Family Law Questions? Ask a Family Lawyer Online.
Good afternoon. I am Loren, a licensed attorney and I look forward to assisting you.
There is nothing wrong with asking a judge to rule on the mortgage payment obligation, other than the added expense of having your attorney have to conduct a trial. Otherwise, it is perfectly legal and reasonable.
Did you have further questions? Have I answered your question?
The main reason to resolve it without a hearing is that trials are a crap shoot. They are difficult to predict and a settlement is usually preferable if it is fair.
The definition for you is not going to be found in Black's. Your "mortgage payment" is going to be found in the terms of the mortgage where it is likely a defined term.
A settlement will not weaken a prenup. It will likely have the opposite effect since it will address an issue of vagueness and make it less vulnerable to attack.
Maybe it should be Sheperdized, and also run through a Lexus search, as well. For that, however, I suggest you retain local counsel, as extensive case research is not really cost effective at these prices when the subscriptions for Lexus run hundreds of dollars an hour.
I am sorry you do not think I am correct. Do you have much litigation experience? I have been doing this for over 30 yrs.
Typically, the mortgage payment is the amortized principle and interest. The escrowed funds are not, as a general rule defined as the "mortgage payment". They are an additional monthly charge, but not the "mortgage payment", as they are not amortized in the loan. So, if you can get the other side to agree that, at least, a portion of the escrow is "mortgage payment", you may want to jump on it. Though, you will, of course, want your own attorney to confirm this.
Does your note define the escrow payments as "mortgage payment"?