Posted on: 21st Jun, 2011 05:15 am
while to start I will say hi to all.
Here is my problem I filed bankruptcy in 97 and was final in 98 well got divorced after that and the ex wife got everything in the divorce papers it states that she alone shall be responsible for the debt owed on same to the money store Corporation, and she shall not hold the respondent harmless on same. Now with that being said I now find out that the loan is still in my name only and the deed is in her name only any ideas on how to go about this one. I want to buy my own house and can not because of this loan but yet I have bankruptcy paper work in hand that show the house was in the bankruptcy. the ex wife and the money store made a deal behind my back for her to keep paying on the house with out me knowing. the reason I found out the loan is in my name is I went to buy a house and boom its shows up on my CR.
This happen in the state of Kentucky
Here is my problem I filed bankruptcy in 97 and was final in 98 well got divorced after that and the ex wife got everything in the divorce papers it states that she alone shall be responsible for the debt owed on same to the money store Corporation, and she shall not hold the respondent harmless on same. Now with that being said I now find out that the loan is still in my name only and the deed is in her name only any ideas on how to go about this one. I want to buy my own house and can not because of this loan but yet I have bankruptcy paper work in hand that show the house was in the bankruptcy. the ex wife and the money store made a deal behind my back for her to keep paying on the house with out me knowing. the reason I found out the loan is in my name is I went to buy a house and boom its shows up on my CR.
This happen in the state of Kentucky
hello eagle,
the problem with a court order in divorce, it is worthless to the bank. you both signed a promise to the bank to repay the debt. if you filed bk and the debt was to be cleared, then you need to contact your attorney. other than that, the only way to be removed from a loan is to sell or refinance the home. you can always add or remove parties to title, but you cannot on a loan. you may be able to show a lender that your x makes these payments, always has. if you can get 12 mos proof of cancelled checks and along with your bk papers, divorce decree, you might have a shot. first call your attorney, then contact a local lender in your area and explain the problem. keep in mind that many loan officers will push you to apply and tell you that they can do a loan for you, when in fact they may not be able to. find some one that has experience and is knowledgeable under divorce and bk. good luck
the problem with a court order in divorce, it is worthless to the bank. you both signed a promise to the bank to repay the debt. if you filed bk and the debt was to be cleared, then you need to contact your attorney. other than that, the only way to be removed from a loan is to sell or refinance the home. you can always add or remove parties to title, but you cannot on a loan. you may be able to show a lender that your x makes these payments, always has. if you can get 12 mos proof of cancelled checks and along with your bk papers, divorce decree, you might have a shot. first call your attorney, then contact a local lender in your area and explain the problem. keep in mind that many loan officers will push you to apply and tell you that they can do a loan for you, when in fact they may not be able to. find some one that has experience and is knowledgeable under divorce and bk. good luck
Chris, I have to submit that proving someone else has been making 12 months' payments isn't going to sway a lender that's clearly looking at a non-performing loan. Those 12 monthly payments were clearly not being paid in an "as-agreed" fashion anyway.
George, I was not aware of a loan being non performing or non payment. My reference is if the payments are up to date, and a person who is on title can prove with cancelled checks, most lenders will be able to treat this as a refinance, even though the party was not on original loan.
I just reread the original post, and I see that I undoubtedly got confused with the bankruptcy story. I misconstrued the situation as if the loan in question was a non-performing loan. I withdraw my earlier critique. Thanks for updating me, Chris.