Legal House Problem?

willow227 · 20 March 2009 at 4:02PM

Hi All,

Hope this is in the right place.

I bought a house (cash) with my partner, all the money for the purchasse came from me but as I had a house repossessed a few years ago, the house is just in his name. We made out wills so that if anything happened I would get the house etc. A year or so after buying we did get a small mortgage and my name is on this jointly. What I would like to know is, it looks like we may be splitting up soon so can the house be sold without my consent? and also if the house is sold is there anything I can do to make sure the money goes into my bank account and not his, is there a form I can get him to sign before the sale goes ahead.

Sorry for the ramble and I hope someone can offer some advice.

Thanks

Willow

Troubled_Joe · 20 March 2009 at 4:27PM

If you bought it for cash why did your previous repo make any difference?

Unless you apply for a caution/restriction then yes it can be sold without your consent if you are not a registered owner. Unless it is agreed otherwise (or ordered by the court) you have no interest in the property and the proceeds.

To have such an interest you would need to prove the existence of a resulting or constructive trust (which you will most likely be able to do).

Get some legal advice asap.

naijapower · 20 March 2009 at 4:48PM

I dont understand why you didnt buy the house in your name in the first instance as it was a cash purchase.
However, you would need to seek legal advise to resolve your query

poppysarah · 20 March 2009 at 4:54PM

You need legal advice. Or relationship counselling.

Or both.

To claim the cash was yours *too* soon after bankrupcty will be an instant hit with some people.

Doozergirl · 20 March 2009 at 10:14PM

If you have a joint mortgage then your name has to be on the deeds. You cannot be named on a mortgage if you're not named on the deeds. (Nor named on the deeds but not named on the mortgage.)

I'd download the title register from the land registry to check that the house wasn't re-registered when you remortgaged - it's 3 pounds to check.

Moonface · 21 March 2009 at 10:41PM

Doozergirl wrote: »

If you have a joint mortgage then your name has to be on the deeds. You cannot be named on a mortgage if you're not named on the deeds. (Nor named on the deeds but not named on the mortgage.)

This is not correct you can be on a mortgage and not on the title deeds. Everybody who is on the title deeds must be on the mortgage but MORE people can be on the mortgage as well.

Doozergirl wrote: »

I'd download the title register from the land registry to check that the house wasn't re-registered when you remortgaged - it's 3 pounds to check.

This would only be the case if you entered into a legal transfer of the property. This should not have happened without your knowledge.

Willow227
I can only agree with the others who suggest you get legal advice as how to best protect your interest. A solicitor will be able to apply for a restriction to be placed on the register if you are not already protected.

You can check the register as it currently stands by putting your house number and postcode into the 'find a property' box on www.landregisteronline.gov.uk and downloading the register for £3.

anonymous1234_2 · 26 March 2009 at 1:01PM

my husband cannot control his spending and I am concerned that this could escalate to a level where mine and my childrens financial security is compromised. we are considering splitting but at very least I want title deeds in my name only. having looked into it it would appear that I cannot have him removed from deeds without also removing him from mortgage. whilst I an successful in my own right I would not be allowed to take on the mortgage in my sole name although can afford the repayments. surely my only option isn't to sell?

Richard_Webster · 26 March 2009 at 4:13PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doozergirl
If you have a joint mortgage then your name has to be on the deeds. You cannot be named on a mortgage if you're not named on the deeds. (Nor named on the deeds but not named on the mortgage.)

This is not correct you can be on a mortgage and not on the title deeds. Everybody who is on the title deeds must be on the mortgage but MORE people can be on the mortgage as well.

I'm not sure I agree with the statement - perhaps more explanation could be given.

A mortgage is the security given over land/property. If AB&C own a property then the mortgage deed must be signed by AB&C. D & E can't be parties to that document, but in theory they could be joint borrowers under a separate loan agreement and equally liable for repayments with AB&C.

You could in theory have a case where A&B are the borrowers but AB &C own a property. AB&C will still have to sign the mortgage deed and all three can be evicted if the loan is not repaid but if there is a shortfall the lender can only sue A&B for it after repossession. However this is very theoretical and is rarely acceptable for ordinary residential mortgage cases, and then only with very few lenders such as HSBC/First Direct. All other lenders insist that those who borrow the money and those who give security (and therefore own the property) are the same so what Doozergirl says is substantially correct.

Robert_Sterling_3 · 26 March 2009 at 5:20PM

Troubled_Joe wrote: »

If you bought it for cash why did your previous repo make any difference?

Sometimes you have to read between the lines.
I read plenty but I am not going to say anything about it.

ILW · 26 March 2009 at 5:49PM

Robert_Sterling wrote: »

Sometimes you have to read between the lines.
I read plenty but I am not going to say anything about it.

I will say it, it looks like the OP is trying to knock her creditors.

Legal House Problem?

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free