Owner only had house for 6months

kunekune

Personally, I don't think you should touch this with a barge pole. There are all kinds of possible frauds/dodgy practices that could explain his attitude. The one not mentioned here that comes to mind is undue influence in the purchase from his mother - was she separately advised, etc. Trouble is, you could end up knowing enough about the background that you end up being chased yourself - would you still be a bona fide purchaser without notice of whatever it is that means he doesn't really have a proper title to the property? If you do go ahead, be advised by your solicitor and anything YOU know, make sure your solicitor knows too. Then, if there is a problem, you can argue you were properly advised and had good reason to believe it was ok.

silvercar

kunekune wrote: »

Personally, I don't think you should touch this with a barge pole. There are all kinds of possible frauds/dodgy practices that could explain his attitude. The one not mentioned here that comes to mind is undue influence in the purchase from his mother - was she separately advised, etc. Trouble is, you could end up knowing enough about the background that you end up being chased yourself - would you still be a bona fide purchaser without notice of whatever it is that means he doesn't really have a proper title to the property? If you do go ahead, be advised by your solicitor and anything YOU know, make sure your solicitor knows too. Then, if there is a problem, you can argue you were properly advised and had good reason to believe it was ok.

These are all problems for the seller. They wouldn't follow on to the next buyer.

If there was no proper title, your solicitor would know. If he screwed up there would be a claim on the solicitor's professional indemnity insurance.

zzzLazyDaisy

But if OP's lender is refusing to complete on the mortgage until these questions are answered, then it isn't open to OP to go ahead anyway....

Or have I missed something?

Debt_Free_Chick

Surely, the seller's mortgage company should be asking these questions directly of their client, the seller. Nowt to do with the buyer ..... surely ......??????

kunekune

I disagree, Silvercar.

First, you say "People are allowed to sell a home for more than they paid for it." Not if it wasn't really theirs in the first place. Second, you don't see why it is the buyer's business. It could potentially be a problem for the buyer if it is thought they were implicated in it somehow.

If the seller is, actually, a constructive trustee for his mother (i.e. she still has a beneficial interest in the property) and the buyer has notice of this, the sale of the house to OP will not bring the mother's interest to an end, they could be regarded as knowingly receiving trust property. Selling trust property doesn't end the beneficiary's rights if the buyer isn't bona fide. If nothing else, if there is suspicion it could end up costing them legal advice at some later stage.

What worries me too is that if this is just a care home fees scam (and it clearly is that) why is he selling it, and who will get the money? Does someone else have a claim to it? If this was my brother, and my mother's house, I might be getting a bit worried. And the mortgage company is concerned because their money is also at risk - if our OP turns out not to own the house or whole house after all because of a prior interest, the security isn't worth much.

silvercar

We bought a house. Within a month of completion the seller's business became insolvent. Within six months the seller became personally bankrupt. We know that he did work to the house just before exchange, some of which to secore building regs sign off. For some of this work, the builders hadn't been paid; he had promised to pay from the proceeds of sale. They never got paid.

None of this impacted on us. Even though the builders still had title to materials (intact stuff like a fire door), we were protected as an innocent party.

franklee

kunekune wrote: »

And the mortgage company is concerned because their money is also at risk - if our OP turns out not to own the house or whole house after all because of a prior interest, the security isn't worth much.

I agree. If the mortgage company had a concern then it would be a foolish buyer not to heed that (it would need resolving to the lenders satisfaction anyway or no loan). I'd let the professionals, solicitor and mortgage company do their jobs and listen to their advice.

franklee

silvercar wrote: »

We bought a house. Within a month of completion the seller's business became insolvent. Within six months the seller became personally bankrupt. We know that he did work to the house just before exchange, some of which to secore building regs sign off. For some of this work, the builders hadn't been paid; he had promised to pay from the proceeds of sale. They never got paid.

None of this impacted on us. Even though the builders still had title to materials (intact stuff like a fire door), we were protected as an innocent party.

Interesting but not quite the same as in the OP's case we are talking about events that have happened before exchange. Therefore the OP does now know that the seller has refused to answer the lender's questions. If the lender isn't satisfied then the OP should think twice IMO, he may be able to find a more lax lender (I've no idea if he could) but he and his solicitor still know there is an issue ...

MissMoneypenny

Jonbvn wrote: »

This looks like deliberate deprivation of assets in order to avoid paying care-home fees.

Just having the same problem with my mother who is now going into a home, but recently gave a grandchild a substantial sum.