Long ago, and far, far away, I was sitting in a conference room with my attorney, The Plaintiff, as well as her attorney. We were discussing asset distribution. Her attorney announced that THEIR plan was that we sell the house, split the proceeds, and ride off into the sunset, separately.
Okay, that deserves some context. We had purchased that house something like 8 months prior to this conversation, it was in 2008 (remember those days? Housing values were plummeting like a drunken frat boy off a second floor porch), and we had obtained a “zero down” mortgage. I had kept an eye on housing values, and had noted that this house was worth less than considerably less than owed on the mortgage. We also had, between us, a camper trailer that had been paid off. I suggested, instead, that she take the house (simply so our boys would have their home, in a stable manner), and I would take the camper. I added that she could then, when she deemed it proper, she could sell that house, and keep all the proceeds. Alternately, as I observed, she could consider the market, and realize that the house was worth considerably less that what was owed. In that event, I would accept no responsibility for that shortfall. And, I’d take the camper.
Her attorney was aghast. “You cannot tell me that the house is worth as much as the camper!”
I said, “No, I am not telling you that the camper is worth as much as the house. In my appraisal the camper is worth considerably more than the house, but, it is about what your client wants, after all, isn’t it?”
To make a long story short(er), I kept the house, she got the camper, and no money changed hands in this matter.
2 thoughts on “THE PLAINTIFF AND THE HOUSE.”
Per Mr. Heinlein, a fair trade when the tables are turned is a fair trade.
Monetarily, whoever got the camper, won.
I got the house.
My kids had a stable domicile.