Without going too much into detail, here's the scenario:
-Divorce process, the house value is equal to or less than what's left on the loan, meaning there's no equity value.
-Husband wants to sell or be bought out for profit (even though there is none to be made, and no equity value realistically means he cannot be bought out for something that has no actual value at the moment)
-Wife wants to keep the house, take over loan/mortgage payments alone. Makes less money in wages than husband, but has a pretty comfy nest egg to make up for it.
-Husband makes more, but has considerably less in the bank.
Realistically-- who would be awarded the house, or would there be a force-sell by the judge? Thoughts?
Added (1). Edit--- OK, even if selling is the better option-- if there is approval from the lender for the wife to take over the mortgage (i.e. Have the husband dropped from it entirely) and she wants to keep the house, this is still possible, yes? Or even realistic? That's the main issue at hand. One wants to keep the house and take over payments, solo, the other wants to sell even though there is no profit to be made.
Added (2). Green Money--- There's no way to buy out on something when there is no profit to be made in a sale of the house. That would be like paying somebody for something they got for free.
The wife wants to keep the house- not sell it. That's the biggest thing that a couple of people are missing. She wants to assume responsibility of mortgage and loan payments. There are adult kids living in the home. Husband wants to sell for profit, but there is none to be made. Wife has no debt, good credit.
Read more: Middle of a divorce, no equity value on home, one spouse has more money than the other?
