Mortgage in a sole name after split but deeds still in joint?

Dave_Ham

Whilst I understand the information provided, there is an element of morality and 2 sides to every story.

If you have no interest in the property, contact your Ex and sign the deeds over formally. This will not be hugely straightforward, however so long as you incur no cost you will not be in a better/worse situation.

manowar

Dave_Ham wrote: »

Whilst I understand the information provided, there is an element of morality and 2 sides to every story.

If you have no interest in the property, contact your Ex and sign the deeds over formally. This will not be hugely straightforward, however so long as you incur no cost you will not be in a better/worse situation.

Of course, morally she should sign the house over solely to him. Morally! But as we all know, we don't live in a moral world, we live in a world that is corrupt in so many ways. This poster has a choice to make, to do the moral thing or do what is best for her (regardless of it being right or wrong) I don't think any of us should be advising her of morals, she came for advice on her situation not to gain a conscience.

manowar

exhab wrote: »

Thanks manowar/holly! That is my exact position and glad to hear that I can't be chased financially at least!

So if the house is sold they legally have to give me half of the profits? I thought they'd scratch my name off the deeds first then sell.

Anyway thanks for the help. You'd think solicitors or land registry could have told me this. Makes me feel a lot better that others have gone through it and not been stung.

Solicitors haven't and won't tell you because they messed up! and they are probably worrying about how to clear up the mess. They can't. Once that mortgage transfer occurred and you were left on the deeds, you are in a position that they cannot legally change.

Dave_Ham

manowar wrote: »

Of course, morally she should sign the house over solely to him. Morally! But as we all know, we don't live in a moral world, we live in a world that is corrupt in so many ways. This poster has a choice to make, to do the moral thing or do what is best for her (regardless of it being right or wrong) I don't think any of us should be advising her of morals, she came for advice on her situation not to gain a conscience.

Naïve and childish viewpoint.

OP actually came on asking whether he/she could be pursued for any debt as on the deeds but not mortgage. Valid question and has been fairly well answered.

You jumped in and started going on about having an earn up and a right result fill your boots etc. without an idea of the detail.

In your situation, from your position you were unfairly attempted to be removed from the deeds. Done fraudulently and therefore you got what you deserved and paid out. The law is there to protect this and from the information provided the right end result.

This situation may be entirely different, it may not..

holly_hobby

manowar wrote: »

You legally own half the equity in that house and he can do nothing about that.

Correct - OPs consent is needed to remove them from the deeds.

manowar wrote: »

And on sale you will get 50% of equity in the house, there is absolutely NOTHING this guy can do about it, other than sue the Solicitor that failed to do his job properly.

Not exactly true ....

Whilst I have stated that legally, the lender may not pursue the OP for any defaulted debt, and that without her being party to any new mge, the ex is somewhat scuppered.

Upon sale, the 50% division is not a forgone ...

Thats beause the ex could decide (or be advised) to take this the court route, and have beneficial ownership and to what degree, decided by a Judge.

For example, if the ex can prove and present to the court when the mge commenced, when the OP ceased being a contributary to the mge/moved out of the house and relationship ended and off the mge. And that the subsequent servicing of the mge/improvement/maintenance of the property, was solely from their own finances, you may find the Judge instructs any free equity to be proportionally weighted in the ex's favour accordingly.

In your case, possibly this exercise wasn't given, but that doesn't mean the option isn't there.

Yes - there may be a moral side to this story (although I don't know the underlying facts to make comment either way), but I haven't gone in to that, as this isn't what the OP has asked for guidance on, they came her for comment on the legal situ she finds herself in, to which guidance has been duly given ...... as to why and how this situ came to be is private, and really irrelevant for the purpose to hand.

Hope this helps

Holly x

exhab

Land_Registry_representative wrote: »

I am sorry that you have not got a straight answer from us but Land Registry can really only advise on what the land register shows, what that means and how to apply for any changes to be made to it.

Thank you for your message. I can appreciate Land Registry can't give out legal advice, but all I wished to know in the first place was my responsibilities under deeds.

manowar wrote:

You are secure, no money owed by you, house cannot be remortgaged without your permission and cannot be sold without your permission, upon sale 50% of equity after legal costs are yours!

Hehe the situation is even more peculiar. The ex had a name change over a year back. Banks and everyone else have the new name, but the old surname is still on the deeds having never being changed, so technically my name is the only accurate one on there. That did make me chuckle.

Dave_Ham wrote: »

Whilst I understand the information provided, there is an element of morality and 2 sides to every story.

If you have no interest in the property, contact your Ex and sign the deeds over formally. This will not be hugely straightforward, however so long as you incur no cost you will not be in a better/worse situation.

We're no longer on speaking terms. There are two sides! It was more a mutual split but I felt the ex didn't handle it with dignity at the end. That besides the point, the only legal issues were after the split. It was agreed after the ex froze the bank account, they would pay off all incurred household bills in the split. I had to sort out all the joint household bills and pay them off after moving, off my own back (because I didn't want CCJ's/bad credit). Quite a lot of money from the ex, is still owed to family that hasn't been repaid. Could have been worse though!

But over the past day, confirmed names on land registry and rung up to confirm that things are cleared up with the mortgage. I visited the mortgage lender today and informed them that their client (ex) needs to complete the conveyancing as I was still technically named on the deeds, so they can pass the message on. I told them I'd sign the deeds when they need me to and to let me know what's going to happen.

It's all in the past for me and I'd like to keep it that way. I just wish I didn't have to clear up finances or legal things that aren't my responsibility.


Thanks everyone for your input and advice! All solicitors have done is scratch their heads and tell me they'd call me back, not exactly the knowledgeable minds you expect as a prospective client.