Secured loan against home.

Ap_hazard_42

Hi, Please help if possible


Should the spouse living in the house have been made aware of a secured loan on their home? Their spouse signed for the loan.


Many thanks

haras_nosirrah

Yes the person borrowing the money should have told their spouse

I am guessing though you are asking if the lender should have told you

Is the property in joint names and has the person borrowing money forged your signature?

Ap_hazard_42

Hi,


No the spouse did not tell his wife.
The house is in the husbands name only. The loan was only signed for by the husband. The bank didn't inform the wife of the loan secured against her home. Should the wife have been informed by the bank? Or signed to say it was ok? Even though the home was not in joint name, she has been married to him for 30 yrs plus. Therefore would have a financial interest in the home?
Thanks for any advice

Tixy

No. There is no obligation for a lender to inform a non-owner who resides in the property. They may not have even been aware of any other adults living in the property.

tonycottee

Ap_hazard_42 wrote: »

It seems a little irresponsible of lenders, considering others who are in the home are unawares that their home is at risk. Especially if married. Thanks for advice.

There are three parties involved in this scenario;

The homeowner
The spouse
The bank

Which one of the three do you really think is the irresponsible one?

gazman100

I'd find it very irresponsible if a bank decided to reveal details of my personnel financial information to people not involved with the transactions!

Mojisola

Ap_hazard_42 wrote: »

No the spouse did not tell his wife.

The house is in the husbands name only.

Even though the home was not in joint name, she has been married to him for 30 yrs plus. Therefore would have a financial interest in the home?

If they divorced, she would be entitled to a share of the value of the house.

While they are married and the property is only in his name, he can do anything he likes with it.

Thrugelmir

Ap_hazard_42 wrote: »

It seems a little irresponsible of lenders, considering others who are in the home are unawares that their home is at risk. Especially if married. Thanks for advice.

Not the lenders issue. As they have no relationship with the spouse. Nor are they in a position to say what somebody should or shouldn't do with their own money.

antrobus

I'm not convinced that the answer is as clear cut as people think it is.

I live in the uk the house is in my name only and the morgage will I need wife's consent to get a second morgage?
Brad
In short, yes. Although the house and current mortgage are in your sole name you will need to get your wife's consent because she will have to waive her rights of occupation in favour of the new lender before they will make an offer of mortgage. Without this waiver/consent the lender would not be able to evict your wife should they ever repossess the property and this would make it very difficult/impossible for them to sell it and clear their outstanding debt.
I recommend that you both, but especially your wife takes legal advice before you sign anything.



http://www.charcol.co.uk/knowledge-resources/ask-the-mortgage-experts/article/consent-to-mortgage-5725/

Dingo12

Ap_hazard_42 wrote: »

Hi, Please help if possible


Should the spouse living in the house have been made aware of a secured loan on their home? Their spouse signed for the loan.


Many thanks

Was this intentionally written as a poem?

zxspeccy

There is a legal case "WILLIAMS & GLYN’S BANK LTD V BOLAND 1980" where this has been raised. The Bank tried to repossess a house which was in the name of the husband. However his wife was living in the house with him, and had an "overriding interest" in the property (i.e. it was her main residence). The Bank were unable to repossess due to this as the wife had no idea the property was at risk. This was something I research when completing my Banking Exams, however this was over 25 years ago, but I still believe it is relevant today. I am sure that Banks nowadays would have tighten up the contracts to ensure they are not in this position.