property a marital asset and order its listing for sale to be sold or his listening for sale when that parcel was never legally acquired by the parties and the legal owner was not a party to the proceedings alone on paper for the rest of the world to the bank she on the property located at two thousand one hundred and eleven barbary she agreed that the property title in her name because the parties could not take the property into their own name due to poor credit been there that legally in their home that remains to be seen she wasn't represented by counsel she didn't get to defend the position and she wasn't a party to the proceeding that was really not even an issue could before the court  in terms of what exactly her interest it's of course she testified during the proceedings right sure and at that time did she indicate anything that would suggest that she believed that this property belonged to her and that it was not something that the court should consider in terms of giving up the property of the parties i don't think she raised that madman or no but i don't think she would pass either and i don't think she would advocate it or i mean she wasn't represented she was a witness she was not a party to the proceeding i don't think she knew what if any adversarial interest would be raised or brought before the court and this is the problem when the court took it upon itself in that home and know what the improper illegal for them to claim the mortgage interest on their taxes you're that's a good question i'm not i'm not counting no i don't know if it's what the law is don't know i mean i think the evidence was that they hadn't paid their taxes in a long time and i don't know that they were not necessarily following good accounting practices either a very good question but just but but just because they did it may never done correctly and so in two thousand and thirteen this human actually listed the house for sale at the request yeah marty's right ashley agreed to do it at that time and then years later and after it tortures the horse for whatever you know after she had also had to pay a significant sum of money she was called upon parties if you look at it seven the eyeless five hundred and three the court is charged with dividing the marital assets acquired after the marriage and should have brought them in as a necessary and indispensable party and did not heed to elected to throw the dice and the judge will without jurisdiction to award a piece of property that is that neither party know that is that the remedy that you're suggesting is appropriate here what happens to the rest of the judgment relative to the court's order regarding property so i think the only thing left is debt and i think that the the court ever address how this would could be done from a mechanical standpoint i mean can a reloader list a piece of property  without the title owner's consent you know how does this actually happen i've never heard of anything like this before so i'm just curious if the parties in the court discussed this you know how does this h maybe mr scott can answer the question of how this actually could be accomplished in other words forcing a nonparty to sell to the real estate in regards to the  park area residence for sale and inform dust and she was never going to sell the residents and then looking up the testimony at the time of the  was mr scott asked her you're aware that dust in the sas you to list the property for sale and she says yes right mean yes he sent me a list of real letters or something about source question and you know you wouldn't agree to any of those would you answer i didn't disagree or agree to any question you just didn't respond answer no so that's the testimony that related to the contempt attrition so he is that  it and to answer your question i do not believe he was punished at that point because once this issue was also on appeal the judge really and rightly so just avoided it and it didn't it wasn't within the jurisdiction of the court at that point so but basically that's my argument i don't believe and i believe that diane's rehman was a necessary indispensable party  should have been included the fact that she wasn't i think going forward it's a it's it is remanded that it would really be dustin's responsibility to either him plead her or or or bring a separate title they have a little interest and i gave the court two cases the coke case i think the jones case which clearly states that an equitable interest in property  can be enforced against the legal title holder and they there was never a question but that this home was the property of dustin and jackie schaefer in fact mr sherman testified if you recall my brief there was a there was an exhibit fifty nine that was a very exhaustive communication from the sherman where she acknowledged that the house was really the parties residence that she wanted them to get a mortgage and get it out of her name and then when she was testifying and take knowledge that the house had to be divided in the to sell but how does a person sell that when they don't have legal title the methodology is to st go to the legal title holder who has admitted in open court that it's their property then  that person in fact refuses to cooperate and listing this with the realtor then the process is that the parties are obligated under the court order to sell their interests the only methodology for doing that is to institute a partition suit there is a cooperation factor that this court ordered jackie to do she has to cooperate to get that so so the court envisions because of the fact i would think at least i wouldn't vision that miss sherman would have signed that as well because she didn't two thousand and thirteen when these parties wanted to sell this property in two thousand and thirteen they came to miss sherman and they said hey we're going to sell the property and she executed the listing agreement the parties put the down payment on this house the parties paid for the mortgage up until the time that they insurance with all three names on it so clearly if they go to court they will be able to prove an effort to bowl d title in for an equitable interest which is a legal interest just like a you know i guess i would be if you had a contract for deed you don't have legal title but you have an equitable contractual rights to enforce against the legal title holder so they have the ability to do that  demonstrates that the legal title owner is most schuurman and it still begs the question how can the property how can the court order the property stall without  in contempt of court by her actions or inactions because maybe you could ask a nd question st she apparently asked her mother if she was planning to sell the home what more did she need to do in order to be in compliance with the courts or well and in my opinion your honor she needed to get a listing agreement from the realtor that they agreed upon present that to her mother and asked her to sign if she refused to do that then she would have to institute with the system actions to force compliance by her mother to sell it to sell their interests and they have to she can't just sit back and say oh i can't sell my interest because my mom won't list the property i can walk away from my ethical d interest that's not what the court ordered her to do ordered her to sell their interest in the property so that means that she has to take affirmative efforts to try and sell that and it's not the same mom or even a list of the property because mama say oh no i'm not going to do that i'll defeat the equity that the parties have in this residence and say well wait a minute you know we can't do anything because you know mom is the legal title holder even though there is clearly an effort of all interest that isn't forcible so they  except property for listing without the the actual permission of the legal title owner i would say probably not but that would require them the parties to become a owner of some legal interest that would enable them to sell it which would happen through the partition proceedings and in fact what limited partition proceeding is work i've done and i must admit to the court it's been a long time but d would necessitate that property be listed with a realtor and upper reloader wouldn't accept the listing without the legal title owner's permission is that a provision of the judgment that can't be complied with to be able to list with a realtor so you have to it's going to take a two step process it's going to take a process of going and forcing the mother to acknowledge their interest legally and then once that is acknowledge to have the property so and what you know the cooperation requires taking more action than just saying oh mom are you going to sign over a list sandra if she says no then they have a procedure to enforce their equitable interest and she took no action didn't respond wouldn't even communicate with them so yes she's in contempt for not cooperating now could she physically lift the property and so she got  step completed i don't think so i don't think dustin could but i think they're going to have to go through the process of saying to her mother diane look we're going to have to take this step to force the sale of our interests and then follow through with that that's where the contempt was so mr basically are you saying that she started her responsibility and that she never asked her mother to lose the think that is it when her mom says she didn't have been in tension of listing the property she took no further action to inforce the rights of the parts and do we know whether or not miss sherman actually be willing to sell the property i guess you know saying i don't intend to bertha's if i'm asked because of a court order and the testimony that came in to act her name is now sherman is well mr jackie sherman is what she had done she said she asked her mom and her mom said no there's no further evidence of that and there is no without purge order and said that she could comply perjury south of contempt by complying with the order are you aware any other me was there i think mr david mentioned something about a and then the purge was was compliance the court orders and then a purge date was was set to make sure that she complied by that date and to my recollection there was no for each element of the contempt i guess the only way that it would become final is the blanket purge requirement as being  think we have dismissed that portion of the appeal your response was oh your honor i would tend to agree with you that that would probably be the correct ruling in light of the same court rul i don't know that they were gifts or not but but but what i can tell you your honor is they asked her they didn't take joint title of the asset with her they asked her to take ownership of the home and her so main she assumed all of the risk and  appeal the court doesn't refer to an equitable interest they just say whatever interests i mean take a close look at the record i don't see equity being argued at all a that mr scott had talked about constructive trust again equitable interest these precious things they all have to be properly planned as diane sherman was a witness to the proceedings he were not a party  i mean that that didn't come up that the court could have even been erected the parties to say bring her in i think has an obligation quite honestly i mean you know what he was doing and he put her in the chest twenty you're taking on additional debt if they contract with the realtor and don't have the ability to convey a clean title they don't have the ability to claim any title quite frankly and all arguments at the very end ok mr sabin you