[Tonya189]

I live in Maryland have been married for 4 years. During our marriage most of the credit cards we used were in my name only. The cards were used to fund travel for both of us, improvements to property that is titled in both our names, and for other business expenses directly related to the car repair company we own. Since the debt
(which is 30k+) is on cards that are only in my name will I be responsible for the entire amount.

[ScottGem]

Generally this will be worked out as part of the divorce settlement. The divorce agreement can specify that your ex will pay off x amount of the debt.

[Sunflowers]

Besides what Scott said, I know a lot of times the credit card companies are not really interested in what the divorce settlement is. If the bill isn't getting paid, they are likely to be contacting you even if the ex is responsible or partly responsible.

[ScottGem]

Sunflowers is correct. A divorce settlement is not binding on the credit issuer. So, if the settlement specifes that one party needs to pay off part of the debt and that debt is not in their name, then you should be getting as lump sum for that payment.

[cadillac59]

I'll hesitate commenting on Maryland law but I can tell you how it works where I practice (California).

Since you incurred the debt during marriage you owe it together, equally, (and because it appears to have been incurred for what we call "the benefit of the community") even though it is in your name only. So, here the court would order you pay half and him pay half. The half assigned to you would be your sole and separate obligation and the creditors would not be able to go after your husband for that half assigned to you since the debt was incurred in your name alone. They could, however, go after you even for the half assigned to your husband, again, because that portion of the debt was in your name. To simplify: you always are on the hook to the creditor if the debt's in your name, no matter who the court says is suppose to pay it. If the court assigns it to you to pay, even if you didn't incur the debt in your name, you are on the hook to the creditor for it. If you didn't incur the debt in your name and it is assigned to your spouse who did incur it in his or her name you are not liable to the creditor for the debt.

[JudyKayTee]

I'll hesitate commenting on Maryland law but I can tell you how it works where I practice (California).

Since you incurred the debt during marriage you owe it together, equally, (and because it appears to have been incurred for what we call "the benefit of the community") even though it is in your name only. So, here the court would order you pay half and him pay half. The half assigned to you would be your sole and separate obligation and the creditors would not be able to go after your husband for that half assigned to you since the debt was incurred in your name alone. They could, however, go after you even for the half assigned to your husband, again, because that portion of the debt was in your name. To simplify: you always are on the hook to the creditor if the debt's in your name, no matter who the court says is suppose to pay it. If the court assigns it to you to pay, even if you didn't incur the debt in your name, you are on the hook to the creditor for it. If you didn't incur the debt in your name and it is assigned to your spouse who did incur it in his or her name you are not liable to the creditor for the debt.

And I am seeing divorces in NY where the Court's Order on payment is reduced to a new contract with the creditor. Court says 50/50, both parties sign a new agreement agreeing to that half.

In some instances, as "Cadillac" said, the creditor will not let one party off the hook for the debt and so, despite what the divorce says, BOTH parties remain liable. One party makes the payments on behalf of the defaulting party and then sues the defaulting party for his/her share.