Image: Canva
A family court found the note created a sham obligation and made the husband solely responsible
A Massachusetts divorce, a renovated home and a disputed loan of more than $1.5 million came to a head on 11 August 2026, when the First Circuit Court of Appeals revived a fight between a divorced wife and her former in-laws. Also published in full by FindLaw, Molly Cosel and William Wendt, known as Will, married in 2014, according to the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the Cosel and Wendt case. Those ran out by November 2017, and from February 2018 they supplied further money, which the court calls the Disputed Funds. In July 2022, the Family Court’s divorce decree ordered Will to transfer his interest to Molly, required her to pay him $250,000, and made Will alone responsible for the note to the extent it was a legal obligation. The parents then assigned that judgment to a 2022 family trust bearing the husband’s name, with the couple’s children as beneficiaries and another son, Geoffrey Wendt, as trustee. A sheriff’s sale of Will’s half interest was noticed for 16 September 2022. Molly sued on 19 August 2022 to stop it, and the Wendts, who lived in Indiana, moved the case to federal court.
The judges called the family’s legal manoeuvres “eyebrow-raising”. Her husband’s parents funded the renovation of a property gifted by her parents, then recorded the money as a loan. A family court awarded her the home after the couple’s divorce, yet a trust holding the parents’ claim sought a sheriff’s sale of her ex-husband’s share, and the appeals court ordered fresh findings on whether the debt was genuine. Around the birth of their second child, Molly’s parents deeded a parcel in Tyringham, in western Massachusetts, to the couple as tenants by the entirety, a form of joint ownership for married partners. They planned to renovate one structure and build another, partly as a family home and partly as a studio for Will’s photography career. Will’s parents, Bill and Dalia Wendt, first paid through gifts. The Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld the decree and noted that the Family Court was not plainly wrong to find the note created a sham obligation. The Family Court had also accepted that it could not rule on the parents’ rights under the note, so the decree did not cancel the default judgment. The district court granted her summary judgment, holding that the divorce wiped out the creditor’s interest and that the money was not spent on necessaries, a legal term for certain household expenses. The facts pointed both ways. But Bill, Dalia and the accountant testified that it was always a loan, which left a dispute for the lower court to resolve.
The money became a loan only after the parents learned of the marital trouble; Bill acknowledged that no terms existed before the note, and neither he nor Will could reasonably explain how Will, on a limited income, would repay the sum.
Renovations, a Viking stove and social status, the second dispute over what counts as a necessity
Massachusetts law makes both spouses liable for debts incurred for necessaries furnished to either spouse or their family. The term is not limited to food and clothing and, depending on social standing, could cover furniture and even a fur coat. The district court called the renovations high-end improvements, but the appeals court found three factual disputes.