Guarantor issue on leased property 171K

a-mac01

Hi

I apologise if this is the wrong forum, please move if it is:)

My fiance has just received a letter today from a chartered surveyor asking to set up a payment plan to repay over £171,000 due to her ex-husband not paying the rent on a leased property for his business that she has signed as a guarantor for in 2003.

She was not aware that she was still on lease.
They have been separated for 5 1/2 years
Divorced for 3 1/2 years.
Had no knowledge that he was not paying rent.
The first we heard from the landlord was before the ex's company went into administration in September!!

Does anyone know where we stand? She signed the agreement in 2003 but nothing after that - she had nothing to do with the business. Can they potentially come after me when we marry?

All advice welcomed

Hammyman

She is liable and unless she had asked to be removed from the lease she would remain on it indefinitely. They can't come after you but they can come after her and could potentially file for bankruptcy so you need to be preparing for that contingency.

Your best bet is to find her a good solicitor.

a-mac01

thank you for the swift reply - I feared as much

G_M

If she signed a guarantee she was .... guaranteeing her then husbands liabilities relating to the lease.

He has now defaulted, so the grantor of the lease is now understandably looking to the guarantor to fulfill her obligations. That's the eventuality that was the purpose of the original guarantee.

a-mac01

yes just wanted to check - in her defence when she signed it she was 23 years old and oblivious, also for a time she was company secretary and without her knowledge she was removed (something she did not pursue ....don't ask) and presumed that she now had no ties.

I am surprised the landlords allowed the debt to accrue to such a level.

zzzLazyDaisy

They can't come after you, but they can come after her half of any joint assets.

So if you own a house in joint names, or have joint bank accounts, they can go for half, and if necessary force a sale of the house.

If you don't yet have any joint financial affairs, make sure you keep it that way!

FATBALLZ

Quite frankly I'd be highly dubious of anyone on here who claims to have exact information on how this issue would be interpreted in law. Get a proper solicitor.

Trollfever

it she was 23 years old and oblivious,

Not relevant.

If I had a potential liability of £171k I would be visiting the bankruptcy forum on this site.

bris

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Quite frankly I'd be highly dubious of anyone on here who claims to have exact information on how this issue would be interpreted in law. Get a proper solicitor.

A gaurantor is jointly liable for the debt, you don't need to be a solicitor to know that. Being 23 is no defence either. Her only chance here is to hope the debt is statute barred due to the fact it was 2003, but if the arrears are after 2004 then she could be on a sticky wicket.
Of course her first port of call is to a solicitor with all the paperwork relating to it for proper advice.

a-mac01

Trollfever wrote: »

Not relevant.

thanks really needed to know that

FATBALLZ

bris wrote: »

A gaurantor is jointly liable for the debt, you don't need to be a solicitor to know that. Being 23 is no defence either. Her only chance here is to hope the debt is statute barred due to the fact it was 2003, but if the arrears are after 2004 then she could be on a sticky wicket.
Of course her first port of call is to a solicitor with all the paperwork relating to it for proper advice.

In theory. There are obviously other mitigating factors at work here. Personally I'd be surprised if there wasn't something in our legal system that prevented open ended liabilities like this and I suspect the OP may be able to get out of at least some of the debt given the circumstances.

But I don't know nearly enough to give advice, and neither do you, or anyone else here. And even if we do have any solicitors here with the correct specialisation they have no proof of who they are so their advice cannot be taken as reliable.