Could and how would the person be able to have a right of first refusal if they wanted to have the house seized and sold to obtain the equalization payment?
Wouldn't it be more likely the court would make an order regarding the buy out if the spouse could show she had the money to do so and it appeared that the other spouse wouldn't be able to pay the equalization amount.
The spouse wanting to buy out the other has two children from a previous marriage and 1 child from the present marriage.
Could you further clarify as I am not quite clear on what would be the range for her offer to him if she wanted the house (e.g. FMV of $400,000, mortgage $200,000)and if the equalization payment from him to her would appear to be about $100,000 if the house and mortgage were his asset and debt as they are in his name alone? If her NFP with the house would be $206,000 (equalization payment to him $103,000) and his NFP with the house is $200,000 (equalization payment to her $100,000), does this just mean that even though she doesn't in fact have the house as it is in his name, if he were to transfer it to her, then she should only have to pay him $103,000 for the transfer give or take an amount depending on other factors and how much either wants to keep or sell it?
So to equal if it would take $100,000 to her and if she wanted to buy the house asset (from him) it would cost her ($400,000 - $200,000 (mortgage and line of credit secured against the house) - $20,000 (disposition costs)) = $100,000 to her - ($180,000) = She should pay him $80,000 and she refinances/takes over the mortgage
Or $400,000 FMV - $20,000 (Disposition Costs) = $100,000 to her - $380,000 to him = $280,000 to him and he discharges the mortgage?
If either of the above could be done, then for someone with not much cash to spare, option one would appear to be better for her? What am I missing???