Hi-my (tbm) ex-husband (we've been divorced over 20 years) stands to inherit 25% of his mother's e$tate.
She is 97 and in full time care so he is getting excited for his big pay-off that he has been waiting for his whole adult life.
Long story but that is all he has hoped for and spent almost all of his adult working life borrowing money from his folks to try different schemes and deals leaving his children without and on welfare.
He did work at times but would leave a job as soon as he could convince his parents that he had a sure thing, a deal that would pay big.
Well they never did and that is the main reason for the divorce. He married 2 more times and this current wife is very excited for the promised pot of gold.
Anyway I have heard from reliable sources that his mom has deducted his loans/gifts of money from over these years from his share and my kids are telling me that he wants to 'sue me' for that money because we were a family then. Does anyone know if he can do that?

short/quick answer:

(I'm not an attorney)

our legal system allows people to file papers, pay the court fees, etc. that initiate a lawsuit.

to get it started, he also has to serve the papers to you, sometimes by mail but usually a process server hands them to you in person.

DON'T IGNORE THOSE IF THAT HAPPENS.

(offhand advice) little chance of getting a judgement against you, but by sure that if he does, get an attorney to help, file a defense, etc. If you don't defend, he can get a default judgement without reason or legal basis in some jurisdictions.

I see next to no legal basis/foundation for such a claim, and I've been to that rodeo...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2019 05:44PM by GNPE.

Annabelle, I absolutely agree with GPNE to always take it very seriously if you are served with papers. Having said that, I think the chances are very remote for one reason: I can’t imagine any attorney taking this case on a contingency basis. That would require your ex to either pay an attorney in advance or file pro se and pay someone to serve you. If he’s stupid enough to do either of those things, you will need an attorney (but I can’t imagine a scenario where you would lose the case).

Thanks! Knowing (the X) he will talk a big show but unless someone else foots the attorney’s fees ( his mom but she will be gone) he won’t do anything. But thanks for the info- his mom provided 4 lawyers for our divorce and 2 for his 2nd divorce

Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney (nor do I play one on TV).

You can sue for just about anything, but that doesn't mean you can prevail in court. His mom's money is her money. In the past, she decided how much money to give, and to whom she gave it. She can decide who gets what amount and who is excluded (either partially or completely) from her estate by any methodology she chooses.

Unless your divorce decree specifies that you must repay anything you received from your former mother-in-law (and I'm sure that's not the case), you have nothing to worry about.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2019 05:46PM by CrispingPin.

I don't understand the facts here (I don't understand the threat to sue you for loans he took out, and for gifts of money
or other valuables (such as real estate) which occurred during the time when you were married to him), but you need to start with the basic, most fundamentally important fact, which is:

During the time you were married to him, did you live in any of the community property states?

[There are nine "community property states." They are:
1) Arizona
2) California
3) Idaho
4) Louisiana
5) Nevada
6) New Mexico
7) Texas
8) Washington (state)
9) Wisconsin ]

If you did NOT live in a "community property state" during your marriage, you lived in a "common law state."

There are huge and irreconcilable differences between these two, entirely different, philosophies of law, and they have EVERYTHING to do with how ownership is determined regarding assets, liabilities, monies received or owed due to the results of legal claims (someone was injured in an automobile accident, for example), inheritances, and gifts.

I can't help with what you are asking because I don't understand the situation, but you absolutely need to know the FACT of whether it is community property law, or common law,
which applied to both of you during the time of your marriage.

P.S. You, as a wife, are in a much better legal position if it is community property law which applies.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2019 06:00PM by Tevai.

Again, I’m not an attorney, but I can’t see where common law vs. community property would have any application here. The OP has been divorced for 20 years, she’s had neither common nor community property with her ex for that time. Assets and debts are divided by the court at the time of the divorce. Unless the money given by the mother in law was recognized as a debt by the court, and a portion of that debt was assigned to Annabelle, she has no legal liability for it.

Tevai's general point is correct. The outcome depends on the state, each of which has different laws. This is a situation that demands an attorney's help.

You can't answer these questions through logic alone.

Quote from the OP:

"....that his mom has deducted his loans/gifts of money from over these years from his share and my kids are telling me that he wants to 'sue me' for that money because we were a family THEN." [emphasis is mine]

If the money under discussion dates back to the marriage, then whether it was subject to common law or to community property law is germane. (In other words, the husband, according to the OP, is seeking to re-litigate whatever the situation was back then.)

In addition: I believe everyone should know the legal status of all income, all assets, and all liabilities which occur during the course of any American-based marriage--and not just in the possible event of a future divorce which might occur. In part, my post was to provide critical legal information to everyone involved in an American-based marriage.

Sorry, I’m going to take this argument one step further. ;)

“ If the money under discussion dates back to the marriage, then whether it was subject to common law or to community property law is germane.”

Common law vs. community property is absolutely germane during the divorce, but not 20 years after the fact. Divorce final decrees are called “final” for a reason. It’s an uphill fight to legally challenge a final settlement in the most favorable of circumstances. 20 years later? Ain’t gonna happen.

I'm not an attorney. My wife is. She said that you should definitely retain a good and aggressive attorney if you are served (one who will demand that your court costs are paid by your ex), but she said it's highly unlikely that any ruling will go against you as long as you observe timelines and respond accordingly. She agrees that you're in a stronger position in a community property state but says you should prevail in the end, regardless. In a "common law" state, if your husband and not you made the arrangements with his parents to borrow money, you should be OK ultimately.

Thank you for the information- I’m in California

Anyone can sue anyone for any reason. It doesn't mean that it will get very far. IMO you won't get served with papers (I think that's an empty threat,) but if you do, go for a consult with a lawyer. Long ago, I hired a lawyer to go to court with me once, and it wasn't that expensive. The judge basically laughed the case out of court.

OTOH, did your husband keep up with his child support payments? It could be that he is the one who owes you money.

He was not good at paying child support — on time— he got way behind & his mom had to pay so he could keep his drivers license.

Good! He'll have to include his kids as defendants in this ground-breaking lawsuit!

THEY squandered his inheritance!! The brats...

I am an estate litigator in a community property state. Your ex's claim is likely to fail for several reasons.

1. The claim, even if valid, is stale. Those who sit on their rights, lose them. A claim from 20 years ago died long ago, even if it were meritorious.

2. If the claim were meritorious, it should have been brought as part of your divorce proceedings. This is similar to #1, but slightly different. Even if your divorce were finalized last year, this would still apply. Disputes are not efficiently resolved through piecemeal litigation. A party must bring all related claims at once, or waive them.

Your ex-husband's threats are laughable. They are not worthy of one minute of stress from you. He deserves your laughter, literally.

Sincerely,

A an active, metaphorically believing NOM lawyer who appreciates much of what is posted on this board.

I agree Estate Litigator. Him wanting to come back to re litigate the divorce 20 years later would be like her coming back wanting a cut of what he receives from his mother. If she thought she was due to a cut of what he inherits it would have needed to be in the divorce decree. Yes, she will need a lawyer but I would bet that not only would she get all costs, she could counter for stress and time spent on a frivolous suit. He would also need to prove his mother kept back X amount because of loans during that period and he would have to have records that those funds were used with her knowledge, consent, and for her benefit. He would also have to sue any other wives.

IMH, non lawyer opinion, a lawyer would laugh him out of his office. The guy is just a whining blowhard.

Frankly, I hope his mother doesn't leave him a damn dime. Maybe if he didn't have Mommy to fall back on he would learn to be responsible.

Let's analyze this with some numbers:


Let's assume there's a million dollar pot at stake...or there was, because 35 years ago that's what his mom was planning to 'gift' to him via her will.

But then over the next 15 years, while you and he were still family, he borrowed $750,000 from her to cover the various $ sundry losses, as his money-making deals failed to pay off. So now he's looking at only getting $250,000 in inheritance money, and he's upset.

So he's hatched this theory that because you guys were a couple, $375,000 of what he borrowed was credited to you, and he wants you to pay that money back to him!

1. If the money from his mom was a loan, it is her place to demand repayment of your portion of the loan. If he's saying that she's collecting your $375,000 half by withholding $750,000 from the inheritance, and so you owe him that $375,000, the theory fails for a number of reasons:

    a) where's the documentation that your MIL was 'lending' it to both of you?
    b) there's a statute of limitations on suing to collect debts.
    c) if it was known that this was coming from HIS future inheritance, it wasn't community property money.

2. From the facts given, MIL never attempted to recoup the money, thus making it NOT a loan. That leaves it being an advance on his inheritance, and basically speaking, it isn't community property, unless he takes steps to make it such. If he was using it to invest in or to pay off debts from his schemes, a strong argument exists that he never commingled those funds, unless you were a listed partner in any of those ventures.


Esteemed counsel totally nailed it with the commentary about the death of any claim that might have legitimately existed due to old age. I just wanted to play around with the facts.


But just in case, I'll be sure to tune in, on Saturday mornings, to Handel-on-the-Law, to listen for your ex calling in for free advice.

I'd like to add: if a judge finds a plaintiff's case without merit, judge can award your costs to you, including atty fees..

as in not the brightest bulb even in a box full of burnt out light bulbs.

I assume that you were never a party to any written agreements pertaining to the "loans" and "gifts" from your erstwhile MIL.

Any pathetic effort to make a claim against you at this point based purely on his mother's decision to deduct amounts she already gifted to him would certainly fail for any number of common-sense and legal reasons.

Look into a legal principle called the "Statute of Frauds". Without any written agreements between him and his mother and without you being a party to any such written agreements, how would any court even be able to determine as a matter of fact what amounts were "gifts" and what amounts were "loans"?


It sounds like your ex probably doesn't even have a firm grasp on any such breakdown, let alone any kind of detailed records. Plus the fact that his Mother is essentially now characterizing everything that she ever "loaned" or "gifted" to him as his inheritance, i.e. something that she was going to ultimately bequeath to him in any case. As a result, what he got from his mother was never really a loan in any real, legally enforceable sense.

You also indicated that he often obtained money from his mom for the purpose of investing in dubious get-rich-quick schemes that never panned out. Seems like that would be pretty good evidence right there that your family didn't even derive any benefit from any of the money that he blew on those schemes and you at no point had any control over any of that money (hence you could have zero responsibility for any of it).

In any case, even if he can show that he generously shared the proceeds of his "gifts" or "loans" from his mom with his family, so what? He did not enter into any contractual arrangements with any of you stipulating that he was lending HIS money to you and that it needed to be paid back. If he got a real loan from a bank and then used it to buy gifts for friends and relatives, they would be under no obligation to give back the gifts or compensate him for the gifts at a later date. If he borrowed or received money from his mom and then blew it all at a casino in Vegas, would the casino be obligated to pay that money back to him 10 or 15 years later just because he found out that his mom was going to deduct those amounts from his inheritance? Of course not.

Some other legal concepts that may be your friend, if your ex decides to idiotically pursue the matter further:

--> laches

--> statute of limitations on contractual claims (applicable if he tries to claim you had some kind of loan repayment obligation)

--> malicious abuse of process/malicious prosecution (if he files a baseless lawsuit to intentionally harass and burden you, so as to give him a bargaining chip to extort a "settlement" out of you). This is a tort and if your evidence is good, you could possibly sue him for the balance of his inheritance plus some extra...)

I would get a time to see his bishop so the bishop can see your ex is nuts!

Hopefully some crooked lawyer will take the case and his money and maybe this last wife will dump him when she realizes there is no pot of gold and maybe he will not even have a pot at all!! He is a loser and his own mom knows it!

The sad thing is that he might have grown out of being such a loser if his mother didn't enable him all those years. Mommy has done him no favors by allowing him to remain a child.

“so the bishop can see your ex is nuts”

Although they drink the same Kool Aid.

**non Attorney talking here**

"Anyway I have heard from reliable sources that his mom has deducted his loans/gifts of money from over these years from his share and my kids are telling me that he wants to 'sue me' for that money because we were a family then. Does anyone know if he can do that?"

The short answer is no. It is her inheritance and she can split it up any way she wants..

I don't understand why he wants to sue you. You helped to spend the money that HE convinced his mom to give him??? No legal standing for that.

Just like if he got a pot of gold from his mom via an inheritance...you couldn't sue hime for that either.

I think this is the best legal reason why a suit would fail. The 20 year stale suit/laches/statute of limitations defense could fail because the time begins to run when a person knows they have a suit. Ex wouldn't know he had a cause of action until he found out mom was deducting money. It could even be said he doesn't have a cause of action until he finds out what his inheritance actually turns out to be.

But the main reason, as I see it, that his supposed lawsuit is laughable, is that he's got no entitlement to any money from his mother at all. Apparently, his mother's reasoning is that he already spent his inheritance.

The divorce 20 years ago already sorted out the assets and liabilities between the marriage partners. That's done, and a limitations period would definitely apply because there is no way an ex wife could be liable for money given by mom and spent by ex after the divorce. And anything before the divorce has already been sorted out.

Mom gave gifts to her son (which she may have called loans, but they weren't loans because they were not to be repaid), and mom declined to give additional gifts to her son as an inheritance. Ex isn't entitled to any more money, ex doesn't have to answer for what he spent his earlier gifts on, and therefore, no one else is responsible to pay ex what he's not entitled to have.