Death oif mortgage holder

getmore4less

!!!!!! wrote: »

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.
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.

This is months not weeks.

The lender won't wait for ever but as long as the mortgage payments are made then they will give more time.

Actively marketing can also encourage a lender to be flexible.

G6JNS

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

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


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

You are the one talking nonsense. I suggest you read the thread from the beginning. AIUI she has little or no funds, lives on benefits and had no recent employment history or much prospect of a job. Realistically she needs to go to the CAB and get some sensible advice rather than the twaddle you are suggesting, The longer she leaves it the more interest will pile up and the greater the prospect of repossession.

DandelionPatrol

G6JNS wrote: »

You are the one talking nonsense. I suggest you read the thread from the beginning. AIUI she has little or no funds, lives on benefits and had no recent employment history or much prospect of a job. Realistically she needs to go to the CAB and get some sensible advice rather than the twaddle you are suggesting, The longer she leaves it the more interest will pile up and the greater the prospect of repossession.

There is a mortgage with £36000 outstanding. She can cover the monthly payments, which are less than renting a property. The interest, which you are fixating on is piling up at a slower rate than the costs of renting a property.

Clearly she is not going to get anything but twaddle and defeatist twaddle at that from you. It makes sense for her to pay the mortgage through the estate if at all possible and to do so for as long as she can, short of imminent repo. My twaddle, and it is push-the-envelope, buy-some-time, see-how-far-you-can-go-with-it twaddle, may not be for the unimaginative or faint hearted. But it is far from nonsense.

thorsoak

Legally, the building society had a contract with the mortgagee, who has since died. Therefore there is now no contract, and the outstanding balance is due to the building society. There is no legal precedence for the building society to allow the beneficiary to continue living in the premises and the building society is quite within its rights to press the estate for the sale of the property and the repayment of the amount outstanding on the mortgage.

In the current economic climate, sadly it is unlikely that the beneficiary will be able to obtain a mortgage - even allowing for the fact that the value of the property is more than three times the amount of the outstanding mortgage.

I have suggested that she tries to find out if she is in an area where the local Housing Association is in a position to buy the property - she would then be able to stay in the house.

What Dandelion Patrol suggests is just going to alienate the building society who could well become far more aggressive in insisting upon a sale. If the building society sees that the estate is marketing the property, they will be prepared to wait until a sale is agreed.

DandelionPatrol

thorsoak wrote: »

Legally, the building society had a contract with the mortgagee, who has since died. Therefore there is now no contract, and the outstanding balance is due to the building society. There is no legal precedence for the building society to allow the beneficiary to continue living in the premises and the building society is quite within its rights to press the estate for the sale of the property and the repayment of the amount outstanding on the mortgage.

In the current economic climate, sadly it is unlikely that the beneficiary will be able to obtain a mortgage - even allowing for the fact that the value of the property is more than three times the amount of the outstanding mortgage.

I have suggested that she tries to find out if she is in an area where the local Housing Association is in a position to buy the property - she would then be able to stay in the house.

What Dandelion Patrol suggests is just going to alienate the building society who could well become far more aggressive in insisting upon a sale. If the building society sees that the estate is marketing the property, they will be prepared to wait until a sale is agreed.

"Therefore there is now no contract" wrong in essence, because if there were no contract, how could the lender reclaim anything? The contract remains and it is between the lender and the estate of the late borrower.

"What Dandelion Patrol suggests is just going to alienate the building society who could well become far more aggressive in insisting upon a sale." I do not see that attempting to pay the lender from the estate of the late borrower will justifiably alienate the lender. Perhaps the lender has become alienated by payments being missed on the death of the borrower, hence refusing payments. But that is a whole new ball game - and there is no indication from the OP that this has been the case.

You are being a little bit ridiculous here, thorsoak, because the lender may well become aggressive about trying to force a sale if nothing is done. In my opinion, their tactic of refusing to accept payments is just that, aggressive, despicable even. Hence I am suggesting a means of paying what is owed. What a silly world you live in to suggest that this would alienate a lender.

thorsoak

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

I do not see that attempting to pay the lender from the estate of the late borrower will justifiably alienate the lender. Perhaps the lender has become alienated by payments being missed on the death of the borrower, hence refusing payments. But that is a whole new ball game - and there is no indication from the OP that this has been the case.

You are being a little bit ridiculous here, thorsoak, because the lender may well become aggressive about trying to force a sale if nothing is done. In my opinion, their tactic of refusing to accept payments is just that, aggressive, despicable even. Hence I am suggesting a means of paying what is owed. What a silly world you live in to suggest that this would alienate a lender.

Do you have any evidence to back up your opinion? Have you any experience of this type of situation? Or are you voicing your own opinions?

I speak from experience.

DandelionPatrol

thorsoak wrote: »

Do you have any evidence to back up your opinion? Have you any experience of this type of situation? Or are you voicing your own opinions?

I speak from experience.

Well give us your experience then, as you are so certain, because assertion that paying the lender what they are owed will alienate them is no better than opinion.

Personally, I have never been in the position of owing money past a due date, so it is just my opinion that paying the creditor will not alienate them. And I am happy to let you damn that idea as opinion.

thorsoak

You have misunderstood me: of course the Estate should continue making the contracted payments - but they must come out of the Estate - not from a third party. Upon the death of the mortgagee, the whole amount is due to the building society - in preferred circumstances, this payment would come from an insurance policy taken out on the life of the mortgagee. By arguing that the mortgagee's widow can afford to make the payments herself out of benefits is not productive : as the mortgage is not in her name, she is not really entitled to claim SMI benefit.

If the building society is satisfied that steps are being taken to market the property by the executors/administrators of the estate, there will be no active steps to foreclose on the mortgage.

Building Societies have to operate within legal definitions - the opinions of individuals do not enter into their equations.

lessonlearned

This happened to an aunt of mine, admittedly about half a century ago.

Her solicitor stood as guarantor and she got a job. It was a large house so she also let out rooms to lodgers for extra income.

Fast forward to when she retired and she ended up with 4 flats and a house. She lived in one of the flats and the rental income from the other properties funded her retirement.

Something like this might be an option. In the grand scheme of things £36k is not unmanageable.

Perhaps family members could form a consortium to stand as guarantors.

DandelionPatrol

thorsoak wrote: »

You have misunderstood me: of course the Estate should continue making the contracted payments - but they must come out of the Estate - not from a third party. Upon the death of the mortgagee, the whole amount is due to the building society - in preferred circumstances, this payment would come from an insurance policy taken out on the life of the mortgagee. By arguing that the mortgagee's widow can afford to make the payments herself out of benefits is not productive : as the mortgage is not in her name, she is not really entitled to claim SMI benefit.

If the building society is satisfied that steps are being taken to market the property by the executors/administrators of the estate, there will be no active steps to foreclose on the mortgage.

Building Societies have to operate within legal definitions - the opinions of individuals do not enter into their equations.

I think you have misunderstood me ....