Privity of contract in divorce decree

[John99876]

In a divorce decree in Ohio relating to the liquidation of assets, the decree contained the following clause: "The[Camper] shall be sold to [XYZ} Sales, Inc. and the proceeds divided equally between the parties."

Question. XYZ Sales, Inc. was not a party to the case, the decree, etc. The language was forced in by one party with the understanding of the other party that XYZ Sales would pay an initial estimated price. Now XYZ Sales, Inc. has refused to purchase the camper, and then after discussion, has offered a ridiculously low price (sweetheart deal). Is this clause enforceable? How can XYZ Sales be forced to buy the Camper, they never provided any legally binding agreement to do so.

One party is afraid they must basically give away the asset to XYZ Sales, rather than sell it to someone else for a reasonable price, or be in contempt of the decree. However the clause does not seem enforceable and appears to be originally defective due to lack of privity of contract with the third party.

Trying to understand how to interpret this situation. Thank you.

 

[Zigner]

In a divorce decree in Ohio relating to the liquidation of assets, the decree contained the following clause: "The[Camper] shall be sold to [XYZ} Sales, Inc. and the proceeds divided equally between the parties."

Question. XYZ Sales, Inc. was not a party to the case, the decree, etc. The language was forced in by one party with the understanding of the other party that XYZ Sales would pay an initial estimated price. Now XYZ Sales, Inc. has refused to purchase the camper, and then after discussion, has offered a ridiculously low price (sweetheart deal). Is this clause enforceable? How can XYZ Sales be forced to buy the Camper, they never provided any legally binding agreement to do so.

One party is afraid they must basically give away the asset to XYZ Sales, rather than sell it to someone else for a reasonable price, or be in contempt of the decree. However the clause does not seem enforceable and appears to be originally defective due to lack of privity of contract with the third party.

Trying to understand how to interpret this situation. Thank you.

Sounds to me like the one party should have objected to the very specific language included in the decree. Sounds to me like the one party will need to go back to court to have this revised if the one party doesn't believe that the buyer is offering a fair price.

 

[adjusterjack]

Trying to understand how to interpret this situation.

Who are you in this "situation"?

Why can't the two "parties" just agree to to ignore that provision and sell it privately for the best price and split the money?

If nobody gripes, no harm no foul.

 

[zddoodah]

Is this clause enforceable?

The court would have no jurisdiction to force XYZ to buy the camper, but the court could enforce the decree by requiring a sale to someone else or on whatever terms XYZ would agree to.

One party is afraid. . . .

He or she should be conferring with his/her attorney about his/her concerns.