Sole mortgage holder but no financial interest in a property likely to be reposessed

HugotheHack

ACG wrote: »

Whenever i do a mortgage, the people on the mortgage have to be on the deeds - otherwise there is no incentive for whoever has the mortgage to pay it back.... for instance i couldnt go and take a mortgage out on my dads house.
To be fair - its late, im hungover and im knackered. I might be able to get my head around it tomorrow but will see.

Anyway, speaking of being knackered im off to get the beauty sleep im in so desperate need of.

When I took out the mortgage it was only me on the deeds.

When the court ruled that my ex-wife have 60% of the title I sent her an application to go onto the mortgage. She refused and even even after a legal debate remained adamant that was going on the title not the mortgage. This violates the terms of the mortgage but the lender wouldn't enforce them so my ex and her solicitor decided that she needn't go onto the mortgage.

Obviously there are lots of reasons why this was bad but I couldn't afford to continue to fight.

All explained rather boringly in post one but it is messy and I obviously wasn't clear.

The basic problem was that when the family court ruled it said she was to be given title and didn't stipulate that she was to go on the mortgage. It shouldn't really matter as common sense would normally dictate that if you are on the title you also go onto the mortgage.

None of this is sensible but hopefully that helps you make some sense of it.

BTW, Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions and make suggestions.

Cheers!

Thrugelmir

ACG wrote: »

Whenever i do a mortgage, the people on the mortgage have to be on the deeds

Not uncommon in divorce cases. Where children are involved.

HugotheHack

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Not uncommon in divorce cases. Where children are involved.

Not uncommon in marriage either I'd have been happy for her to be on the mortgage when we bought the house but it would have harmed the application.

Once we got divorced and there was a need to have her on title she refused to be on the mortgage. I guess she saw that as giving her the benefits with none of the liability.

Or were you saying that in divorce cases involving children it is not uncommon to have someone on the title but not the mortgage? If that is the case do you know how situations like this are dealt with?

HugotheHack

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Not uncommon in divorce cases. Where children are involved.

Please do let me know if you have encountered this problem before. So far it has been outside the experience of everyone I've talked to.

Cheers!