Adding name to title of property

matt1234

magan wrote: »

There is nothing to afford or not. Payment is coming from the same account and it is exactly the same person paying, mi sister doesn't work. It is just a question of adding a name. Payment on time has NEVER failed, there is no change on circumstances in the account they have been collecting the payment from, so that should not present a problem at all.

There might be another avenue you could try but be sure to get a seriously good property lawyer to see if it'll work. Basically, in common law jurisdictions all properties are owned at law and in equity simultaneously. Your sister's husband currently has 100% legal and beneficial ownership. It might be possible to get beneficial ownership changed to 50/50 between your sister and her husband without affecting the legal ownership. Therefore the bank would not be bothered (as they can still go after your sister's husband for 100% of the house) and I don't think they could even stop them from doing it. There is a form which allows you to state the beneficial ownership shares with the land registry at the time of conveyance, you should see if it can be changed retrospectively.

matt1234

You should also know that even if your sister's name is not on the title deeds and the marriage breaks down (hopefully not!) your sister will still get a share of the house (through a common intention constructive trust) if she did things like contribute to household bills/mortgage or looked after their children at home. There is a bigger list of qualifying items to be found in the Case of Stack v Dowden but obviously you need a lawyer to advise you if this something which is applicable to you.

I just thought the above might be useful for anyone in this position who does a search in the future

Edit: Just remembered this applies to unmarried couples only. There are other rules for married couples which make things much simpler.

magan

Thank you so much Matt1234 for that information, I will let her know so they can check that and see what "beneficial ownership" entitles to and if it would be worth for them to do. ( I have never heard of that before). But until now and with all the economic changes it seems that most lenders what they want is trap you in a new contract that would only be beneficial for them and that would be ridiculous in their circumstances as their mortgage is really low and they have already paid half of it. Yours might be a possible solution

matt1234

magan wrote: »

Thank you so much Matt1234 for that information, I will let her know so they can check that and see what "beneficial ownership" entitles to and if it would be worth for them to do. ( I have never heard of that before). But until now and with all the economic changes it seems that most lenders what they want is trap you in a new contract that would only be beneficial for them and that would be ridiculous in their circumstances as their mortgage is really low and they have already paid half of it. Yours might be a possible solution

Beneficial ownership is where the value is in English common law. Legal title has no value. If your sister and her husband were joint beneficial owners (Each has a 50% share) of a house worth £300K then your sister would get £150k even if her name is not on the legal title.

TBagpuss

The bank may be unwilling to consent to the transfer of equity precisely because they have such a good deal now - from the bank's perspective it would be better if they remortgage onto a new (and less beneficial) deal!

If the bank can't or won't add sisters name, then the short term solution would be to consider why they want sister's name added, and to take legal steps to achieve that end - this could be a deed of trust giving her joint beneficial ownership, updating their wills and life insurance to ensure it passes to her in the event anything were to happen to her husband, registering her Matrimonial Home Rights if she has concerns about husband dealing with the property alone, etc.

Because they are married, the house is a matrimonial asset, so Wife would be entitled to a share if they separated, regardless of whether it is in joint names or his sole name.