Co-Ownership but Single Borrower

TMT_2

I'm buying a property with somebody. However, I'm the majority earner and they only work part-time. As they don't earn that much, they're not keen on having the financial weight of a mortgage on their shoulders, but I want them as a co-owner of the property.

My question is, is it possible to have two owners on the title deeds to the property but the bank hold only one party liable for the mortgage repayments?

I'd really appreciate some advice regarding this.

Thank you.

Goldiegirl

Most banks will want the property to be in the same names as the mortgage.

So if you want the property in joint names, the mortgage would need to be in joint names.

You might find some lenders willing to proceed on the basis you describe - you'd need to ask prospective lenders, or get a broker to find a suitable lender

kingstreet

I don't know any which will accept this.

It's a potential minefield in the vent of default.

How do they repossess and evict someone who owns the property, when that person isn't party to the mortgage?

It's one of the reasons a creditor can only register a restriction on a jointly owned property for a solely owed debt, not a charging order.

Thrugelmir

TMT wrote: »

My question is, is it possible to have two owners on the title deeds to the property but the bank hold only one party liable for the mortgage repayments?

There's no contractual arrangement between the lender and the non mortgage party. So no grounds on which the lender could force the sale of the property to discharge the mortgage debt.

TMT_2

Thank you for your responses so far.

Is there a type of agreement that can be made to agree that the non-borrowing party on the title deeds can still be evicted by the lender in order to repossess the property in the case of a default?

Thrugelmir

TMT wrote: »

Is there a type of agreement that can be made to agree that the non-borrowing party on the title deeds can still be evicted by the lender in order to repossess the property in the case of a default?

Yes be party to a mortgage.

Precisely the reason they exist.

TMT_2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Yes be party to a mortgage.

Precisely the reason they exist.

Heh. You're correct, but that would still hold them jointly liable for the debt (i.e. if I default, they can chase them for the repayments rather than just me).

If an agreement stating the other party could still be evicted from the property (even though they're not liable for the debt), surely this would remove all risk for the lender?

Thrugelmir

TMT wrote: »

If an agreement stating the other party could still be evicted from the property (even though they're not liable for the debt), surely this would remove all risk for the lender?

In summary. Not worth the hassle for a lender. Demand for mortgage funds exceed supply. So lenders hold all the cards. Take it or leave it.