This is certainly a question you should put to your lawyer. That person has much more detail than you can give here, and you should be entitled to an answer to such a direct question.

But I can give you some general information. The law presumes that you are entitled to an equal division of the home, as it is matrimonial property in joint names. But the court does have the ability to set aside that presumption in certain circumstances, if it is convinced that an equal division of property would be unfair and inequitable in the circumstances. The length of the marriage has been held to be a factor that can lead to unfairness on an equal division. Courts have ruled that with a very short duration marriage, where one spouse brought an asset into the relationship and the other spouse did not contribute to its acquisition, maintenance or improvement in any significant way, it could be unfair to require that asset to be divided equally between the spouses. The court can then exclude that asset from division entirely, or it could divide it partially. How a court will rule is up to the discretion of that particular judge, and there are no fixed rules or laws that a court must follow on this point one way or the other. It is not automatic that a court will exclude the home from division on a short marriage, but it is certainly possible.

How a judge will react and the issue of a mortgage penalty will depend on a review of the overall income and expenses for the two of you. A judge may be critical that you are not paying towards the mortgage if you have the use of the home, and if it is not realistic that the husband move back in if he has to pay the mortgage, such as if he has his own home or personal conflict between the two of you would make the situation intolerable. I am sorry I cannot give you a definite answer, but we cannot give legal opinions through this site and I could not give any meaningful opinion on just snippets of information compared to what the judge is going to receive.

You are still dividing the equity in the home, not the total market value of the home. You cannot ignore the debt.

That is understandable. Good luck.

Ok

It will depend on exactly what the motion says and what documents have been filed in support to date. Usually the person who commences a motion can withdraw that, but in some cases you may need leave of the court to do so or the other person may be entitled to costs. This does not mean you pay his legal bill, but some amount that is set by the court tariff for whatever steps he may have done to this point to respond to the motion.

If this is your choice to stop the motion, it is best to give notice to the other side as soon as possible, as they may then consent to the motion being withdrawn or discontinued without costs. If this is left to closer to the date, when they have likely invested more time into responding, then doing this without costs becomes less likely.

No, that cannot be done on your own. That would involve a transfer of land that would need to be signed by both joint tenants.

No. If he is removed from the debt, he would have no legal obligation to pay towards it, unless this was also part of your agreement. But it would make little sense to have his name removed from the debt if it is intended that he still pay towards it. This could be done if it is the only way to free up his credit perhaps.

The overall debt would still be considered in the division of matrimonial property, so he will in effect pay for half of the debt if there is an equal division of all the net property. But he would not specifically be required to pay towards this debt unless this was part of your agreement and so you would be solely responsible as far as the bank is concerned and there is no law that the bank could then look to him for payment. Marriage does not give a creditor the right to pursue the debtor's spouse for payment.

I can't say what a court will decide, but a short-term marriage can be a reason for a judge to determine that unequal division of property is required to achieve a fair result, and courts often consider all the circumstances regarding an asset in that analysis, such as when it was acquired, who paid for it, who helped to maintain it or improve it. The more factors that point to just one spouse, with no contributions by the other spouse, the more likely an unequal division in favour of that spouse will become.

Just a reminder, you need to indicate that you accept the answer or the site does not give me credit for my time on the matter.

Good to hear! I am glad you are happy with the service, and hope it can help you.

Thanks again!

The original $40,000 should not be included in the division of matrimonial property. The $60,000 taken out during marriage would normally be included and the presumption will be that there 'twas taken out for some family purpose. The court can exclude this if you can show that including it would be unfair. That can be established by your testifying and showing that you had no knowledge of the money being taken out or what it was spent on, and showing that the money was not used for family purposes. Courts can include the debt to be divided if it was used to benefit the family, even if you did not know about it.

So you would want to get records from the line of credit, and then try to reconstruct how that money was spent. If there is no explanation available from your spouse for such a large amount, a court may be more willing to assume it was wasted and not divisible. But it would be best if you can show how it was spent and show it was on frivolous or non family related things, such as gambling, or vacations or expenses benefiting him only. You can ask him questions under oath as to how the money was spent, look at other records like bank statements or credit card bills or so on to try to see what purchases were made.