children signing contracts

Yorkie1

It is not unusual for an adult to sign this. It is unenforceable and therefore useless for an U18 to do so.

LandyAndy

My cousin's 20 year old daughter, who will be living with her, has been asked to sign something like this for the house she is buying.

ash28

We've recently sold a house and were asked for the names of anyone over the age of 18 currently living at the house.

G_M

LandyAndy wrote: »

My cousin's 20 year old daughter, who will be living with her, has been asked to sign something like this for the house she is buying.

And this is relevant to the discussion because.........?

It's not the relationship that matters, it's the age.

theartfullodger

Just in case OP (=clare_bear... I'd best not comment on name...) is in God's ain countree (Scotland..), there younger humans can sign contracts...

elsien

I can't comment on the age aspect of this, but when I had to sign something similar, I had to take independent legal advice first to show I understood and wasn't being pressured into anything.

krispy444

If you are having a mortgage the 17 year old will need to sign an Occupiers Consent Form which basically means that if you default on your mortgage and the lender takes proceedings it means that the 17 year old has no rights in the property and the lender will be able to get them out. The 17 year old should be advised to take independent legal advice about the form before signing it. They should not be signing it at the Solicitors that are acting for you (as they are acting for you and the lender and cannot give advice on it) it should be sent out to the 17 year old with advice that they take independent legal advice. Hope this helps

kingstreet

A mortgage application asks if anyone asked over 17 who isn't party to the mortgage application will be living in the property. This triggers the issue of a Consent to Mortgage form which is required in these circumstances.

The person is then bound by the terms of the mortgage deed and agrees to abide by them should the property be repossessed. If the lender doesn't obtain such agreement, on repossession an (IIRC) implied tenancy can be created which means the individual could claim the right to stay in the property.

The individual is advised to seek independent legal advice, separate from that of the mortgage applicants, and the form may need to be witnessed. A similar thread was posted here a few days ago.

I can't answer why 17 was chosen for this purpose, but it has been like that certainly for over 25 years, probably longer. Mr Webster may be able to shed some light on it when he's around.

I've just realised I should have paid more attention to krispy's post as I've just repeated it. Meh.

Richard_Webster

I've never been completely clear why it is 17 rather than 18 but I assume the point is that they might get to 18 by the time the matter completes so the lender is just being careful!

G_M

Richard_Webster wrote: »

I've never been completely clear why it is 17 rather than 18 but I assume the point is that they might get to 18 by the time the matter completes so the lender is just being careful!

Interesting. But as a point of law would a Minor's signature be legally binding?