Seller failing to complete on sale of flat - Help!

mrs_mi5tery

Actually, before that clause I was asking for clarification, it lists his bank and his wife as charges of the property. So they are the lenders in this situation?

Also, Valhaller wrote There is a first mortgage on the property against which further advances can be made.

But the clause says The proprietor of the Charge dated 2 January 2012 referred to above is under an obligation to make further advances.

I must be misinterpreting this, but these statements don't align?

From what I thought I understood, that clause means that if the proprietor sells, he has to fulfill his debt to a) the bank and b) his wife before he can do anything else with the remaining [if there is any]?

ValHaller

mrs_mi5tery wrote: »

Actually, before that clause I was asking for clarification, it lists his bank and his wife as charges of the property. So they are the lenders in this situation?

Also, Valhaller wrote There is a first mortgage on the property against which further advances can be made.

But the clause says The proprietor of the Charge dated 2 January 2012 referred to above is under an obligation to make further advances.

I must be misinterpreting this, but these statements don't align?

From what I thought I understood, that clause means that if the proprietor sells, he has to fulfill his debt to a) the bank and b) his wife before he can do anything else with the remaining [if there is any]?

The difference between the 2 statements is trivial from your perspective. My 'can' is an outsiders view where the further advance is conditional upon the borrower requesting it. The 'under an obligation' is more closely the lender's and borrower's perspectives, but still conditional upon the borrower requesting the further advance.

Who is the proprietor of the charge dated 2 January 2012?

Other than that, you are correct that he must clear debts secured on the property. The clause in question is nothing other than a technical measure to define the pecking order for repayment.

Guest101

mrs_mi5tery wrote: »

Actually, before that clause I was asking for clarification, it lists his bank and his wife as charges of the property. So they are the lenders in this situation?

Also, Valhaller wrote There is a first mortgage on the property against which further advances can be made.

But the clause says The proprietor of the Charge dated 2 January 2012 referred to above is under an obligation to make further advances.

I must be misinterpreting this, but these statements don't align?

From what I thought I understood, that clause means that if the proprietor sells, he has to fulfill his debt to a) the bank and b) his wife before he can do anything else with the remaining [if there is any]?

His wife, or whoever ha a registered interest in the house, Probably a percentage owned. Its for his solicitor to sort out. Don't worry its nothign for you

mrs_mi5tery

Guest101 wrote: »

His wife, or whoever ha a registered interest in the house, Probably a percentage owned. Its for his solicitor to sort out. Don't worry its nothign for you

Oh good, just checking. Thanks for the clarification!!

jamesd

Ask your own solicitor to explain both things to you. That makes your solicitor specifically aware of your interest and just in case they didn't notice prompts them to notice. It's not likely but occasionally a solicitor misses something.

Your solicitor will need to ensure that all charges, including that of the wife, are removed as part of completing the sale. Otherwise you could find that someone has a charge on your new place. Again this is uncommon but it does sometimes happen. So you should be asking your own solicitor to verify that the charges, particularly the one by the wife, are going to be removed.

The other solicitor will be required to ensure that before yours allows them to release the money to the seller.

This is just routine stuff but with this purchase, routine is troublesome, so best to ask your solicitor and be sure.

mrs_mi5tery

jamesd wrote: »

Ask your own solicitor to explain both things to you. That makes your solicitor specifically aware of your interest and just in case they didn't notice prompts them to notice. It's not likely but occasionally a solicitor misses something.

Your solicitor will need to ensure that all charges, including that of the wife, are removed as part of completing the sale. Otherwise you could find that someone has a charge on your new place. Again this is uncommon but it does sometimes happen. So you should be asking your own solicitor to verify that the charges, particularly the one by the wife, are going to be removed.

The other solicitor will be required to ensure that before yours allows them to release the money to the seller.

This is just routine stuff but with this purchase, routine is troublesome, so best to ask your solicitor and be sure.

This is great advice, thank you. I did not realise that she could potentially remain as a charge even though he was no longer the title holder. And you are so right, in this case even the obvious simple things are getting messed up!

pimento

mi5tery wrote: »

The tenant said maybe, he has no idea - he's lived in the flat for 8 years!

Didn't you notice the tenant when you viewed the flat?

mrs_mi5tery

pimento wrote: »

Didn't you notice the tenant when you viewed the flat?

?!?!!!?!!!

Kind of hard to miss: tenant was the one who showed us the property, vendor lives north! As I said on page 2, we had a lengthy conversation with him regarding his lease and his notice period!

observations_from_a_hill

Mr. & Mrs. OP, I know you have stated and reiterated about the notation on the second charge to seller's wife - could you for the sake of (my) clarity advise again the specific wording.

mrs_mi5tery

Sure. It is:

This register contains any charges and other matters that affect the land.
1 {07.06.2004} REGISTERED CHARGE dated 1 June 2004
2 {18.09.2007} Proprietor: [insert bank name and address here]
3 {30.03.2012} REGISTERED CHARGE dated 2 January 2012 affecting also other titles
NOTE: Charge reference [insert reference here]
4 {30.03.2012} Proprietor: [insert wife name and address here]
5 {30.03.2012} The proprietor of the charge dated 2 January 2012 referred to above is under an obligation to take further advances. These advances will have priority to the extent afforded by section 49(3) Land Registration Act 2002

We've googled the individual and have a theory that the vendor and his wife divorced last year, hence her inclusion as a charge with higher priority than the bank.