My mums ex is trying to fleece her!

holly_hobby

As already stated it is possible to be party to a residential mortgage, but not be on the deeds, its unusual and there are only a couple of lenders whom consider this arrangement, but it is possible.

If by some chance, he's not on the deeds i.e when they sought a joint mortgage due to affordability, they did not effect a transfer of equity at the same time - then HE would need to go the court route to secure a share - as the proceeds and free equity of the sale (in the absence of a trust deed) would be lawfully and entirely your Mums.

If he is named on the deeds as a joint tenant, then as already stated unless this goes the court route for a judicial ruling, the Solicitor is duty bound to split the free equity 50/50 - as joint tenancy equates to equal legal and beneficial ownership.

If a transfer of equity was effected under a Tenants In Common arrangement, then the free equity will be apportioned in accordance with the split of legal ownerhship i.e 70/30 or however it was written.

If he isn't on the deeds, she can sell no issue and without his permission.

If he is on the deeds, then yes she can force a sale - via the courts - with the associated legal costs.

So if he is party to the deeds and a legal owner, you can see it will be far better to try and work this out amicably, of course it may well be the case that this ends up in a court room, but let that be the utterly last option exercised.

Hope this helps

Holly

kingstreet

themull1 wrote: »

I've got five seperate mortgages on my house, they all come out as a seperate direct debit.

You have one mortgage (one legal charge) with a loan split into five sub-accounts with each separate sub-account for a particular tranche of money at a particular rate. The payments may be collected together, or separately according to the lender's preference.

Robin1980

Thanks very much for your advice. Will find out if he was put on the deeds. I know that there will not be a tenants in common agreement as my mum was smitten at the time of the remortgage.

Seems like it will be a long road.

What type of solicitor should i take her to?
Its worth putting up the initial consultation fee to find out here chances as in 10 days she will have no income, large debts with no way to pay and money sat in that house. She cant claim dole or benfits as she has been self employed for 30 years. I have no idea how to help her.

zzzLazyDaisy

Robin1980 wrote: »

Thanks very much for your advice. Will find out if he was put on the deeds. I know that there will not be a tenants in common agreement as my mum was smitten at the time of the remortgage.

That's the easy bit.

Log onto the land registry website during office hours, and enter the address of the property. What you want is the Title Register, it will tell you who owns the house. It costs £4 (from memory). I will go and get you the URL.

Edit: the cost is £3

Instructions here

http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/public/faqs/how-do-i-find-out-who-owns-a-property-or-piece-of-land/i-have-the-full-postal-address-of-the-property

kingstreet

I'd do a check at the Land Registry before anything else. Pay for the search to establish the names on the Proprietorship Register. As hh has said, there are one or two lenders who will accept more borrowers on the mortgage than there are named on the deeds, but I'd be surprised if it just happens the mortgage is with one of these two lenders.

It's more likely the lender told her it couldn't do a further advance (the extra borrowing) in joint names with a mortgage and property in one sole name, so she went along with a transfer of equity to include him on the deeds, the original mortgage and the further advance.

Once you have established the full picture, a good matrimonial solicitor will be needed.

How can she be made redundant if she's self-employed?

zzzLazyDaisy

Robin1980 wrote: »

Another bit of advice please. The failed business venture was before they bought the house. It was purchased with 110,000 of my mums money. They ran into major difficulty and to enable my mum to get the 90,000 back out, which eventually bought the house, she put the arrears onto credit cards. She is still paying for them today and he has just walked away. He has never paid towards these. Surely as he would have been jointly liable for the business losses there should be some way to get that money back from him?

Sorry I missed this bit. If your mum put the debts on a credit card in HER sole name, then they are HER debts.

If she can prove that he was liable for half the debts of the failed business, she could take him to court for that - provided it is not more than 6 years since all that happened. But it would be stressful and with no guarantee of success.... and it makes no difference to the credit card debts which are in her name and are her responsibility.

She really was besotted, wasn't she?

lonestarfan

Did your Mum and this boyfriend ever get married to each other? If so when in the timeline? In your original post you say due to a "clerical error". How do you know that it was an error of a clerical nature? Who said so & what evidence is there to substantiate that?

Robin1980

Ok sorry she is calling it made redundant but really she has been told she has no place to work. She is a swimming teacher and they have decided not to keep the pool on over the winter so she has nowhere to teach.

Thought it would be hard to claim for the business debts but it depends how desperate things become. Will take her to see a solicitor and see what happens.

Thanks all for the advice its been very helpful.

bossymoo

On taking the remortgage, a conveyancer would have been involved who is supposed to explain the legal implications, so it's odd that a "mistake" was made adding him to the first mortgage. Although I'm not sure it's standard practice to have a second charge in different names anyhow. All this should have been explained at the time? What his legal claim would be.

Robin1980

lonestarfan wrote: »

Did your Mum and this boyfriend ever get married to each other? If so when in the timeline? In your original post you say due to a "clerical error". How do you know that it was an error of a clerical nature? Who said so & what evidence is there to substantiate that?

They never got married thankfully.

My mum has always said that she thought he was going on the remortgage part, that is why she told me it was a clerical error but from the replies above i can see that she just didnt understand that he was having to go on the whole mortgage.