here again, I'm being the optimist, I believe the soon-to-be-ex will. She's lied and cheated and stolen (from the State gov. and the blind, no less) and eventually that will catch up to her, esp. in her current employment with the Fed. gov. Or at least, in my mind, it will. I'm hoping that this is one time where the good guys (meaning those trying to help out family members who end up getting burned) will prevail. Not sure that will happen, but I can still hope...

And the gunfighter apparently didn't bring out his best guns, because his aim was off that day. He's normally a blustery bull, but that day, I think he was more of a lamb...

There are judicial review boards. The husband's lawyer should help him submit the case to one. If the errors are as glaring as you say, then the board may return the case to another judge. It may not happen (judges are a cliquey group), but its worth a try. Of course the lawyer may be afraid to do it because of the consequences on future cases. So another lawyer, who doesn't appear in Family court may have to do it.

As for the mom's chances, that's also worth a shot. If it can be proven that her $21K was used to purchase the property, she has a chance of establishing and interest in it.

Well, glaring could be used to describe it. For instance, he awarded the wife a camper that is in the son's mother's uncle's name. The son has absolutely no claim to it, yet she claimed it was a gift to them from his now-deceased father -- whose name was not on the title either. Yeah, you could say there were some glaring errors in his decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

There are judicial review boards. The husband's lawyer should help him submit the case to one. If the errors are as glaring as you say, then the board may return the case to another judge. It may not happen (judges are a cliquey group), but its worth a try. Of course the lawyer may be afraid to do it because of the consequences on future cases. so another lawyer, who doesn't appear in Family court may have to do it.

As for the mom's chances, that's also worth a shot. If it can be proven that her $21K was used to purchase the property, she has a chance of establishing and interest in it.

---

Thanks for all of your answers. I'll try to post back and let you know what happens. I would love for this judge to go before the review board and have to explain why he did things the way he did them. He was a bankruptcy attorney before he took the bench as a family judge. I guess that qualifies him to make these kinds of decisions, huh? Lol