Urgent advice needed on loan secured against house

charchar_3

Hi there,

A friend of mine split with her husband a while ago they are still married and she lives in the house that they have a joint mortgage on. He has now told her that he has taken out a big loan and secured it against the house!

Is this legal??? As it is a joint mortgage don't both signatures need to be produced to secure on the house.

All advice greatly appreciated!

Many Thanks

mrs_deadline

Sorry don't have any advice but hope someone will know what the legalities are - has he done this for definite, or is there a chance he's just trying to provoke her?

jonesMUFCforever

To be certain, she can find out from Land registry details of all charges against the property.
I too tend to think it is a wind up but you never know if someone has pretended to be the wife and signed the documents.
Take one step at a time and find out the precise details.

mister_bojangles

He can legally take out the loan against the property. As a married couple the bank assumes that the property owner(s) has (have) conceded to have such an arrangement. What I do NOT know is how to inform the Land Registry of ownership (in terms of percentage) after a split.

Your friend's situation willl be a difficult one though because Under the law, she is STILL married, even if they're estranged. The 'husband' has not done anything illegal - 'underhand' (if the intention is to protect his payout following divorce), but not illegal. Solicitors will sort takings out following a split. Advise your friend to have to hand an uptodate credit check. It will have details of all borrowings against the address.

jonesMUFCforever

If the mortgage is in joint names can you advise us where the law states that a secured loan can be set up on one signature and without the knowledge of the other party?
You may well be right but my gut instinct thinks you are not.

silvercar

mister_bojangles wrote:

He can legally take out the loan against the property. As a married couple the bank assumes that the property owner(s) has (have) conceded to have such an arrangement. What I do NOT know is how to inform the Land Registry of ownership (in terms of percentage) after a split.

I don't see how a bank can assume that a property owner has conceded anything. That is why joint signatures are required. Someone could tell the bank that they will take the papers home for the wife to sign and let the bank think they are happily married. The papers are then submitted with a forged signature. This would be fraud. years ago there were cases where business men secured business loans on the home, the bank tried to repossess and the courts ruled that the wives had not signed up to the house being used as security and so the banks couldn't repossess.

The wife could register her interest in the home on the deeds, I think its called registering her right to live there under some Matrimonial Home Act. It is generally used when the home is in one persons name but the other is establishing the right to live there. Although it may not be seen as necessary if the house is in joint names, it would flag up to anyone trying to register a charge on the property that there is some dispute and that the wifes signature needs to be independantly verified.

(Reading back through this, it sounds very sexist, its not meant to be; I'm just trying to answer the dilemma and all situations could be reversed.)

Ch4rlieB

Hi,

Just read through. My Partner works for a Welcome Finance a secured loan company.

If the property is in joint names. The other party can get a secured loan out. However the other joint owner needs to sign to agree to the charge on the property.

I would suggest you follow these simple.

Contact the Land Registry, and gain a copy of your upto date deeds, this will show any charges on your property.

If this turns out to be true you can contact the police and get it investigated as its fraud.


My partner, says this does happen a surpising amount of the time.

Any further questions let me know.

Bossyboots

Can we just clarify one point which is a continual mistake on these forums but a vitally important issue when it comes to matters like these.

There is a difference between being on the house deeds and being on the mortgage. Being on the deeds gives you a part ownership by right. Being on the mortgage simply means you are equally liable for payment of the mortgage. It would be rare for you to be on a mortgage and not the deeds but particularly in this case, it is essential to know that the OP is in fact named on the house deeds. If they are not, then yes the husband can have secured a loan against the property without the knowledge of the OP.

If the property is in joint names, then the OP would have had to sign to agree to the loan being secured on the property. The current mortgagee and any other lenders with a secured interest will also have to have agreed. If the husband has taken out the loan in his own name, then it only attaches to his share of the property. He may well have not taken this point on board and in what seems to be an attempt at a spiteful maneouvre, he may have out snookered himself. This loan will be deducted from his share of the property in the divorce settlement. If he has borrowed more than the apportionment deemed to be his share at that time, he will have to find another way of repaying the loan although this is going to cause difficulties for a transfer of equity or sale of the property as the loan company will want paying back before they remove their charge.