Check out some similar questions!

Knitro · Jan 15, 2007, 07:42 PM

In 1997 My ex and I purchased a home in California. I was deliquint on my child support so the real estate agent surggested that we repair her credit and use her name only. This would keep a lean off the house. A few months after we moved into the home I was told that the finance company asked for a quit claim deed. My work requires that I travel
So I couldn't get back to sign one. She signed it for me in the presence of her former boss.
She later took out a loan on the home and transferred the home to herself as a widow.
I now find out that she has since sold the home to my neighbors who are realestate agents. Is this a legal sale? And if not, How can I get the home back? I was told that when she transferred the home to herself as a widow that invalidated the quit deed. We are still married but divorceing. I can use some help. Thank you.

excon · Jan 15, 2007, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by Knitro

In 1997 My ex and I purchased a home in california. I was deliquint on my child support so the real estate agent surggested that we repair her credit and use her name only. This would keep a lean off of the house.

Hello Knitro:

It also kept you from proving ownership. You couldn't own a home because a lien would have been filed against it, so you had to fool somebody into thinking you didn't own the house. It worked. However, sometimes there's a downside to fooling somebody (especially your children) - you get fooled yourself.

It was awfully nice of you to give your present (but not for long) wife, a house. I'm sure she's very appreciative. Indeed, she can do anything she wants with it.

excon

PS> Next time, get your legal advice from a lawyer instead of your real estate agent. Bwa, ha ha ha. After that, you might ask yourself if I'm happy you got cheated. The answer to that would be a resounding YES. You were cheating your children, weren't you?? The answer to that would be a resounding YES.

Fr_Chuck · Jan 15, 2007, 08:55 PM

It is fraud, but since you were aware of it, and allowed it, that is the real issue, since you would have signed it had you been there.

And having been aware of it, did not ask or demand any action since it was done.

So of course you can make a claim that it was not a legal transfer and she committed fraud, she will either say she did not or say she did sign it but that it was done not as a fraud but did it with your approval.

This may or may not go with a judge. I think on the pure legal side, you have a case, but the fact you were aware of it, and did not do any legal action for years, may show a judge you had given approval of this and in fact while not proper, no true action was done to fraud you,

And also since you were doing an illegal act of trying to hide your property, that also will not look good toward the issues.

So most likely you have a claim against your wife to sue her, but since you are stlll married, and the money from the sale of the house went into your family, you should be able to get your half at division of property, so again no loss may be shown either

ScottGem · Jan 16, 2007, 09:14 AM

To be honest with you, this story is full of holes. If when you bought the house, it was in her name, then why would she need to transfer it at all? Why would the finance company need a quit claim deed? Who was quitting the deed in favor of whom?

The only thing I can say here, is if she removed your name from the deed, claiming she was a widow, then you should be able to prove your alive and therefore a fraud exists. But if your name was never on the deed, the property is hers to do what she wants.

kanicky73 · Jan 16, 2007, 09:50 AM

Wait a minute here, did all of you miss the part where he said she put herself as a "widow". I don't see where all of you are saying he played a part and was aware of it. If I am reading it correctly he did do the quit claim deed to get his name off it to avoid the child support thing (shame on you) but had no control over her saying she was a widow just to sell the house, therefore not needing his signature (cause supposedly he was dead). She committed the fraud! I would definetely get a lawyer and see what you can do. This may go deeper than you think. If somehow your social security number was attached her claim that your dead, then you may have a whole lot of other issues that will pop up. If you try to go and get credit anywhere, you will show up as deceased, and you are very much alive. I think you really should seek legal advice.

excon · Jan 16, 2007, 10:02 AM

Hello kanicky:

Nope. That's the strange part. She ALREADY owned the house - fully - without him. She didn't need to mention him (dead or alive) EVER in connection with this house any more than she had to mention you or me.

He's trying to cheat his kids, and the new/ex wife is trying to cheat him. As far as I'm concerned, they deserve each other.

excon

Dr D · Jan 16, 2007, 10:07 AM

What the mortgage company requested at the time of purchase, was a Disclaimer Deed, not a Quit Claim Deed. The Disclaimer Deed is the standard instrument used to keep one spouse off title and mortgage in Community Property states like California, Arizona and others, usually because the disclaiming spouse has credit issues. As far as I know, every signature on a deed must be notarized. Since your ex did not have a power of attorney to sign for you, she committed forgery, aided and abetted by the notary. You have a claim against your ex and the bond of the notary. Consult an attorney for further action. Since the subject property has been sold, a claim on the property might result in a pay off to you from the Owner's Title Insurance policy. Then the Title Company would try to recover from your ex and the notary.

kanicky73 · Jan 16, 2007, 10:08 AM

Ahh, thank you for clarifying. I was slightly confused. I guess your right, it sounds like it just got a out of hand and turned into a vicious circle. It will probably catch up with both of them in the end.

kanicky73 · Jan 16, 2007, 10:15 AM

No wait I just went back and read it again. She bought the house originally by herself. Then the finance company (because they live in a joint property state) told her she needed to "quit claim" him to the deed. Which then put him on the title to the house. She then turned around and I am guessing wanted to refinance, and that is when she said she was a widow. You are correct in your statement that they both were not truthful in the beginning by not putting him on the loan because of child support. The thing is she wanted to refinance and probably take some money out in a cash out refi, and didn't want him to know about it. Because had she not claimed she was a widow, the mortgage company would have required both their signatures to do so. So my next question is why did the mortgage company not ask for a copy of the death certificate? I am intrigued by this whold thing because I work for a mortgage company and have for several years, and find this all very strange. Either the person is not telling us everything or is confused as to how things really went down. I am not sure.

ScottGem · Jan 16, 2007, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by kanicky73

Wait a minute here, did all of you miss the part where he said she put herself as a "widow".

I suspect you posted this before reading my response, because I did pick up on that. The thing that isn't clear is what this quit claim was. It sounds like both you and Dr D are probably correct in that it was a Disclaimer deed. Whether it was fraud or not depends on how it was signed.

As to the Widow issue, I still come back to why she needed to claim she was a widow and who she was widowed from. By all we have been told, his name was never on the deed.

kanicky73 · Jan 16, 2007, 10:54 AM

ScottGem, Bingo! Now I know I wasn't losing it... LOL. It all seems very strange and I think the Knitro should give us a little more info, seems like some things have been "left out". That was my queston too, who did she say she was a widow to? What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!

Dr D · Jan 16, 2007, 11:20 AM

I think that the original post by Knitro is a bit confusing. Upon rereading it, I believe that his soon to be ex purchased the home as a married woman purchasing as sole and separate. When she refinanced the home there was no transfer of title; she just stated that she was Unmarried (includes single, divorced, widowed). Since her spouse's name was never on title, no further documentation was needed. By stating that she was a widow, it eliminated the possibility of the lender asking for any divorce decree (to check for any contingent liabilities).

ScottGem · Jan 16, 2007, 11:23 AM

Hopefully the deadbeat dad will come back and clarify the points under contention. Otherwise we can speculate to the cows come home.

kanicky73 · Jan 16, 2007, 11:30 AM

Ahh good point Dr D. And I agree ScottGem, we all have so much to say and Knitro isn't here to defend himself. If there is a defense at all.

Knitro · Jan 16, 2007, 05:44 PM

I'm sorry if there is a misunderstanding. I wasn't running from child support. I was in a custody battle at the time we were to purchase the home. I had a very pissed off ex who wanted to punish me. Being the better and working parent, I received custody of my children and I am now owed support from their mother. Next my ex and I agreed that the home was OURS not HERS. We received a lot of help and advise from friends on the purchase. We lived there for seven years and were together for twelve. The Down payment and mortgage came from my account. We split and she sold the house behind my back. I didn't find out until it was sold. California law says you are not supposed to sale any property without your spouses written consent while in the divorce proceedings. She ignored this fact as did the buyers who knew that I hadn't died. I hope this answers some of your questions. MLD

Knitro · Jan 16, 2007, 05:50 PM

I need to add one more thing I didn't pick up on at the time. When I spoke to her about my name being put on the title. She told me flat out I couldn't go on the title. Of course not I'M DEAD.

ScottGem · Jan 16, 2007, 06:03 PM

First my apologies for referring to you as a dead beat dad. I shouldn't have jumped to that conclusion.

You have a good point, that CA being a community property state, selling any property that might be considered community property, would violate the law. And the primary residence would certainly be considered community property no matter who's names were on the deed.

So it would seem you have some grounds for action against her. Now you need to decide what you want to do. Do you want sue her or just use this against her in your divorce proceedings?

Knitro · Jan 16, 2007, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Hopefully the deadbeat dad will come back and clarify the points under contention. Otherwise we can speculate to the cows come home.

Until you get the facts don't judge. I resent the deadbeat dad comment, welfare in California is a beautiful thing. They cut you off after awhile. (Oakland California). And the real deadbeat has to get a job and pay child support. She didn't and she doesn't.:rolleyes:

Dr D · Jan 16, 2007, 06:16 PM

Knitro- Please look at post 7 & 13 of this thread, as I believe they contain the answers to your question. I hope that LisaB the attorney sees this thread and responds. She has more credentials to answer this question than any of us.

Knitro · Jan 16, 2007, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by ScottGem

First my apologies for referring to you as a dead beat dad. I shouldn't have jumped to that conclusion.

You have a good point, that CA being a community property state, selling any property that might be considered community property, would violate the law. And the primary residence would certainly be considered community property no matter who's names were on the deed.

So it would seem you have some grounds for action against her. Now you need to decide what you want to do. Do you want sue her or just use this against her in your divorce proceedings?

First Off I accept your apology. Well I'm a lineman and have tore my knees apart over the years of climbing and sports injuries. It seems that everyone accept my neighbors knew that the house was mine, She never really wanted to own. Which is why the payments were from my account. I want my home back.