Secured loan against home.

Tixy

With a mortgage / first charge lenders do seek a waiver from other resident adults but with a secured loan I am not sure that the application forms necessarily even mention other resident adults in the property. If they lender doesn't know about any other adults, how would they be able to inform them or seek a similar waiver?

zxspeccy

Any loan secured against a property would be deemed to be a mortgage, however it may classed be a "second legal charge over the property" (i.e. 2nd mortgage). Either way I would have thought the lender would need to seek a waiver from the other occupants, even in the case of a second legal charge.

bris

All loan applications ask about your marital status, it is entirely possible this has been by passed by saying no to this question.


A secured loan should not have been granted without the spouses permission, so the borrower did probably falsify the application.

Ap_hazard_42

Thank you for the advice.

antrobus

zxspeccy wrote: »

There is a legal case "WILLIAMS & GLYN’S BANK LTD V BOLAND 1980" where this has been raised. .....

That would be the one.

I could not for the life of me remember, but I was sure that back, back in the mists of time somewhere, there had been a case where a lender was denied a repo. And as a result, every sensible lender made spousal consent a condition of granting a mortgage.

I don't know whether the position was changed by the Land Registration Act 2002; I don't think so because "An interest belonging to a person in actual occupation" is listed in Schedule 1 of that act as an example of an "Unregistered interests which override first registration".

But I am not a lawyer. And do if this kind of thing really matters to someone, the best thing to do is speak to someone who is.

MEM62

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.

It is not the banks responsibility to keep themselves aware of your marital situation beyond acting on the information they were given - presumably by your spouse.

Look to your spouse for an explanation - not the bank!

Ap_hazard_42

MEM62 wrote: »

It is not the banks responsibility to keep themselves aware of your marital situation beyond acting on the information they were given - presumably by your spouse.

Look to your spouse for an explanation - not the bank!

I never said it was my spouse. Everything is open to interpretation and assumption! Unfortunately the spouse in question died. So can't ask for an explanation.

Tixy

Ap_hazard_42 wrote: »

I never said it was my spouse. Everything is open to interpretation and assumption! Unfortunately the spouse in question died. So can't ask for an explanation.

I guess in this circumstance the effect is the same as if the loan had been unsecured. In that the deceased's debts will need to be paid from the deceased's estate, but that any debts in excess of the value of the estate do not need to be paid by any beneficiaries.

Is the surviving spouse aware of, or getting advice on, what they are not liable for?

Ap_hazard_42

Tixy wrote: »

I guess in this circumstance the effect is the same as if the loan had been unsecured. In that the deceased's debts will need to be paid from the deceased's estate, but that any debts in excess of the value of the estate do not need to be paid by any beneficiaries.

Is the surviving spouse aware of, or getting advice on, what they are not liable for?

Its a very complicated situation.


The executors of the estate have paid off the loan (the loan was secured against the house (left to wife)and a piece of land (left to one of executors), the bank would taken the land. If the spouse had defaulted on the loan). But the executors are telling the wife she has got to pay the loan back into the residue. But the loan was secured against two securities. The solicitor and executors are telling the wife that the paperwork involving the original mortgage deed has gone missing. The bank will not respond to their questions.


The wife cannot speak about her deceased husbands affairs as she is not an executor. The bank will not speak to her.


Because of the The provision of section 35 administration of estates act she has been told she has to pay £1,000's into the residue estate.


In an ideal world you would like to think you could trust the person you married. We are only human after all. Please refrain from criticism. I think the wife has suffered enough and would like to move on without being 'stiffed'.


Any advise other than loosing thousands in court would be helpful? Maybe there's a way out with the bank?


Thanks

jonesMUFCforever

Can I ask why you did not mention this at the beginning?
A whole page of replies that are wrong because we had NONE of the material facts.


The One answer I have for you - if the charge is legally put on the property then the only way to remove it is to pay the loan off - no iffs or buts.
How you do this should get its own thread!