Death oif mortgage holder

FreeBear

konark wrote: »

I thought the fee remission was only on the size of the estate.i.e under £5,000

Correct, there is no fee if the estate is under £5,000. But unless I have misunderstood the EX160a forms from HMCTS, certain benefits give the claimant the right to apply for fee remission on all court fees - It wouldn't hurt to fill in the form or give the Probate Registry a call and ask.

DandelionPatrol

Sorry, late to this one.

It seems to me that the right thing to do is to get the letters of administration and an administrators account and attempt to pay the mortgage from that, gathering evidence of refusal to accept funds. Crucially, if repo proceedings are started, it would be a poor show not to have the outstanding money available, because the argument in court could be that the estate of the late whoever had made attempts to pay the mortgage and the money was available. Keep the house in the estate of course ...

getmore4less

not_waving wrote: »

She would be able to continue to pay the mortgage but the bank will not allow that and she would not be able to get a mortgage in her name. Because the mortgage is not in her name then the bank will not accept payments from her.

They won't allow indefinate payments but should allow payments to keep upto date during adminstration and before the grant is issued.

G6JNS

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

Sorry, late to this one.

It seems to me that the right thing to do is to get the letters of administration and an administrators account and attempt to pay the mortgage from that, gathering evidence of refusal to accept funds. Crucially, if repo proceedings are started, it would be a poor show not to have the outstanding money available, because the argument in court could be that the estate of the late whoever had made attempts to pay the mortgage and the money was available. Keep the house in the estate of course ...

How would this work? There doe not seem to be any money in the estate so where would it come from? The argument you propose for the court will not work.

DandelionPatrol

G6JNS wrote: »

How would this work? There doe not seem to be any money in the estate so where would it come from? The argument you propose for the court will not work.

OP is willing to 'take over' the mortgage.

AFAICS, as long as the mortgage is paid, the lender does not have a lot of clout for a repo. If the property is kept within the estate, the lender has no real grounds to refuse the mortgage.

If the lender refuses the money, they cannot really use the argument that the mortgage is in arrears to seek a repo. They need a better idea to use in court.

G6JNS

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

OP is willing to 'take over' the mortgage.

AFAICS, as long as the mortgage is paid, the lender does not have a lot of clout for a repo. If the property is kept within the estate, the lender has no real grounds to refuse the mortgage.

If the lender refuses the money, they cannot really use the argument that the mortgage is in arrears to seek a repo. They need a better idea to use in court.

The lender is quite entitled to refuse the beneficiaries a mortgage. The court will enforce that. The problem is that to get mortgage requires not only security but also ability to repay it.

DandelionPatrol

G6JNS wrote: »

The lender is quite entitled to refuse the beneficiaries a mortgage. The court will enforce that. The problem is that to get mortgage requires not only security but also ability to repay it.

Your thinking is too much inside the box. To transfer the property to OP's friend, the old mortgage has to be closed out, at which point OP's friend can be refused a mortgage.

If the property remains inside the estate, what is there for the court to enforce until such time as payments are not made? Indeed, OP has already stated that friend can afford the mortgage.

G6JNS

The mortgagor is perfectly entitled to foreclose and they can take legal action against the estate via the executors. They may grant the beneficiary a mortgage but it will be on their current lending terms and subject to them satisfying the requirement s for income. Sad as it may be there does bot seem to be any realistic chance of that happening. the more the beneficiary delays the more costs will ramp up and the less equity will be left when the inevitable sale happens.

DandelionPatrol

G6JNS wrote: »

The mortgagor is perfectly entitled to foreclose and they can take legal action against the estate via the executors. They may grant the beneficiary a mortgage but it will be on their current lending terms and subject to them satisfying the requirement s for income. Sad as it may be there does bot seem to be any realistic chance of that happening. the more the beneficiary delays the more costs will ramp up and the less equity will be left when the inevitable sale happens.

On what grounds would the lender foreclose?????? As I read it, the lender is refusing payments in order to engineer a default and get grounds for a repo. They are actively refusing payments. Now as I see it, if they have other grounds for a repo, they would use those grounds and still accept payments.

As long as the property remains within the estate and the mortgage is paid, the usual grounds for a repo do not apply. It is bad faith on the part of the lender not to accept mortgage payments and the smart way to pay is via an estate account. If the lender did try a repo on grounds of arrears, any evidence of refusal to accept payment would probably show sufficient bad faith to throw the repo claim out.

As for 'costs mounting' at the moment you are just puffing, because it does not appear that proceedings are imminent.

Also, read this

not_waving wrote: »

There are a couple of plus points to keeping the house for the moment. One is that it gives her stability, unlike the private rented sector where you can be forced to move through no fault of your own pretty much whenever the landlord wants. Another is that, with interest rates being low and the amount of the mortgage being small, then the monthly payment is tiny compared to private renting. It may be that this is not so much of an issue if she gets no help with the mortgage but would get housing benefit. The other is school for the youngest child.

It makes financial :money: sense for OP's friend to try and stay in the property - the above says that every extra month she stays is a financial gain for her. As I see it, the task at hand here is to try and help her to stay by offering possibilities to explore and ideas to overcome issues. Not to discourage exploring options. If she can hold off the lender and get a job, and a prospect of a mortgage, this is all to the good

System

I would think that the mortgage company as a creditor of the estate can force matters along if the administrator does not deal with the estate in a timely manner.

As long as the property remains within the estate and the mortgage is paid,

If it is seen that the mortgage company is being treated as a preferential creditor by any other creditors then that generates its own problems.