Friends Ex Refusing To Pay His Half - Repossession Fear

Rockporkchop

Mrs_Bumble wrote: »

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

The OP said that the couple were together for 5 years before they bought the house and then lived in it together for 18 months before he moved out last summer. That's not exactly rushing into things.

So the son must be at least 8, as Rikki said above.

Although I thought the OP said their friend was only 22 so that doesn't really add up.

SouthCoast

My friend and her ex bought the property on a joint mortgage after being together for 5 years. They lived in it for approximately 18 months together with her son (ntot his bioligical child).

The friend has a son by an unnamed partner.

zzzLazyDaisy

Rikki wrote: »

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.

There are three parties on the deeds.

One of the parties on the deeds is the lender, who has a charge over the joint owners' interests in the property.

Removing one owner's name from the title deeds amounts to a sale by the two joint owners to the sole remaining owner. In order to do that, the new sole owner would have to re-mortgage into her sole name, and as such she would have to meet the lender's lending criteria.

The reason for this is that it is not possible to continue to have a mortgage on a property that you no longer own, as you have no power to grant a charge over a property that you don't own.

Rikki

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

There are three parties on the deeds.

One of the parties on the deeds is the lender, who has a charge over the joint owners' interests in the property.

Removing one owner's name from the title deeds amounts to a sale by the two joint owners to the sole remaining owner. In order to do that, the new sole owner would have to re-mortgage into her sole name, and as such she would have to meet the lender's lending criteria.

The reason for this is that it is not possible to continue to have a mortgage on a property that you no longer own, as you have no power to grant a charge over a property that you don't own.

I understand what you are saying and the reasoning behind it, but this is not always the case.

I have a joint mortgage with my ex, but I have been paying the mortgage for the past ten years since he walked out. His name has been removed from the Title Deeds.
The mortgage company would not release him then or now even though I have a proven track record of ten years continuous payments and they are aware he is not on the title deeds.

Mrs_Bumble

I understand what you are saying and the reasoning behind it, but this is not always the case.

I have a joint mortgage with my ex, but I have been paying the mortgage for the past ten years since he walked out. His name has been removed from the Title Deeds.
The mortgage company would not release him then or now even though I have a proven track record of ten years continuous payments and they are aware he is not on the title deeds.

Previously in certain circumstances some lenders did allow this but now post 'credit crunch' the lenders are much more cautious and to the book and if the deeds don't match the mortgage there are difficulties if possession proceedings are required, more costly and more difficult and so in the current climate they are highly unlikely to grant permission to remove a party off of the deeds if they are named on the mortgage.

Twinkly

Evening all. Comment has been made that this is going round in circles. I totally agree. I stated in the first and last paragraph of the original post what help was needed then clarified a few times yet it was not enough to stem repetition of irrelevant/unrequested information. It certainly wasnt enough to stem the tide of judgemental and inaccurate personal opinions.

In returning to see what Mrs Bumbles response to my clarification I am frankly astonished that it displays the same repetition of ignorant judgemental and irrelevant responses. Further that it STILL fails to answer the main direct questions even when I numbered them. This can not possibly be as a result of misunderstanding and simply does not merit a direct lengthy and fully quoted response. Mrs Bumble YOU are rude.



At this point I note speculative comments regarding my friends child. For people to put things together from the overall information is probably to be expected but then to openly speculate about it is a tad disrespectful. I also note that Mrs Bumble is unneccessarily rude and wildly inaccurate in her assumptions this time. Completely unacceptable, no excuse.


For those that are simply curious:

Twinkly wrote: »

My friend and her ex bought the property on a joint mortgage after being together for 5 years. They lived in it for approximately 18 months together with her son (ntot his bioligical child). Out of the blue he moved out last summer although did continue to pay his half - for 6”…

Make of that what you will but the issue is not and never was about her child.


Big big thanks from both myself and my friend to Rikki for their experience and I really should have dragged you into PM in hindsight. Big thanks also Rockporkchop and Thriftysaver for their friends experiences. The positive support and direct information you all passed on has given her a good start and some confidence that what she wants to do actually can be done and more importantly Has Been Done.

Also thanks to those who commented positively, expressed sympathy and did not judge. Always a bonus on any forum and in this particular case especially welcome. Empathy and compassion costs nothing but can be absolutely priceless.

Mrs_Bumble

I have tried to be practical and offer advice and avenues for further help, you don't want to hear these and in my opinion, if it isn't what you want to hear, you don't want to hear it.

ignorant judgemental and irrelevant responses

That hasn't been my intention, I have tried to be direct, with suggestions of what actions need to be taken, as hoping for the best won't keep your friend out of court.

But hey ho, up to you what you take from it.

Rikki

Mrs_Bumble wrote: »

I have tried to be practical and offer advice and avenues for further help, you don't want to hear these and in my opinion, if it isn't what you want to hear, you don't want to hear it.

ignorant judgemental and irrelevant responses

That hasn't been my intention, I have tried to be direct, with suggestions of what actions need to be taken, as hoping for the best won't keep your friend out of court.

But hey ho, up to you what you take from it.

I think your responses have been polite and as informative as possible under the circumstances. Sometimes we can't see the wood for the trees until it is too late.

I have only posted from experience but on reading other posters comments, yours included, things have moved on a long way from my separation and divorce. What was possible then is highly unlikely now.

Apart from the the two getting together and making joint decisions I cannot see this moving any further forward. CAB or Shelter for advice is the way to go.

Mrs_Bumble

Rikki wrote: »

I think your responses have been polite and as informative as possible under the circumstances. Sometimes we can't see the wood for the trees until it is too late.

I have only posted from experience but on reading other posters comments, yours included, things have moved on a long way from my separation and divorce. What was possible then is highly unlikely now.

Apart from the the two getting together and making joint decisions I cannot see this moving any further forward. CAB or Shelter for advice is the way to go.

Thank you for that Rikki

My posts have been from personal (domestic) and personal (professional) experience.

I think that your last sentence is very wise.

Twinkly

Mrs_Bumble wrote: »

hoping for the best won't keep your friend out of court.

Oh, nasty now. Thats helpful....Not sure where you got that from but then accuracy is not your strong point in quoting me or relevance when answering me.