Amazon Credit Card

chris.mitchell

Hi

My sisters partner sadly died suddenly in June at the age of 38. They held a joint mortgage together, which has now been transferred into my sisters name.

All of my brother in laws credit cards have been closed, with the exception of his MBNA Card (Amazon).

MBNA are claiming that the mortgage they held was 'Tenants in Common' and that his balance must now be paid from his estate. The last woman i spoke to from MBNA states that they searched the land registry to find this information.

I have asked Principality (Mortgage Provider) to send me written proof of what time of Mortgage they took out. I've now had a letter off them confirming that they took out was in fact 'Joint Tenants'

I am under the impression that as it's Joint Tenants, MBNA have no right to try and get money from what was his share of the property? He had no savings, pension or life policies in place.

chanz4

The house is his estate, so yes they can

JacksterD

<deleted >

SammenForLivet2

Is a credit card not 'Un Secured' debt? - Would this mean that it wouldn't be secured against a house?

If they require payment, could you not see, if you could pay it out of your or your sisters pocket? I'm afraid, that unless your willing to lose the house, this may be the only choice?

I'm not an expert on these types of affairs, so I may stand corrected.

jonesMUFCforever

macfamilyent wrote: »

Is a credit card not 'Un Secured' debt? - Would this mean that it wouldn't be secured against a house?

If they require payment, could you not see, if you could pay it out of your or your sisters pocket? I'm afraid, that unless your willing to lose the house, this may be the only choice?

I'm not an expert on these types of affairs, so I may stand corrected.

What MBNA mean is that his 'estate' consisted of half the house - any equity in his half could/should? be available to pay off estate debts. (The debt is not secured - that is not the point here).

Was there no life insurance here to pay the mortgage off or PPI on the card.
I would suggest that for MBNA to take this so far the amount outstanding is substantial.

chris.mitchell

Thanks for your replies!

There is a balance of around 4k on his MBNA card and yes it was an unsecured account.

The problem I have here is that they appear to be trying to trick my sister into paying them the debt herself. The last woman I spoke to from MBNA said that they have searched the land registry and that the joint mortgage they held was a 'Tennants in Common' which apparently means that his half of the house would go to the estate and not my sister on his death.

I have spoken with the Principality who they held the mortgage with, and they can confirm that it was not a 'Tennants in Common' mortgage, it was held as 'Joint Tennants' - which apparently means that my brother in laws share of the property has transferred to my sister.

They did have an insurance policy, however my brother in law appears to have cancelled it a few months before his death

I'm not sure why MBNA would call and tell her that she held this Tennants in Common mortgage when they didn't? Are they trying to confuse a grieving widow with the hope that she will pay straight away?

lisyloo

I believe chanz4 and jones are wrong.
If a house is held jointly then ownership transfers to the survivor outside of the estate.
If there is nothing in the estate then MBNA have to write it off. Their fault for lending the money to someone unsecured.
If it was "tenants in common" then half the house would be in the estate and the debts would come out of that.

I'm not sure why MBNA would call and tell her that she held this Tennants in Common mortgage when they didn't? Are they trying to confuse a grieving widow with the hope that she will pay straight away?

Sorry but yes (disgraceful behaviour).

Does your sister have free legal advice on their home insurance? If so call and speak to a solicitor. If not, get a free half hour with a local solicitor.
Hopefully she will then have the confidence to ignore MBNA or tell them to "do one" or "sue me".

She is not liable for any of his debts (unless of course they were joint or secured).

chris.mitchell

lisyloo wrote: »

I believe chanz4 and jones are wrong.
If a house is held jointly then ownership transfers to the survivor outside of the estate.
If there is nothing in the estate then MBNA have to write it off. Their fault for lending the money to someone unsecured.
If it was "tenants in common" then half the house would be in the estate and the debts would come out of that.

Sorry but yes (disgraceful behaviour).

Does your sister have free legal advice on their home insurance? If so call and speak to a solicitor. If not, get a free half hour with a solicitor.
Hopefully she will then have the confidence to ignore MBNA or tell them to "do one" or "sue me".

She is not liable for any of his debts (unless of course they were joint or secured).

Thank for your reply. What you have said is the understanding I had.

I will check her home insurance, I never thought of checking on that!

lisyloo

BTW - she doesn't need to prove or disprove anything outside of court and they can't harrass her.
Once confident in the information she can tell them to leave her alone or take her to court.
She can threaten to report them for harrassement if necessary.

jonesMUFCforever

lisyloo wrote: »

I believe chanz4 and jones are wrong.
If a house is held jointly then ownership transfers to the survivor outside of the estate.
If there is nothing in the estate then MBNA have to write it off. Their fault for lending the money to someone unsecured.
If it was "tenants in common" then half the house would be in the estate and the debts would come out of that.

Sorry but yes (disgraceful behaviour).

Does your sister have free legal advice on their home insurance? If so call and speak to a solicitor. If not, get a free half hour with a local solicitor.
Hopefully she will then have the confidence to ignore MBNA or tell them to "do one" or "sue me".

She is not liable for any of his debts (unless of course they were joint or secured).

I based my reply on the fact that it seemed that they were tenants in common not joint tenants.
If indeed it is joint tenants - then the house is not part of the estate and MBNA cannot use it to make the survivor pay.

lisyloo

Post #1 states that

I've now had a letter off them (mortgage company) confirming that they took out was in fact 'Joint Tenants'

Sounds like you fell for MBNA's story jones? which just goes to show that some people will.