Who is the deadbeat here?

[draco664]

Or, do you mean that the judge is required to provide some sort of recompense to the party that the change is detrimental to? In that case, I can follow.

Bingo. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I knew what I meant...

Edit: An example given to my by a lawyer at work.

A is diagnosed with cancer, and sells his classic car he inherited from his dad to B. But A wants to use it for the next year until his death.

So the contract between them states that B buys the car for 50K, even though the value in a year's time is still likely to be double that. That way, A gets money now to live the high life while waiting to die, B gets a classic car he's always wanted. Payment is made.

A year later, A is in remission, and wants to keep the car. So the judge rules that A must pay B the original 50K plus interest ( to return the original sum) AND pay B another 12K for reneging on the contract.

So, the contract got broken, but both parties "benefit" from it. If the extra 12K was more than A wanted to spend to keep the car, the contract would stand.

[Canarr]

Okay, that's fair.

[Aria]

I was curious, so I ran the numbers by my dad. He's a banker and he's handled mortgages. Assuming we're generally correct about her 7k income, he says there is no way in hell she could handle a 600,000 dollar mortgage, property taxes and all that stuff. It's not enough. I think he's right... I make maybe 3k take home pay a month, and the most I would get approved for a mortgage is 200k. So the upper limit on her mortgage should be 500k, and that would be a stretch with 4 kids.

However, my dad and I agree she should have sold the house immediately as soon as she got it. It's an excellent source of equity, since waterfront property keeps its value and she doesn't NEED it. She could easily move to a cheaper community or even a cheaper city. It would mean uprooting the kids, but you have to do what you have to do. My sister got a 3 bedroom place in a small city for just over 200k...