The answer is yes - As Tenants by the Entities the property is still divided as marital as governed by Florida marital property distribution statutes
If you have other questions, please post them here and I will provide you information. Otherwise, I would appreciate you taking time to rate this service "good to excellent" so that I may get credit for my time and information. Rating will not close your question. You will always be able to review it. It will only close a Chat - Thank you and good luck
The couple has a baby, 9 months old, the equity is in her name. The claimant to that equity will be him. The fact of the baby will make any substantial difference?
to him claiming his share of equity?
and getting a judge to rule in his favor?
why do you get me into a chat if you are not going to chat?
I am here
Sometimes, the chat responses do not show up immediately.
Once they have placed each other on the title in that capacity it means they have Joint Ownership
The child is a separate issue
She can say she wants to buy the Father's share of the property which is based on an appraisal at today's market value
Whoever gets residential custody of the child can argue the child needs a place to live - until age 18 and if they move before than the property at that time would be split as marital but the market value may be increased and so the share to buy out is going to be higher
He is seeking his share, alleging, she married him for the green card. That would mean the house would have to be sold and proceeds distributed. he has been making all payments (taxes, HOA, utilities, parking, medical and car insurance, most groceries for the time of the marriage). Can a judge allege that selling house would be traumatic to child and forbid the sale?
Yes. The Mother can make that argument
But at 9 months old, it is not going to be easy to show that the child has become accustomed to that home
her share is about 100K, enough to buy another home, would this argument be strong enough to have a judge side with him?
And that is what she will have to establish - that the child has become so accustomed to that home, neighborhood, schools, friends, etc.
And yes, if her share is enough to buy another home the judge may very well say it must be sold and proceeds split
If the child was say 9 years old and had been going to school, etc then the Mother might have a better chance at such an argument.
can one of the parents, against the wishes of the other one, have the mother in law precluded from seeing the child?
No likely. There are Grandparent rights
So unless it can be proved that the Grandparent has harmed the child, it will be unlikely they can keep those visitations from happening
As a matter of fact, a grandparent can actually get their own attorney and enjoin into the custody suit to ensure their visits are marked in the Order
Is there a way to get equally shared custody of the child, 50/50 of the time?
will it be hard to get?
Sure. All they have to do is request it. And as long as both parents can show they are in the good and best interests of the child it would be granted
Not hard to get at all. Courts actually prefer it
Now they are still living together, but is becoming very difficult. If he lives the house and rents, will it somehow weaken his claim to the equity and custody?
Both parties will have to provide information on where the child will live, who will care for the child while the parent is working, etc. Just show what is in the best interests of the child
No. I suggest that his claim of equity and custody will not be affected by that
correction: if he leaves....
Nor if he leaves, as long as there is an understanding that he is not abandoning the family. I suggest that a written separation agreement is the best route
let's say he says to her, he will live and he wants the child x amount of time in his new place, and she refuses. He then without violence, but against her will, simply takes the child to his place and spends the weekend there and returns it on Monday morning. Will it be any violation of anything?
This scenario is before a court ruling has been established
She does not have to do anything unless there is a court order
And if he takes the child, and there is no court ordered custody, he can keep the child
and does not have to return the child.
Both parents have equal rights until there is a court order stating otherwise
And so, that is why I suggest it is always best to have a written Separation Agreement - stating when the child will be with each parent, etc
what do you mean he does't have to return the child. Can he keep it indefinitely until there is a court order?
I agree i\on the written separation agreement, but things are going in a way that there may not be such agreement without court intervention
Not that it is enforceable by a police officer, because they will not get invovled until there is a court order, but it give some semblance of wanting to behave in the best interest of the child
Yes. Just as she does not have to allow him in for visits or any visits wiithout a court order he has the same rights
Not that IT is enforceable by a police officer, because they will not get invovled until there is a court order, but IT give some semblance of wanting to behave in the best interest of the child
So if he takes the child, he does not have to return the child unless there is a court order
What did you mean by IT?
It = Separation Agreement by the parties
there is no enforcement of anything but a Court Order
If he records their conversations without her knowledge, or her phone conversations, or her emails and the recorded info shows her paradigm and intentions are not best for the child, even though she may not seem to be aware of it, is there a way he can use that in court against her?
If he is a part of the conversation, then it can be recorded and used in court
He cannot have a recording of her conversation with someone else that he was not involved in
That would be eavesdropping.
But if he has a recording of a conversation of him and her, it is legal and can be used
Also the same with any emails
However, keep in mind, that courts are wise and they can tell when someone is saying something in the heat of a moment
and so she needs to realize that with her attorney they can show that whatever she said was not intentional - only she was hurting at the time
Or something to that affect
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).