Has anybody had any luck getting a TL deleted based on a divorce decree? According to my divorce decree, the ex-wife got her car (that was financed in both of our names)and I was to be held "harmles and indemnifified." Well, she didn't make the makes and the car was repossessed. I did take her back to court for contempt of court and the judge ordered that she was in contempt and that my maintenance payments to her were to be sent to pay off the car instead.
I have contacted the creditor and explained the situation and asked that they restore my credit report by the have said that the divorce decree was civil matter and they were under no obligiation and would not be updating my credit report. Given that she was found in contempt, would there be any chance that it could be disupute with the CRA's with all my court paperwork as support?
The civil contract superceeds the divorce decree so they can still hold you liable for it anyways. Both are civil issues. The divorce decree should only factor in if she decides to sell or trade the car, meaning she doesn't have to have you to agree to do it. I found this out when I got divorced 16 years ago.
Just sucks that yet again I have to pay for her choices. I guess the only thing I can do is put a comment on the trade line.
It sucks I know, I had to deal with it too. I got lucky with the one I had to deal with because I actually helped the finance company locate the vehicle so they could get it. For that they zerod the account and didn't try to sue me or anything but GMAC used to be easy to work with.
Yeah, I cooperated with them and told them where they could find the vehicle too. I even took her back to court so that I could use her alimony to pay the debt off bu they won't cooperate. Between the other bills she stuck me with and alimony, there were just no way I could taken on her car payment too.
Hence the "should" word in my sentence. Each state is different so is each court's interpretation of the law as the judge sees fit. In my local courts, the divorce decree does not superceed the original contract and if a person violates then they can be sued so the other party can recoup the money lost. But that is true on any civil case where more than one person holds an interest in something. If one defaults then you can sue the part that they are responsible for even without a decree (found that out a few months ago). A key to some of this is, is how the verbage is used in the decree as a small word can completely change the entire definition of the order.
Hmm...I didn't see that as an option. I will have to look again.