Divorce - forced to stay on mortgage

Savvyjevvy

ACG wrote: »

Go and speak to a solicitor, this needs to go back to court.

I could understand to some degree if she had a way o supporting herself and the mortgage but she does not. So that means your credit report has the potential and is very likely to be dragged through the mud at some point.

Do you have legal support on an insurance policy anywhere or through work? That can be a good place to get started free of charge.

I would say when it goes to court you need to br prepared to fight it and not just assume the judge will see common sense (having been to court on a couple of occasions I have known judges to just back with whoever shouts the loudest whether they are in the right or not).

On a side note, are the deeds still in joint names? Until they are not, you are still the legal owner so I would go and sit in that house and drag your feet filling out the paperwork.

Also make sure Natwest have your contact details incase any direct debits are missed/bounced - atleast you can attempt to pay them if your aware of any arrears. I also wouldnt tell the ex that you are concerned about credit report as that could give them the upper hand.

I am meeting the bank to notify and chat this week

The deeds arent changed yet - i think theres a cost so i doubt she will rush to do it just yet

thanks for your help i have a lot of reading to do now to start aa fight i think !

i cant believe that you cant appeal though - that looks like the biggest hurdle being allowed to even get this re heard - and apparently its the same judge you had - so thats a nightmare, he was a funny one as if we were wasting his time! his tone was the very same to us both so it wasnt even a dislike to me!
thanks guys

Savvyjevvy

TBagpuss wrote: »

The court has no power to order the mortgage lender to take your name off the mortgage.

It may be worth your while to speak to a solicitor - did you have any legal advice at or before the hearing.

It would be unusual for a court to make an order in these terms unless the judge felt that she was likely to be able to pay the mortgage - what did she say in court? It may be that the Judge took the view that she was likely to get a job and that she will be able to pay the mortgage.

Were there any other assets? on what you say, she got the house. What did you get? Pension? Higher income?

You can only take this back to court to change the order if you can show that the the Judge either:
1. Made a mistake about the law. (Unlikely, a court has wide discretiton in a financial settlement on divorce and an order transfverring beneficial ownership of a property but leaving the non-owning property on a mortgage is not particularly unusual) OR
2. Made a mistake about the facts.
In either case you also have to show that the outcome would have been substantially different iof the court had not made that error.

You also need to look at the wording of the order. What does it say about the mortgage? Does it say that she is responsible for mortgage payments and that she must indemnify you in relation to them?

if it doesn't, then it may be possible for you to refer back to the court for guidance on the interpretation of the order.

Your best bet at this point is to speak to a solicitor, taking a copy of the order with you (and, of possible, the summaries from your Forms E showing what your financial positions were.

If ou have, take a copy of the Judgment, as the Judge will have explained his or her reasoning for making the order. Did you take notes? Do you remember what the Judge said?

My solicitor has said that i might not be able to appeal they are looking into it. i had them throughtout advising me but no barrister on the day as ive run out of cash - and also thought it was a follow on from the original court day anyway where the barrister was basically just reading the file out - now im sorry i didnt borrow to get one because i cant remember much after the judge said this - my mind went blank - my mouth fell and i lost all hearing! im still in a bit of shock.

what kind of facts can be incorrect?

i have a pension worth around 30k, and thats all we have together is the property - interest only with maybe 25k equity in.

i earn 25k, she earns nothing being off work with stress since the marriage broke down.

Thrugelmir

Savvyjevvy wrote: »

i have a pension worth around 30k, and thats all we have together is the property - interest only with maybe 25k equity in.

There's your answer possibly. You keep your pension your ex takes the property equity. A fair split.

Savvyjevvy

Thrugelmir wrote: »

There's your answer possibly. You keep your pension your ex takes the property equity. A fair split.

It's not the split that's bothered me - but that I have to remain on the mortgage it doesn't seem logical and responsible to order that?

As she has no income she will at some stage run out of money and could default or get repossessed which will go against me and stop me erring any kind of credit, mortgage and can even affect opening bank accounts!

If the property had to be sold I would be released from the mortgage and she could keep the equity no problem.

Keekles

Feel for you.

Had a client in similar circumstances and he's having to appeal the court ruling, so naturally the costs are escalating and the stress of it all is seemingly ridiculous whilst he's also tied in the sense that he can't mortgage on a new property due to affordability, ironically, on a property that he's no longer on the deeds for.

I don't think there's much anyone can tell you from a mortgage perspective as this is purely a legal matter. Sounds as if judges haven't had much experience with regards to mortgages & title deeds!

If you stop paying the mortgage you're going to ruin your own credit in terms of buying on yourself so it's not really a viable option.
Chances are similar circumstances have happened to someone else, somewhere; so I'd take some free advice from your lender regarding their view on the situation.

Best of luck.

sax11

do you pay any of the other bills (elec/gas/council tax etc)

Notify them and say you're not at the property anymore, you've got the court judgement to back that up, and stop the payments. This may change someones mind.

Only offer this advice as it's the course i took.

antrobus

Savvyjevvy wrote: »

It's not the split that's bothered me - but that I have to remain on the mortgage it doesn't seem logical and responsible to order that? ......

A court has considerable freedom to say who gets what in a divorce, and decide on (for example) who gets the house. But it has no power to order a mortgage lender to do anything as a result of that decision.

The lender advanced the money to both you and your wife, on the basis that both of you were equally responsible for repayment. The fact that you have now decided not to be married has nothing to do with the lender.

Thrugelmir

Keekles wrote: »

Sounds as if judges haven't had much experience with regards to mortgages & title deeds!

Courts have better things to do with their time than arbitrate between warring factions. In this instance the decision was probably the best option given the low sums involved and the cost to both parties if the assets have to be divided.

Keekles

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Courts have better things to do with their time than arbitrate between warring factions. In this instance the decision was probably the best option given the low sums involved and the cost to both parties if the assets have to be divided.

Granted, if both parties were agreeing to sale and division of assets. In this case however, the party benefiting from the decision are refusing sale of asset.

From her POV; little / no income, therefore ex-husband (OP) is effectively forced to pay the mortgage or ruin himself in the process by judge's ruling.

What might be better things to do with their time clearly doesn't leave OP in a reasonable position.