Issue of Outstanding Mortgages in Brault v. Kosmowski (2020)

Published on
November 3, 2022
Written by
Angel Murphy
Category
Divorce

Property division in a Maryland divorce presents a veritable avalanche of potential issues, and one recent case relates to marital homes with outstanding mortgages. When real property is owned free and clear, this state of affairs lends itself to distribution fairly easily but financed real property is more challenging. In this post, we will discuss the recent case of Brault v. Kosmowski (2020) and its handling of dividing up real property mortgages.

Facts of the Case

In this case, the spouses owned a piece of mortgaged real property which was classified as a “marital home” and subject to division. The order assigned the home to the wife during the divorce process. However, the divorce order required that the wife either obtain a refinance or remove the husband’s name from the loan within 12 months. The wife failed to procure a refinance by this 12-month deadline. And subsequently, the husband moved to compel the selling of the home. The court initially granted this motion, but the trustee encountered substantial hurdles in selling the property. For one thing, the trustee had to deal with considerable resistance from the wife as she protested the court determination.

Assignment of Homes with Mortgage Loans

As mentioned, mortgaged homes present additional complexity for courts in property division. In Maryland, courts have wide latitude when handling mortgaged homes. For instance, judges may decide to sell a mortgaged marital home and have the proceeds divided. Judges can also assign a mortgaged property to one spouse and then attach conditions, such as removing the other spouse, obtaining a refinance loan (as was the case in Brault), and so forth. This is perhaps the most crucial piece of information readers should take away when it comes to property mortgages: when left up to a Maryland judge, there is a plethora of possible outcomes for property division.

Whatever the determination, you should always be certain to comply with the terms of the court order. Otherwise, there could be negative consequences like those in the Brault case.

Difficulties with Mortgaged Property

If one spouse is required to obtain a refinance loan, readers should know that this situation can cause difficulties. In some cases, obtaining a refinance loan with acceptable terms can be challenging. This is particularly the case for homes that are “underwater” in value, meaning that negative equity is built up from the underlying secured loan. In cases involving negative equity, the homeowner may have to involve the court directly if a refinance loan is impossible or impossible to obtain.

Mortgaged properties also present some of the same challenges as unmortgaged properties. There may be disputes, for example, about valuation, and they may need multiple expert witnesses to resolve disagreements. Disputes can add costs to litigants, and they can also alter how judges ultimately determine outcomes.

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information

If you’d like to learn more, reach out to The Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-493-9116.

Angel Murphy

Personable. Passionate. Persistent.

Brault v. Kosmowski|Court Determination|Dispute|Divorce|Equity|Family|Family Law|Good counsel|Legal case|Litigants|Loan|marriage issues|Maryland Divorce|Maryland Divorce Lawyer|Maryland Family Law|Maryland Family Lawyer|Mortgaged Property|Mortgages|Property Division|Real Property Division|Real Property Mortgages|Refinance loan

Subscribe to our newsletter

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Articles & Resources

March 4, 2024

Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023) & Unconscionability in Maryland Prenuptial Agreements

In Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023), a prenuptial agreement signed in 1992 became the subject of dispute during the couple's divorce in 2019. The agreement, which prohibited the division of assets or alimony, was initially considered fair but was deemed unconscionable at the time of enforcement. Massachusetts law, where the case arose, applied an unconscionability analysis at the time of enforcement. The courts ruled in favor of the wife, highlighting the importance of skilled legal representation well-versed in relevant state laws.

April 1, 2024

Carrington v. Richards (2017) & the Role of Participation in Custody Modification

In Carrington v. Richards (2017), a custody battle turned tragic due to the mother's failure to participate in court proceedings. Initially seeking full custody of their son, the father was awarded sole custody when the mother failed to appear at the final hearing. Despite subsequent attempts to overturn the decision, the mother's non-compliance with court orders and absence from proceedings hindered her case. Ultimately, the father's custody was affirmed, but the case took a devastating turn when the mother shot and wounded the father. This case underscores the importance of active participation in custody proceedings and the serious consequences of non-compliance.

March 29, 2024

Wiles v. Wiles (2017) & Modifying Alimony to Obtain a Longer Payment Period

In Wiles v. Wiles (2017), a divorced couple faced a dispute over alimony modification. Initially granted alimony for a limited duration, the ex-wife sought to extend the payments indefinitely and increase the monthly amount. Despite the ex-husband's opposition, the trial court granted the modification based on the ex-wife's claim of a change in circumstances. On appeal, the appellate division upheld the decision, emphasizing the need for a "material" change in circumstances to justify altering the alimony award, which would otherwise result in a harsh or inequitable outcome.

March 22, 2024

Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017) & the Impact of Previous Litigation on Visitation Modification

In family law, while the concept of "double jeopardy" may not apply, courts generally avoid relitigating settled issues without a change in circumstances. This principle was highlighted in the case of Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017), where a mother sought to modify a visitation order established in a Puerto Rican court. Despite her claims of sexual abuse, the Maryland court upheld the original order, emphasizing that the issue had already been litigated in Puerto Rico.

March 25, 2024

Mullen v. Robbins (2017) & How Settlement Agreements Impact Alimony Modification

In the case of Mullen v. Robbins (2017), a high-earning physician learned the importance of careful contract language when dealing with private agreements during divorce. Despite reaching a private agreement on alimony, the ex-wife sought modification in court citing a change in circumstances due to health issues. The trial court ruled in her favor, emphasizing the need for a "material change in circumstances" to modify private agreements. The appellate division upheld the ruling, highlighting the importance of precise contract language in determining modifiability.