Bankruptcy seems only choice

JCS1

From the case help manual:

The provisions of section 283A apply only to the sole or principal residence of the bankrupt or his/her spouse or former spouse at the date of the bankruptcy order. On occasion, the bankrupt may have an interest in other residential properties which cannot be considered as his/her family home i.e. those falling outside section 283A. In such cases, the interest does not have to be realised within the three year timescale and will remain vested in the official receiver or insolvency practitioner trustee until they are dealt with by him/her.

loopylu36

Thanks for all the helpful reples. In a bit of a quandry about this now. Personally, I could cope with losing my own home (couldn't have a few months ago, but as pointed out by Scarlett and Rosey, a house is not a home it's the people in it that matter). But I really can't be responsible for making my parents homeless - the house is theirs in all but name.

The only chink of light that I can see if is there is no equity in the property at all. I have no issue with the OR having an interest in it and presumably if there is no equity it won't be sold? Am I right in thinking that his interest remains for three years and he could force a sale during that time if the value rose? What happens if it is still in negative equity after three years -does the BI revert back to us?

How long could we reasonably "delay" the sale? Would the OR ask us to put it on the market or can he force us to have it repossessed? If it wen on the open market, it could take months to sell at the moment. The reason I ask this is cos after we are discharged we could perhaps look to purchase a new property for parents? Tho christ knows who would give us a mortgage

The other option is that I have a good friend who is in the buy to let market. We could sell the house to her cos she woud never kick parents out. So long as it is not at an undervalue and we pay any equity to OR, I'm assuming he won't have an issue with that?

Sorry for all the questions.

JCS1

loopylu36 wrote: »

The other option is that I have a good friend who is in the buy to let market. We could sell the house to her cos she woud never kick parents out. So long as it is not at an undervalue and we pay any equity to OR, I'm assuming he won't have an issue with that?

You would need to be able to show to the OR that you had sold at full market value, and that you could give the full equity from this sale to the OR. It needs to be at full market value, so they can't look into a BRO/BRU for transfer of an asset at undervalue.

Sorry I can't really help more, I only had one case where someone had a rental property, and it was in quite a bit of negative equity so think he was relieved to be rid of it - and he didn't have family living in it.

Please take advice from one of the debt charities, though I suspect they would need to go away and research so the sooner you get in touch the better.

HTH

loopylu36

Well yes it is just the aspect of my parents living in it, apart from that couldn't give two hoots about losing it.

Tho I have had aother thought. We could either say to OR that he/she could have this house and we were going to move into smaller one as that mortgage is half this one. In practice, we would let parents stay and we would find rented. Is this "dodgy"? Don't want it to be, just want to find a way around this without us all being homeless!. The other option is in reverse really, ie; keep this house by buying equity and selling smaller one(this one would be better in terms of investment for years to come) Again so far as I am concerned, I don't expect to be left with anything, that is after all the price to be paid for going b/r, but I feel for my parents and my son, both of whom I am letting down at the moment, and anything we could hang onto to help provide some security for them for the future would be great. We could then let my parents live in this house and we would rent. My son is 15 so he could actually stay here with my parents (and the dog and two cats, which is a problem with renting) that would mean minimal upheaval for him, but would give him the choice - it' certainly not an ideal situation but this is all about making the best of a crap situation isn't it?