Wife not on Joint Mortgage

Spendless

A friend of mine was a single mum on benefits living in a rented house when she met her husband.

They needed a bigger house cos he has kids from 1st marriage who visit. Husband bought house in his name only (he told friend it'd be quicker that way). He has changed lenders since but still kept house in his name only. Now they wish to have extension so have applied for bigger mortgage with new lender. Husband still refuses to put my friends name on mortgage.

Last night she called asking my husband to sign form that said tho she lived in house it was nothing to do with her. She needed it signing as otherwise would not get money for extension.
My husband was busy and she didn't ask me to sign -prob cos I'd already said if it was me -no name on mortgage -no signing either. I think someone else did sign for her tho.

I posted this on Discussion 1st as I wanted peoples views but several people have pointed out potential probs if hubby was to die for examp.

I think I should also mention since marrying friend has always worked and has on occassions been main breadwinner.

Could anyone advise ???

yonk

I think alarm bells should be ringing....

Wife has equitable & legal rights in home under statutory law. Form was bank asking her if she has such rights so that, in theory, they could repossess without having to tell her.

Sorry for jargon, legal rights are statutory rights, equitable rights are rights that a court would judge as fair.

However, legal rights are far more preferable - ie name on title. Problems can arise if house is repossessed or spouse can attempt to sell house without needing another signature.

She is in a better position than if she was co-habiting. If that was the case, she could be asked to leave and have no option (unless there are children involved). However, (if you can) I would gently get her to check this out - some people still think that if the house is in sole name, they can throw their spouse out.

Spendless

rt - some people still think that if the house is in sole name, they can throw their spouse out.

IMO I think this is exactly what is happening when his 1st marriage failed his 1st wife remained with their kids in marital homeand I think he is doing this incase this marriagefails also

So how would you know if you had equitable or legal rights?

yonk

She has more rights regardless of the type because she is married - you/she can go to somewhere like CAB or see a solicitor just to check things out.

I just had a look around the web to try to find the actual law and came up with this on a divorce website.

"If you are married and the property is not registered in your name, you must register a charge on the property with the local Land Registry office to ensure that your spouse cannot sell the home or re-mortgage without your consent."

Not what I was after but confirming that he can sell without asking her.....but he would have to split the asset with her if it was bought after they were married. How that would be done is up to negotiation or the court. And I suppose more difficult if the house sale has gone through.

I'm in Scotland where it's the Matrimonial Homes Act but the principle is the same.

The house would pass to her if he died, so long as there was a will, IHT free. Otherwise, half his estate would be hers plus a life interest in the remainder which is split between children etc. Takes ages to sort though.

Hmm, sorry to be voice of doom (and assuming the worst) but I would not be happy. Fine whilst everything is ok but more difficult if things happen.

Spendless

So assumming marriage did not work out - could he kick her out without a penny and remain living in house.

or

do you mean it would have to go though courts and they would prob say sell and she would be entitled to share of proceeds?

BTW they do not have children together - he has 2 from 1st marriage who live with his ex-wife . She has 1 from prev relationship who live with them.

When I spoke to her. She said she was so fed up of him being funny with her over this & other money issues. That she intends tohave her own bank account and he can pay
for everything and she will pay a set sum as 'rent' for the upkeep of herself and her son.

Now I'm getting replies to this situation I don't think this is a good idea as I think she would be putting herself in an even more vulnerable position should the marriage fail

yonk

I mean it would probably go to court and they would have to fight it out (unless they went to mediation) and the court would have the final say. Bear in mind, this would cost in solicitor's fees.

She would need to register her interest in the property at the point they separated or before.

IF they were co-habiting, then he could kick her out without a penny BUT they are married so she is entitled to a share of the house provided it was bought after they got married.

I think it sounds like this is a real issue and I would be suggesting Relate or some form of mediation. It is understandable why he feels this way but money may also have been one of the issues that his 1st wife was upset about. It is also understandable that she has got to a point it's easier not to discuss it but if left, things will only deteriorate.

Spendless

The house was actually bought a few months b4 they got married. They were engaged & living together( at her rented house)when he bought house. I think it was bought between 2 to 5 months prior to their wedding and wasbought with the intention of being a family home for his wife to be and her child.

yonk

I think she should get this checked out properly - I'm a lay person but this is my understanding of the situation...assets bought before marriage revert to the person that bought them on divorce.

It MAY be different because it's the home and not just a consumer item but I'm not sure.

Spendless

I will try my best to get her to get expert advice - thank for your time :-*

aidsy

i have a thought on this ..  it sounds like the house is too small  as an extension has to be built   so why not find a new house to live in   yes a bigger house   or  this is what i would do , if the house was a good location to rent i would remortgage the house in both names and on a btl (buy to let) intrest only mortgage and use some of the capital for a deposit for your new home ,   in doing this you would have a larger home and also an small income from the rented house  and more security..

Spendless

Thanks for idea - but wouldn't work. My friend likes where they live and even if were to buy bigger house the husband would not put his wife on mortgage.