X hits on this document

29 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

9 / 12

9

payment to Lynn, the trial court reasoned that Plex “assumed the

risk

to

sell

the

property

to

fulfill

these

obligations.

The

net

effect

of

assume

the

the

language

in

the

agreement

risk

[to

pay

the

debts]

if

was

the

that

plan

Pete

[sic]

would

failed.”

(Dkt.

57,

p.

5).

Plez

argues

that

“[i]t

is

not

equitable

that

Mr.

Gastineau be required to pay anything to Mrs. Gastineau toward

the $8,000 deposit that she put down on the [Huntsville] Real

Estate, or toward any of the debts that didn’t get satisfied.

There has been no evidence that she has had to pay anything on

any

of

the

debts.

Mrs.

Gastineau’s

only

complaint

after

5

years

is

that

her

credit

has

been

damaged.”

(Brief,

p.

15).

{¶ 26} Lynn offered evidence showing that she has been unable

to obtain credit because two of the joint debts remain unpaid.

The purge alternative the trial court offered Plez to pay Lynn

$200 per month was for the purpose of permitting Lynn to make

payments on those two obligations, relieving her credit problems

to

that

extent.

We

see

no

abuse

of

discretion.

{¶ 27} Neither do we find the relief the court ordered is

inequitable.

Plez agreed to pay the two debts “[i]n consideration

of

the

property

division

set

forth

in

this

agreement.”

The

Separation Agreement and decree provided for division or

distribution of other properties, including motor vehicles, boats,

household goods, bank accounts, stocks and bonds, and retirement

Document info
Document views29
Page views29
Page last viewedSat Dec 03 10:05:19 UTC 2016
Pages12
Paragraphs817
Words2628

Comments