Husband not obligated in ex's criminal activity

Dear Bruce: Four years ago, my husband gave his ex-wife alimony, which allowed her to pay a down payment on a house and the deed is in both of their names. My husband pays the mortgage on the house and gives her additional money over and above the house payment. She has custody of their two kids. Last year, she went bankrupt and lost her job as a result of some criminal activity at her workplace. She is terrible with money and seems to be going downhill. My question is, can she lose the house he is paying for? Can she do anything that could undermine his payment to this real estate, which ensures shelter for the kids? Are we at risk or financial obligation if she gets into additional financial or criminal trouble? If he were to die, would this legally affect the financial obligations? – A.L., via e-mail
Dear A.L.: First, neither you nor your husband would have any obligation with any criminal activity the former wife is involved in. This is not true with regard to the property, however. Since both names are on the deed, it follows that both names are on the bond. Since she has gone through bankruptcy, if she named that obligation, she’s off the hook, but your husband’s name is still on the bond. If financial problems exist, and if liens get placed against the property, this does not in any way relieve your husband of his responsibilities. If he were to die, the obligations for the property would pass along to his estate if he leaves one. In short, he has tried to act responsibly, but may find himself in a financial morass. If he hasn’t already done so, I would suggest he consult an attorney to help him get whatever little protection may be available. He could ask for custody of the children, which might very well be in their best interest, although it would be an additional burden on your new marriage.

Dear Bruce: Just what are the expenses involved in the probate procedure? We think we have everything covered – the will, durable power of attorney, etc. Your column often mentions the cost of probate and we would like to know what to expect. We plan to have a family member be the executor of the estate. Is this not advisable? The total estate would be about $200,000, consisting only of certificates of deposit and a checking account. – B.G., Topeka, Kan.
Dear B.G.: It sounds to me like you have covered the bases quite well. As long as your will is up to date, a durable power of attorney will kick in, in the event that you aren’t able to look after your own affairs. I think you are on solid ground. There’s no reason why a family member couldn’t be the executor, as long as you trust his judgment and he is acceptable to the others. You should have an attorney, not necessarily to handle the estate, but just to be on hourly retainer to walk your executor through the mechanics. The cost involved should be nominal – no more than a few thousand dollars. That is a guess, and it may be more or less in your jurisdiction. Given the simplicity of your estate, it should not be difficult to handle, and as a consequence, the costs should be minimal. You did not mention having a living will. This is a written record of your desires regarding life support, and is a must for all.

Dear Bruce: You have often said to get a lawyer who is familiar with a special need. I have a workers’ compensation issue. Where do I find someone? I have spoken with a few different workers’ comp lawyers and they either didn’t want to take the case or weren’t qualified at the time (at least in my opinion). – A.N., Sparta, Wis.
Dear A.N.: Why not call your local bar association? Tell them your circumstance and what you’re looking for. The bar should be able to provide you with a list of at least a half-dozen attorneys fully qualified to handle workers’ comp issues in your area. Often, when someone presents a very weak case, attorneys will do their best to avoid taking it, and certainly not on a contingency basis. Even where a fee is to be paid, they don’t want to go into what they believe to be a losing situation.

Dear Bruce: Eleven years ago my husband and I bought a house for our son, his wife and kids. We paid $10,000 down and put all four names on the deed, giving them the payment book for the payments. We went to purchase our own home and found out that the kids’ house was near foreclosure. We paid up the mortgage so we could clear our way to buy our own home. At this point we also took over paying for this home. Then our daughter-in-law had an automobile accident, which was her fault, and yes, there were injuries. She did not have insurance on her car and before the insurance company could come after her, we had our names removed from the house by a quitclaim deed. It was recorded with the county just in time. Now my son is getting a divorce from her and we are selling the house. She feels that we owe her money since her name was on the deed for seven years, even though we made the mortgage payments. Do you know the law on this? She says that she will sue us if we don’t give her money from the sale of the house. Is there a statute of limitations for her to sue us? After years of neglect on this home, we are not coming out well after all these years of payments. – S.A., Fair Oaks, Calif.
Dear S.A.: See an attorney immediately. The idea of putting so many names on a deed can be disastrous, and many times I have pointed out that in the event of a divorce, you are putting your investment in serious jeopardy as your daughter-in-law is currently demonstrating. Whether the quitclaim deed is proper is yet another matter. If the person with whom your daughter-in-law had the accident determines that this was done to transfer an asset, they may very well have a claim against the parties involved. Whether there are statutory limitations is a legal question for a local attorney. The best advice I can give my readers is to not get involved in situations of this kind with your children. If you wish to help them with a house, either bite the bullet and go in as a co-maker of the loan (which I don’t recommend) or put the home in your own name and when they are financially stable, arrange for a transfer.

Dear Bruce: We’re a young couple with two children, ages 7 and 2. Recently we went to a lawyer to have a will drawn. The lawyer discouraged us from having a will and said that it would be far more practical to have a living trust, which he would set up for about $2,000. Does this seem like reasonable advice and a decent expenditure? – C.E, via e-mail
Dear C.E.: If that’s exactly what your lawyer said, I think he should be disbarred. Everyone needs a will. It may well be that given your assets, which you didn’t disclose to me, a living trust might be in order, but the most important consideration to this writer is that you have to name a guardian for your children should you not be here, and that is best done in a simple will. Of course, you should consult the people named before you name them. If your attorney did not point this out, get another.

Bruce Williams is a national radio talk show host and syndicated columnist.
[[In-content Ad]]