Friends Ex Refusing To Pay His Half - Repossession Fear

Thrugelmir

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

It does seem to me that this thread is at risk of going round in circles.

The legal position is that the house is jointly owned. That means that each owner is each FULLY responsible for the FULL mortgage debt.

I accept that OP feels that is it unfair to place such pressure on her friend who she considers to be the innocent party in all this, but unfortunately the law isn't always 'fair' (in the common sense understanding of the term) and to that extent this is irrelevant to the situation.

If OP wishes to stay in the house she must pay the arrears and keep the mortgage payments up to date. The Lender is not interested in whether the ex comes up with 'his share' of the funds, as long as the money is paid regularly and on time (and more importantly has no legal rights or obligation to get involved in that issue).

If OP's friend cannot, or will not, pay the arrears and continue to pay the mortgage, then her home will be repossessed. She must accept that and seek advice about dealing with that situation.

As far as getting her ex off the deeds is concerned, this depends on OP's friend having sufficient income to satisfy the lender's criteria, so that she can take over the mortgage and buy her ex out of the property. This option will require the involvement and cost of a solicitor.

The other alternative may be to sell the house and each joint owner to go their separate ways.

I am sorry if this reply sounds unduly harsh, but I don't think it is helpful to debate the morality of allowing the ex to remain on the deeds/mortgage and/or of placing the total burden for ensuring the mortgage is services on OP's friend, when those are the facts and cannot be avoided.

Neatly summarised.

The lender is more likely to pursue the party still living in the property for the continuing mortgage payments rather than the one that left.

flea72

the way i see it, your friend should either make the full monthly mortgage payment, and suck up the fact that shes paying her exs half, and go through the courts to force him to sell his half of the house - if she can prove when he left, and that she continued to make repayments, then it will prob be seen that he has already had his 'payment' from the deal, once its been valued, and therefore she doesnt physically have to buy him out

or

stop making any payments herself, and go down the repossession route. Why continue to make payments, when its money down the drain, if the ultimate result will still be that the house is repossessed. The house gets sold, and at that point the mortgage company will then make a bit more effort to chase up the ex for money

whilst your friend is still paying something towards the mortgage, then lender will not bother chasing the ex for anything. Its only when theres no money forthcoming, that they start to take an active interest

Flea

Mrs_Bumble

Am I the only one who thinks the ex has been quite reasonable? He's paid his half for 6 months despite having to pay for somewhere else to live and now he's aiming for a permanent solution. You can't expect him to keep paying indefinitely and he would only do so to protect his credit rating.

He's offered to take over the property. If he can afford the mortgage payments and your friend can't then this is surely the best option for all concerned .

I don't think he has been unreasonable, like I have said through the thread, think this is very much tit for tat, as relationship breakdowns often are, the couple don't seem to be communicating with each other and a stance is being maintained, this is when some sort of counselling should be mandatory! Make them see the wood for the trees.

In these situations the lender is in the middle, they can't sympathise and will just pursue the legal course, which if they both are not careful will be repossession, as faced with mounting arrears and the possibility of a lengthy matrimonial squabble what would you do if you were the lender?

Conrad

Personally I would always pay to keep a roof over my childrens head regardless of any separation. I cannot get my head around men that cast thier kids adrift anmd I would never have a freind that did this - his freindship would be surely of no value or worth if he was able to abandon his own children for goodness sake.

Mrs_Bumble

Conrad wrote: »

Personally I would always pay to keep a roof over my childrens head regardless of any separation. I cannot get my head around men that cast thier kids adrift anmd I would never have a freind that did this - his freindship would be surely of no value or worth if he was able to abandon his own children for goodness sake.

Sadly for us girls Conrad you are becoming the small minority, or am I just extremely cynical??? Maybe it is an age thing as well certain generations seem to find it easy to walk away from responsibility whether it be financial, relationship or paternal that is the problem with our throw away society

However in this case the man in question hasn't walked away from his biological child, OP states that the couple were together for 18 months, what was that saying that my gran used to spout to me about rushing into things?

Thrugelmir

Mrs_Bumble wrote: »

Sadly for us girls Conrad you are becoming the small minority, or am I just extremely cynical??? Maybe it is an age thing as well certain generations seem to find it easy to walk away from responsibility whether it be financial, relationship or paternal that is the problem with our throw away society

However in this case the man in question hasn't walked away from his biological child, OP states that the couple were together for 18 months, what was that saying that my gran used to spout to me about rushing into things?

Maybe the requirement of saving for a deposit for a property over a prolonged period will help also in developing a maturer attitude in society to what is actually a long term committment. Off the shelf instant mortgages may not help people understand the wider implications of what they are entering into, particularly from the downside perspective.

Rikki

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

As far as getting her ex off the deeds is concerned, this depends on OP's friend having sufficient income to satisfy the lender's criteria, so that she can take over the mortgage and buy her ex out of the property. This option will require the involvement and cost of a solicitor.

.

This is not true.
The mortgage company do not have to consent to the removing of one of the names from the Title Deeds. (It does needs to be done at cost by a solicitor and by mutual agreement by both parties on the deeds.)

How ever the mortgage company can refuse to remove one of the names from the mortgage if the other does not meet the lending criteria.

PasturesNew

How old is this biological son?
8 or 18?

Rikki

PasturesNew wrote: »

How old is this biological son?
8 or 18?

The OP hasn't said but her friend and partner were together for five years prior to buying the house and lived together for eighteen months in the house, he moved out but they both paid their half of the mortgaged for six months , she's now only paid he half for six months................breath.........so the child must be at least 8 but probably older I would have thought.

Basically no idea sorry.

Mrs_Bumble

PasturesNew wrote: »

How old is this biological son?
8 or 18?

There isn't a biological son. It isn't the partners son and the couple were together 18 months

Maybe the requirement of saving for a deposit for a property over a prolonged period will help also in developing a maturer attitude in society to what is actually a long term committment. Off the shelf instant mortgages may not help people understand the wider implications of what they are entering into, particularly from the downside perspective.

I really hope so!