Wife checked out (3)

[2ltl2lt]

I met with my lawyer today to go over the final decree that her lawyer had prepared. We are going with joint custody and no child support ( woohoo!!) and we have already separated our finances and personal assets ( by virtue of her moving out) so I will have to pay her for her half of the equity in the house. In the decree she stipulated that I could pay her out over seven years without interest with the following conditions: in which case I would have to pay her in full:
1. Sale of the house
2. Refinancing of the house
3. Remarriage
4. Cohabitation with a person of the opposite gender

Now, the first two are perfectly reasonable but the other two just seem spiteful if not controlling. Even my lawyer thought it was simply emotional to include these conditions. I'm just looking for some other opinions/ insights on this.

Thanks

[Tread]

I hope you didn't agree to those terms. Don't let her dictate a thing. Especially after the MR has ended.

[2ltl2lt]

No way would I agree to this, I'm just trying to understand why she wants to continue to try and control me even after I filed.

[doodler]

I'm just trying to understand why she wants to continue to try and control me even after I filed.

Understanding is probably an exercise in futility that could lead to early onset dementia or other forms of mental illness.

[2ltl2lt]

Perhaps you are right dood. Trying to make sense out of the senseless.

[Holding]

I can see how condition #3 might be reasonable, but #4 is a definite no.

[2ltl2lt]

I don't see what either one has to do with me paying her for her part of the house. Everything else has been so cut and dry only business. I'm going to think about it

[Holding]

Well, I believe her offer to let you pay her back over time is some kind of concession she's made to you, so that you don't have to suffer under some kind of lump sum. For the first two, you'd obviously be getting access to money all at once, so it makes sense for you to pay her the balance at that point.

I see condition 3 as part financial and part punitive. On the financial side, if you're re-married, your new W will be able to contribute to the house payments, so there's no need for your XW to offer this concession to you. On the punitive side, F you, you've got a new W and your XW will not finance your new life together. Now that I think about it, this also acts as a disincentive for you to actually remarry, since it will put a burden on you to come up with the remainder of the amount at the time of your wedding. Hmmm.

Condition 4 is pretty-much all punitive. You could argue there's a small financial aspect, where your new GF would be contributing to house payments.

Anyway, that's my take. Hope it helps a little.

[2ltl2lt]

Thanks H

That's what I thought too. I've talked to STBX since and we are working on rewording some of this and a few other details that I had issues with. Although it would wipe out most of my retirement savings, I'm thinking about paying her the full amount right after the D is final.

[Holding]

You're welcome

Although it would wipe out most of my retirement savings, I'm thinking about paying her the full amount right after the D is final.

Hmmm. I'm not sure that's a good idea. Why not accept her ridiculous conditions on the house for the time being, and then if you get to conditions 3 or 4, you can use your retirement savings at that point?