Legal Question in Family Law in Massachusetts

Re: real estate

Is this still involving the divorce or did you already get divorced? If it's an action involving a divorce, the other attorney cannot work on a contingency basis. Is this an action to quiet title to the home only?

It seems like you have a pretty good case but if you (ex) husband has an attorney, I suggest you get one too. If the facts are as you say and you win in court, your attorney can then ask for attorney's fees so you don't have to pay your own attorney.

Re: real estate

This question seems to have appeared several times, in multiple forms. I have not read most of the other answers, so I apologize if I am either repeating someone or contradicting another opinion.

I believe that I also answered part of this multi-part question myself, so I hope that I am not contradicting myself.

First off, record title is not the sole and unquestionable answer to the question: what is this disabled recovering addict's right to equitable division of property? In fact, a good lawyer could argue that you swindled an incompetent out of his right -- and, one hopes, your husband got a good attorney. This is not to suggest that you had -no- right to protect yourself and your investment, but it does NOT in any way answer the question of equitable division. Stop justifying the $2,500 payout as fair, because it probably was not -- -especially- if the man was addicted and thus potentially incompetent. Have you and your attorney not heard of "undue influence," "duress," and similar concepts?

Second, a notary in Florida is of no use to you if he or she is not in the courtroom at trial. The notary may be of no use if flown up. The notary cannot testify by affidavit. The notary probably did not have a hospital lab available to test the signer's drug titers at the moment of signing. This will never get into evidence if your ex's lawyer has a grasp of the rules of evidence and the diligence to enforce them.

Third, equitable division looks to many factors. I have said before, and I believe in response to this same user who keeps mentioning heroin addiction, that addiction is seen as following a disease model by most judges. Thus, while property and children will be protected from waste, the addiction will generally NOT be seen as absolutely depriving the diseased addict of his or her right to some division -- especially if he or she has found recovery and needs a "leg up." This is about fair play, and you do not seem willing to see that. No, I am not excusing drug dependency; I -am- seeing that it is not as simple a "behavior" as we would like to pretend.

There are many factors to be considered in equitable property division and payment of alimony. Your funding of the assets is only one factor. Your easily argued misconduct (trying to cheat the ex out of the value of the property) is another factor. Needs of each party and of children is yet another factor.

The harder you push against equitable division in this situation, the more likely you will piss off a judge and get the judge to question whether the former firefighter requires alimony. You certainly have raised -my- dander a bit, if you hadn't already guessed.

Re: real estate (answer continued)

And, by the way, stop accusing the other attorney of having a contingency fee agreement unless you have seen the agreement and it says, "x % if and only if a recovery is obtained." You are making a serious ethical charge, and it sounds a little like sour grapes due to the repetition. For all you know, the lawyer is doing the work pro bono publico. If you can support the charge, have your own good attorney file a motion to force the other attorney out of the case so she can be sent to BBO. Otherwise, accept that you have a fight on your hand, and that your anger at the addict is getting a little tiresome in this forum.