Gay Couples Face Trouble in Divorce & Real Estate

April 15 2008 Jim W Hildreth Real Estate Mediator

Real Estate Disputes involve differnces in partnerships and they do not discriminate between those who are married, gay or "friends", living together. The pain and loss is equal.

What do we do with the investment property that we have owned, or the second home that is out of state, or sharing an office together.

The home that has lost its value in the current real estate climate in 2008.

I once heard that Real Estate is all about "Dreams" and sometimes those dreams are shattered and they involve real estate.

All parties in a dispute, need to be felt heard and the lines of communication is importnant role of a mediator. Being "Neutral" is key.

The following article is educational as often those who are in "gay" relationships face additional legal challenges that are different in each state.

I share the article has having value.

Some gay couples are having trouble obtaining divorces

By RAY HENRY, Associated Press Writer

PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Gay couples had to struggle mightily to win the right to marry or form civil unions. Now, some are finding that breaking up is hard to do, too.

In Rhode Island, for example, the state's top court ruled in December that gays married in neighboring Massachusetts can't get divorced here because lawmakers have never defined marriage as anything but a union between a man and woman. In Missouri, a judge is deciding whether a lesbian married in Massachusetts can get an annulment.

"We all know people who have gone through divorces. At the end of that long and unhappy period, they have been able to breathe a sigh of relief," said Cassandra Ormiston of Rhode Island, who is splitting from her wife, Margaret Chambers. But "I do not see that on my horizon, that sigh of relief that it's over."

Over the past four years, Massachusetts has been the only state where gay marriage is legal, while nine other states allow gay couples to enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships that offer many of the rights and privileges of marriage. The vast majority of these unions require court action to dissolve.

Gay couples who still live in the state where they got hitched can split up with little difficulty; the laws in those states include divorce or dissolution procedures for same-sex couples. But gay couples who have moved to another state are running into trouble.

Massachusetts, at least early on, let out-of-state gay couples get married there practically for the asking. But the rules governing divorce are stricter. Out-of-state couples could go back to Massachusetts to get divorced, but they would have to live there for a year to establish residency first.

"I find that an unbelievably unfair burden. I own a home here, my friends are here, my life is here," said Ormiston, who is resigned to moving to Massachusetts for a year.
It's not clear how many gay couples have sought a divorce.

In Massachusetts, where more than 10,000 same-sex couples have married since 2004, the courts don't keep a breakdown of gay and heterosexual divorces. But Joyce Kauffman, a member of the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association, said probably more than 100 gay divorces have been granted in Massachusetts, and possibly many more.

She said she suspects the divorce rate among gays is lower than that among heterosexual couples, because many of the same-sex couples who got married in Massachusetts had probably been together for years.

Vermont has dissolved 2 percent of the 8,666 civil unions performed there since they became legal in 2000. Those numbers do not include couples who split up in another state.
Chambers and Ormiston wed in Massachusetts in 2004 and filed for divorce in 2006. But the Rhode Island Supreme Court last winter refused to recognize their marriage. That means at least 90 other gay couples from the state who got married in Massachusetts would not be able to divorce in Rhode Island if they wanted to.

Getting a divorce could prove toughest in some of the 40 states that have explicitly banned or limited same-sex unions, lawyers say.

In Missouri, which banned gay marriage in 2001, a conservative lawmaker has urged a judge not to grant an annulment to a lesbian married in Massachusetts.
Oregon started allowing gay couples to form domestic partnerships this year. But to prevent problems similar to those in Massachusetts, lawmakers added a provision that allows couples to dissolve their partnerships in Oregon even if they have moved out of state.
The measure is modeled on California's domestic partnership system and represents a major change in the usual rules governing jurisdiction.

"It's a novel concept in the family law area," said Oregon lawyer Beth Allen, who works with Basic Rights Oregon, a gay rights group.

Same-sex couples can form civil unions in Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire. They can enter into domestic partnerships or receive similar benefits in California, Oregon, Maine, Washington, Hawaii and the District of Columbia.

New York does not permit gay marriage, but a judge there has allowed a lesbian married in Canada to seek a divorce. In 2005, Iowa's Supreme Court upheld the breakup of a lesbian couple who entered into a civil union in Vermont.

Some Rhode Island lawmakers are pushing to legalize gay divorce. But Gov. Don Carcieri, a Republican who opposes gay marriage, is against the idea. So are church leaders in the heavily Roman Catholic state.

"Whatever name they want to give to it, it is a recognition of same-sex unions," said the Rev. Bernard Healey, a lobbyist for Catholic Diocese of Providence.





Jim W Hildreth- Real Estate Mediator
http://www.realestatemediation.org/

Dispute over sales Price

Jury sides with Realtor in dispute over sales price

Couple claimed they didn't see relevant comps By Inman News, Tuesday, April 15, 2008.
Inman News

A Carlsbad, Calif., real estate broker who showed a couple dozens of properties before they plunked down $1.2 million for a home near a golf course fulfilled his fiduciary duties to his clients and was not negligent, a jury has ruled.

RE/MAX agent Mike Little was sued by his former clients, Marty and Vern Ummel, who claimed they paid $150,000 too much for their home in northern San Diego County. The Ummels claimed Little failed to tell them about similar homes nearby that sold for less.
Little's attorney, David Bright, said the agent was unfairly blamed for the decline in value of the Ummel's house after they purchased it in July, 2005. Bright argued that homes that sold for less than the couples' had features that made them less desirable.

After a two-week trial, a jury found that Little did not breach his fiduciary duty to the Ummels, providing assistance in their three-month house hunt that included advising them on offers they made on other homes, the Voice of San Diego reported.

Bright told the paper that Realtors have become scapegoats for a declining market, and that the trial demonstrated the hard work that real estate professionals perform for their clients.
Vinnie Tracey, President of RE/MAX International, took issue with news reports that the case raised the possibility that courts might hold real estate agents for lower home values.

"This case was never about falling prices or the current real estate market," Tracey said in a statement. "It was simply about the unfounded claims of an individual home buyer, claims that could not be substantiated in any way."

The Ummels, who gained notoriety picketing RE/MAX offices and home listings, filed suit against Little and RE/MAX Associates in July, 2006. The Ummels attorney said the couple has not decided if they will appeal the decision.

Marty Ummel told the Voice of San Diego that the decision sends "a bad message to people about the real estate industry," because it demonstrated there is not the relationship of trust clients expect.





Jim W Hildreth-Mediator
www.RealEstateMediation.org

Jim W Hildreth Real Estate Mediation-Mediator

April 14 2008 Jim W Hildreth Real Estate Mediation


One of the oldest and largest questions and answers and free on the internet
is www.AllExperts.com

One can ask any question and a volunteer experts will answer your questions.

Topics such auto's, business, relationships, travel are there for your review, and questions.

One of the sections is Mediation & Arbitration.

Jim W Hildreth Real Estate Mediator volunteers his time to help those who may have a dispute and it help Jim to remain "Sharp" with his writing skills.

The following is a link to the mediation/arbitration site

http://www.allexperts.com/expert.cgi?m=1&catID=908&expID=78132

Jim W Hildreth-Mediator
www.RealEstateMediation.org

Home Warranty & Real Estate Disputes

I once marketed a house sale for a Superior Court Judge who told me that he desired to have a home warranty plan in effect after the sale of his Victorian Style Home.

He told me that there was nothing wrong with his home, in was just in case, as he saw personally lots of court cases that involved disputes after the close of escrow.

I told the judge, that I believed in home warranties and we would place a home warranty for unexpected repair expenses.

Six months after escrow, the Judges home that he sold had a defective forced air heating system was in need of repair in the amount of $1,200.

The Trade call of $55.00 was paid by the buyer and the entire $1,200 repairs was paid by the Home warranty company.

I have seen 2-3 needed repairs completed with a year of a post sale.

Home Warranties have a basic plan that cost in $255 range and ultimate upgrades can be in the $355 range.

Mobiles, condominiums, and townhouse coverages are presently $255.

These plans are often split equally between the buyers and sellers.

Why get in a dispute or a law suit over a heat pump, plumbing or a well pump in a rural area.

The following are 2 California Home warranty companies.

www.AHSsales.com American Home Shield
www.firstam.com/warranty First American Home Buyers Protection Warranty

Talk to your Real Estate Broker, attorney, about Home Warranties and the value to all parties in case of a repair or a dispute after close of escrow.





Jim W Hildreth-Mediator
www.RealEstateMediation.org

Kansas City Business and Real Estate Lawyer: Back to Normal Life

Great summary on the Mediation Process.

Kansas City Business and Real Estate Lawyer: Back to Normal Life

Jim W Hildreth-Mediator
www.RealEstateMediation.org

Definition of Mobile Home Vs Modular Home

Many homeowners have opted to live in Mobile Homes or Modulars.

Mobile Home Parks are popular for those 55 or over and family parks offer affordability.

A young couple Mr. and Mrs Barley of Jamestown, CA will soon own their first home a Modular located in a family park. The price was under $65,000.

The following is a new Calfornia Law that defines


the difference between the two.

The key to this new law is is the manufacturing date of June 15th 1976.

This new law clarifies the difference between “mobilehomes” and “manufactured homes”, and also creates a new category for “multifamily manufactured home.” The law also changes the permissible scope of work for a General Manufactured Housing Contractor (C-47).
Under existing law, the terms “mobilehomes” and “manufactured homes” are used interchangeably in many California statutes.

Under the new law, the differences between “mobilehomes” and “manufactured homes” are clarified, and a new category of “multifamily manufactured home” is added. This change is intended to provide additional benefits from lenders and others in the housing industry for “manufactured homes” which might not be available for “mobilehomes”.

All single-family factory-constructed housing built on or after June 15, 1976, that is in compliance with the standards of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development promulgated under the federal National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974(42 U.S.C. § 5401 et seq.) are "manufactured homes," and not "mobilehomes."

Furthermore, this new law also changes what is the permissible scope of work allowed by a General Manufactured Housing Contractor for these separate categories. Finally, this law also authorizes the Department of Housing and Community Development to adopt regulations relating to commercial modular homes.

This law amends California Health & Safety Code §§ 18000, 18007, 18008, 18008.7 and 18028, and adds California Business & Professions Code § 7026.11. This law also amends the heading of Part 2 of Division 13 of the California Health & Safety Code. The provisions of this new law become effective on January 1, 2008.







Jim W Hildreth-Mediator
www.RealEstateMediation.org

Mediation for the Consumer & Real Estate Mediation

The following mediation consumer guide is posted on the California Association of Realtors. http://www.car.org/ . It applies to Real Estate Disputes & Mediation.

Its also available in multiple languages.

Introduction
In recent years, our society has seen a dramatic increase in litigation. Turning to the courts to resolve disputes seems to be an almost instinctive reaction these days. However, the sobering reality is that lawsuits can be financially and emotionally draining for the participants, and can even impact our economy over the long-run. While buyers and sellers of real estate usually are able to negotiate away the little disputes that arise in the course of their transactions, sadly those disputes do sometimes end up in lawsuits.

Fortunately, there are alternatives to litigation for resolving disputes. Mediation is one such alternative that is growing rapidly in popularity—one that can dramatically reduce the time and cost (both emotional and financial) of resolving disputes. In fact, many real estate contracts, including those published by C.A.R., now require the parties to mediate many disputes that might arise between them. This memorandum provides a brief overview of some of the issues parties to real estate transactions may confront when deciding whether or not to use mediation as a method for resolving those disputes.

Q 1. What is mediation?
A. Mediation is the term used to describe a relatively informal form of dispute resolution that occurs outside of the court system. In mediation, the parties to the dispute are assisted by a neutral third person called a mediator. The mediator is not empowered to impose a decision on the parties; instead the mediator facilitates discussions and negotiation between the parties with the goal of assisting them in reaching a mutually acceptable settlement of their dispute.

Q 2. How is mediation different from other dispute resolution processes?
A. To understand how mediation is different from other dispute resolution processes, it is helpful to compare it against the various characteristics of the most common dispute resolution processes in use today: negotiation, litigation and arbitration.
Negotiation is simply the process whereby parties meet to discuss a settlement of their dispute. This can be done face-to-face or through authorized representatives, such as attorneys. Negotiation is usually done outside of the court system and does not have to follow or conform to any formal rules or procedures.

Litigation is an adversarial process whereby the parties submit evidence to a judge or jury and then rely on the judge or jury to make and impose a binding decision regarding the dispute. Litigation is governed by formal rules and procedures of court and generally is time consuming and expensive. Since it is adversarial, litigation is in effect a contest in which a winner and loser are selected.

Arbitration is similar to litigation in that it is an adversarial process whereby the parties submit evidence to a neutral third person (the arbitrator) who then renders a decision regarding the dispute. However, arbitration is usually private and not conducted in the surroundings, or under the formal rules and procedures, of courts. In order to compel another party to arbitrate a dispute, in most cases the parties must have previously entered into an agreement to arbitrate their disputes.

Mediation is different from litigation and arbitration in many respects. Perhaps the most significant difference is that mediation is a nonadversarial process. That is, the parties do not argue their positions and give decision-making power to a third party. Instead, the mediator’s role is to assist the parties in achieving a mutually agreeable resolution of their dispute.

Q 3. What are some of the advantages of mediation?
A. Mediation is a flexible dispute resolution system that can be used to resolve virtually any type of dispute. Mediation enables the parties to work together and keeps them in control of the decision making process (and usually free from lawyers, judges, arbitrators, or inflexible laws, court rules and procedures). Since mediation is nonadversarial, it also allows the parties to achieve a "win-win" outcome, in contrast to the winner-and-loser scenarios associated with litigation and arbitration. Another advantage of mediation is that it is a private and confidential process; the discussions and agreements resulting from the mediation are not part of a public record as they are in litigation.

Q 4. How does mediation work?
A. One of the benefits of mediation is that it does not have to follow any particular set of rules or procedures. However, there is such a thing as a "typical" mediation. The typical mediation will begin with the mediator introducing himself or herself to the parties and explaining how the mediation will be conducted. The mediator will then verify that certain documents, such as a confidentiality agreement, have been signed by the parties prior to proceeding with the mediation. Once preliminary matters are handled, the mediator will give the parties an opportunity to express their views of the dispute. Depending on the mediator’s style or the parties’ wishes, the mediator may then separate the parties and meet with them individually. Some mediators do not separate the parties unless a particular unexpressed feeling or issue needs to be dealt with in confidence.
Once the parties have presented their views on the dispute, the mediator will then work with them to identify areas of agreement and disagreement. The mediator does not tell the parties how to resolve their dispute, however. If the parties do reach an agreement, the mediator will assist them in reducing their agreement to writing.

Q 5. Who can be a mediator?
A. California law does not require licensing or certification for mediators. Therefore, in theory, any person can be a mediator. For example, a mediator can be a rabbi or a priest or a next door neighbor. However, most mediators are professionals who have attended training programs, received certifications from a college or a private mediation group, and obtained relevant dispute resolution experience.

Q 6. How much does mediation cost and who pays for it?
A. The cost of mediation depends on a variety of factors. For example, many government agencies sponsor mediation programs for the public, which are available for free or at a nominal cost. However, there are numerous private mediators and mediation services that provide mediation to the public as well. The cost of private mediation can vary but typically includes an initial filing or processing fee plus an hourly fee for the mediator’s services, both of which can vary depending on the mediator or mediation service. Parties contemplating mediation should compare mediation providers and their costs prior to selecting a mediation service. Usually the parties agree to divide mediation costs equally between them.

Q 7. Where do I locate mediators and mediation services?
A. Mediators and mediation services can be located by looking in the local telephone directory (e.g., under "Mediation," "Arbitration," or "Dispute Resolution"), by contacting government agencies such as the California Department of Consumer Affairs, or by asking an attorney or a local bar association (association for attorneys) for referrals. In addition, many mediation providers maintain Internet websites. http://www.realestatemediation.org/

Q 8. What if mediation does not resolve my dispute?
A. While mediation is highly successful, in the event mediation does not resolve a dispute, the parties are free to pursue any other system of dispute resolution available to them. For example, if the parties entered into an arbitration agreement, they could pursue arbitration. In the absence of an arbitration agreement, the parties would likely have to resort to litigation.
It should be noted that even if mediation does not resolve the dispute, it is still an effective way of narrowing areas of dispute, allowing the parties to express their feelings, and enabling future proceedings to be more efficient and focused.


Jim W Hildreth-Mediator
www.RealEstateMediation.org