How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Maverick Your Own Question
Maverick
Maverick, Lawyer
Category: Family Law
Satisfied Customers: 5766
Experience:  20 years of professional experience
16823287
Type Your Family Law Question Here...
Maverick is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

This was not my understanding or intention when this was

Customer Question

This was not my understanding or intention when this was written. Is there any grounds which I can use to protest
Submitted: 4 months ago.
Category: Family Law
Expert:  Maverick replied 4 months ago.

It is unclear, but it appears to me that the clause you uploaded deals with the property division part of the divorce decree. If that is the case, then you can file a motion to clarify any ambiguity; but not a motion to modify the decree. The general rule on post-judgment modification of divorce decrees is that modification is not permitted. A New Hampshire court explained it this way:

"A property distribution in cases of divorce and separation creates vested rights upon which the parties are entitled to rely in starting and planning a new and different life. It is, in effect, an assignment of assets, however modest or extensive, reflective of the efforts of the parties and the considered judgment of the equity court in arriving at a degree of parity called fairness. Such judgments are made, as are judgments in the business world generally, upon reflection of the prevailing economic climate as well as the vicissitudes of economic times. Although, in appropriate cases, non-economic considerations may come into play . . . the great weight of considerations in most cases is economic. For this reason, in marital cases, as in the business world, modification of interests thought to be vested is not permitted[.]

McSherry v. McSherry, 135 N.H. 451, 606 A.2d 311, 313 (1992).

The courts have held that an ambiguous judgment can always be clarified. As long as the court only determines the effect and meaning of the prior decree, and does not change that effect or meaning, the rule against modification does not apply.

Customer: replied 4 months ago.
I did not receive notice in writing but Ian quite sure he will say he sent it. He wrote this letter months after he moved out. He is obligated to pay 1-2 the animal expense no matter what.
Expert:  Maverick replied 4 months ago.

Melissa, can you please state the specific question you want answered? I think something is missing from your typing...

Customer: replied 4 months ago.
I am sorry. Does this communication help prove my point? He sent it 4 months after he moved out.
Expert:  Maverick replied 4 months ago.

If he sent you written notice 4 months after he moved out then he owed expense for 10 months assuming that you put the house on the market before he gave notice.

Customer: replied 4 months ago.
In the decree it states that if one of us moves out and the other stays then they have six months and their obligation to pay expenses ends, provided they gave written notice. PERIOD Then it states if he moves out and I place the house on the market he still had to pay. The logical conclusion is he pays provided the house is on the market.
Customer: replied 4 months ago.
Is that not true?
Expert:  Maverick replied 4 months ago.

Yes, he either pays for 6 months or longer depending on when you put the home on the market and when he actually gives you proper written notice that this home is not his residence.

Customer: replied 4 months ago.
I put the home on the market before he moved out, so he pays?
Expert:  Maverick replied 4 months ago.

Yes, in that case he continues to pay for expense until such time that he gives written notice PLUS 6 months thereafter.

Customer: replied 4 months ago.
In your earlier statement you said after is the defining word and that the first sentence was the defined for the case in which the house was already on the market please explain?
Expert:  Maverick replied 4 months ago.

I have given you the same answer her and before. I am not sure where the mix up is. Since you put the house up for market BEFORE he moved out, he owes you for 6 months or longer depending on when he actually gave you written notice.

IF you put the house up for sale AFTER he moves out and gives you written notice, THEN he owes you for expenses until it is sold. This is what part 2 of Section E says but it does not apply to your case since this is not what happened.

Customer: replied 4 months ago.
why doesn't he owe until it is sold? The first clause was in the event I did not put the house on the market. Neither clause clearly covers the event if the house is already on the market but it is intended that if the house is up for sale he covers until sold... So why is it you are saying the first sentence covers if the house is for sale?
Customer: replied 4 months ago.
Here is the point while the house wax on the market when he left, it was still on the market with in 6 months after he left, so it satisfies the clause of after- there fore he is still responsible. No?
Expert:  Maverick replied 4 months ago.

What did the other expert say to you on this? You asked someone else and said for me to not take that question. What did the other expert tell you?

The circumstances under which he has to pay you expenses till the date of sale are very specific and narrow under part two of E. Notice that if you do not put the house up for sale within 6 months after you receive notice, then also he does not have to pay till the date of the sale. The 2nd part of E ONLY applies if you put the house up for sale AFTER notice from Peter; Not if you put it up for sale BEFORE notice from Peter.

If the court wanted to say what you want it to mean then it would have simply said: "if Melissa puts the house up for sale, then Peter is responsible for expenses until it sells." In that case it would not matter whether you put the house up for sale before or after he gave you written notice.

Customer: replied 4 months ago.
It wasn't the court who wrote this it was my divorce attorney and I was very clear to him on the meaning. I told him very pointedly that peter needs to pay as long as I put the house on the market - so he isn't trapped paying if I chose not to market it.
Expert:  Maverick replied 4 months ago.

I am assuming that the court signed it though correct? It really has no bearing as to who wrote it if the court signed off on it or if you and your ex agreed to it. If you choose not to market it now then he is still under the first clause. It is unclear what the outcome would be if you took it off the market and then put it back on the market within 6 months of his written notice. To get an answer for that you would need to get a clarification from the court since that situation is not addressed.

Customer: replied 4 months ago.
He will say he gave written notice. He has already made up more fanciful claims ( not yet brought up in court- except by me) that I fraudulently used his credit card and intercepted personal communication between him and his accountant. Lying clearly means nothing to him. and he didn't even show up for our hearing on Monday and his attorney still got to put off the hearing until October.
Customer: replied 4 months ago.
then it is only a status hearing.
Customer: replied 4 months ago.
I want this over with as he will now continue to vandalize the house ( which is on the market break and steal my stuff) and probably make many more accusations... Only this time he will have the personal data he gathers in discovery to fabricate from.
Expert:  Maverick replied 4 months ago.

You need to submit these new items under a new post.

Related Family Law Questions