<div>
if you mean &quot;should&quot; in what-seems-fair-and-just-f<wbr />or-all sense, then, doesn't matter.<br />
<br />
if you mean &quot;should&quot; in a what-the-law-requires sense, then that's determined entirely by the divorce agreement.<br />
<br />
My reading of your explanation is the equity would be whatever the equity is (i.e. sale price - remaining mortgage) <br />
The party making the interim payments would then be reimbursed.<br />
<br />
Equity has nothing to do with who &quot;earned&quot; it? &nbsp;It's just math. <br />
The equity doesn't change because who or how it was grown.<br />
<br />
So, your second choice.
</div>


<div>
There are a number of issues that may be involved in determining an &quot;equitable&quot; solution. The amount of the mortgage payments that goes to principal have a direct one to one effect on the equity of the house and likely should be reimbursed to the payer before any split is calculated. The portion of the interest that gets applied also has an effect from an income tax standpoint. Who gets to claim the interest deduction or what portion thereof? Much of that will depend on how the taxes get filed (i.e. individually or jointly). The mortgage payments might not just consist of principal and interest but also include escrow payments for property taxes and insurance. The property taxes will be divided pro rata between the buyer and seller at settlement and a decision on the distribution of any amounts reimbursed to the seller needs to be determined (likely taking into account such amounts paid during the period the one party is making the payments). Additionally, often the homeowners insurance company may provide a rebate for the portion of the total payments made that reflect the period for which they covered but not used once the house is sold. There is a big difference between the actual equity in the house and the net proceeds that go to the seller since frequently the buyer and seller may agree on how various settlement costs are to be split. All of this should be spelled out very clearly in the divorce agreement and is incumbent upon the attorney to do so. Making sure this is done and understood by both parties should eliminate the potential for future problems. Good luck.
</div>


<div>
Just hope that the agreement states precisely what the split is :-)
</div>


<div>
<div class="content wysiwyg-content">
Suppose you have a divorce case in which:<br />
<br />
• both spouses have vacated the marital home and it is for sale<br />
• anticipated equity after payment of 1st &amp;&nbsp;2nd mortgages is ~$200K<br />
• parties have determined that equity should be split<br />
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 60% to spouse A<br />
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 40% to spouse B<br />
• one spouse is making payments on both mortgages until the house sells<br />
• equity split is to be adjusted <u>after sale</u> to retroactively make <u>current</u> interim mortgage payments shared 50:50<br />
<br />
Question:<br />
<br />
<b>Should adjustment to even out burden of current mortgage payments be made before or after the 60/40 equity split?</b><br />
<br />
In other words, after the sale occurs: <br />
<br />
<b>should the spouse currently making both mortgage payments be reimbursed from the equity for those payments and then split what's left 60/40?<br />
</b><br />
<u>OR</u><br />
<br />
<b>should the equity be split 60/40 first and then have the spouse who made all the payments be reimbursed for 50% of those payments?</b><br />
<br />
Thanks
</div>
</div>


Suppose you have a divorce case in which:

• both spouses have vacated the marital home and it is for sale
• anticipated equity after payment of 1st & 2nd mortgages is ~$200K
• parties have determined that equity should be split
      60% to spouse A
      40% to spouse B
• one spouse is making payments on both mortgages until the house sells
• equity split is to be adjusted after sale to retroactively make current interim mortgage payments shared 50:50

Question:

Should adjustment to even out burden of current mortgage payments be made before or after the 60/40 equity split?

In other words, after the sale occurs: 

should the spouse currently making both mortgage payments be reimbursed from the equity for those payments and then split what's left 60/40?

OR

should the equity be split 60/40 first and then have the spouse who made all the payments be reimbursed for 50% of those payments?

Thanks

Tricky equity split scenario after house is sold

The Math / Science topic primarily includes discussions of mathematics, physics, statistics and economic analysis, but also biology, chemistry and other sciences.