My mums ex is trying to fleece her!

kingstreet

A remortgage is taking a new mortgage with a new lender to replace the old one, possibly borrowing more in the process. If she went to the existing lender which held her current mortgage for more money, this is extra borrowing or a further advance.

As I mentioned, they would not give a joint further advance on a sole mortgage/property.

Which lender is it?

Robin1980

Ive just done the land registry check and he is on the title deeds

Strange thing is that my mum has no recollection whatsoever of going to a conveyance solicitor and having the implications explained to her and signing the transfer of equity. Think she may have selective memory.

The mortgage is with the Woolich. There are definitely 2 seperate mortgage payments that go out of her bank and she says her paperwork shows mortgage for £110k and £30k.

Will have to go to a solicitor and see if they think its worth taking it to court for the equity share. Or at least to force him to sell.

kingstreet

Robin1980 wrote: »

Ive just done the land registry check and he is on the title deeds

Strange thing is that my mum has no recollection whatsoever of going to a conveyance solicitor and having the implications explained to her and signing the transfer of equity. Think she may have selective memory.

The mortgage is with the Woolich. There are definitely 2 seperate mortgage payments that go out of her bank and she says her paperwork shows mortgage for £110k and £30k.

Will have to go to a solicitor and see if they think its worth taking it to court for the equity share. Or at least to force him to sell.

See post #13 re sub accounts.

When adding a party to a mortgage, the lender will always refer the matter to a solicitor for the legal paperwork to be completed for the party to be added to the ownership.

I'm sure the LandReg will be able to tell her which solicitor handled the transfer of equity and sent the transfer forms to them.

holly_hobby

I'm sorry this turned out to be the case (although it was suspected ....)

If he is on the deeds (and I suspect this will be joint tenants), then I do feel there is little (in fact nothing) to be gained in taking the court route re the equity share - except a legal bil for Mum (don't suspect this will qualify for any legal aid assistance, but try the LSC website for guidance).

If he won't sell, then perhaps Mum should impress upon him that whilst he remains party to the mge, he remains jointly and severally liable for the whole mge debt - which means arrears ! That may shift him ... or a strongly worded solicitors letter.

If this doesn't work, Mum will need to consider what the potential legal fees will be, and whether she feels it beneficial to hold off in the short term (and/or at least until he agrees to play nicely !).

I would also make sure (if not already the case) that Woolwich are firmly in the picture here, and that Mum isn't resident at this address, with her alternative contact details, as what we don't want is any secured loans or further advances being applied for without her knowledge (or genuine signature).

Further to which, if this is being let, was consent to let obtained ? Or is it completely unoccupied ? (with you saying neither of them reside there).

Hope this helps

Holly

Robin1980

Thanks. Neither of them live there. He wont let it be rent out and has said if she moves back in, she is renting at the minute, he will move back in as well with his new girlfriend.

I really cant understand how someone just by adding the name to the deeds can be entitled to half of someone elses money and the courts would say that that split is fair. Especially considering he has hardly made a mortgage payment himself. I could understand it if they both took out the mortgage together but one person paid but not when added 3 years down the line.

Oh well, best bet is to get this on the market as quickly and amicably as possible.

holly_hobby

This is why we always ask unmarried couples to consider buying as tenants in common.

He sounds like a dreamboat ... !

He cannot legally prevent her from occupying (but could protest at changing the locks, which I certainly would be tempted to regardless !), and I understand why she may be worried, who needs him sitting on the doorstep causing a ruck !

BUT, she needs legal advice pronto - and a bloomy restraining order by the sounds, but definately a residency agreement of some kind to be agreed.

At the moment, as it is unoccupied, their buildings (and contents) is breached (which means they are also in breach of their mge t&cs), as their std B&C cover does not cover periods of unoccupany of more than 30 days. This may help get the ball rolling ... http://www.moneysupermarket.com/home-insurance/unoccupied/


So, apart from the obvious of someone actually going round to see what the hell is going on in there, they need to obtain specalist blds ins for unoccupied properties - as otherwise they are up the creek without a paddle if there is water, fire or any other damage - and then there will be little equity to be split !! This alone is reason for her to negotiate her residence in there, as caretaker role until sale if nothing else ...

Hope this helps

Holly

Thrugelmir

Robin1980 wrote: »

and the courts would say that that split is fair.

Courts deal with facts. A judge does not arbitrate between 2 warring parties. Hence the reference to documentation and agreements. As its impossible to prove what was said in the past by either party. Both of whom will be trying to maximise the situation to their own advantage.

Robin1980

Just had a thought.Even though my mum did not marry him she took his surname. When the transfer of deed was done the solictor would have thought they were married and might not have explained the difference between the joint tenancy and tenants in common. This would explain why she is sure it never happened. As i stated in the first post she thought he could only get half of the 30k, so an explanation of the equity share and would they like to split it 70:30etc is unlikely to have taken place, as she would never have agreed to that.

I know im clutching at straws but is this something that you can make a complaint about or even look into?

zzzLazyDaisy

Robin1980 wrote: »

Just had a thought.Even though my mum did not marry him she took his surname. When the transfer of deed was done the solictor would have thought they were married and might not have explained the difference between the joint tenancy and tenants in common. This would explain why she is sure it never happened. As i stated in the first post she thought he could only get half of the 30k, so an explanation of the equity share and would they like to split it 70:30etc is unlikely to have taken place, as she would never have agreed to that.

I know im clutching at straws but is this something that you can make a complaint about or even look into?

I am sorry, but in my view you are clutching at straws. A solicitor cannot advise on something that s/he are not made aware of.

In any case, you said earlier that your mum doesn't even remember seeing a solicitor, or putting the house into joint names, so she obviously doesn't remember what was said to her at the time either.

Robin1980

I can tell I should have gone to bed earlier last night. My last reply was really sounding desperate and not thinking straight.

This morning I have found out they are tenants in common but no deed of trust was drawn up. Does this automatically mean 50/50?

I understand that if they had been joint tenants then there is not much chance of her getting a greater share but does tenants in common change that?

Thanks