Ex died and has apparently had a lodger in our jointly owned house

BobQ

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

If you can get it signed over to them, then that is probably the best way forward. But I fear it will be a non-starter, because his parents will probably need to take out their own mortgage.

I agree that will be the problem. The real issue is settling the outstanding mortgage on the property. Unless the mortgage gets settled during the transfer, the mortgage provider will not allow it.

The lender is going to get suspicious, because on the death of the ex, they will expect the endowment [that was cashed in] to pay off the mortgage. So I doubt that they will be up for transfer of equity.

The ex could not have sold the policy if the provider held the policy for security. So maybe they are just content with a charge on the property. That said they will want to know who is living at the address and see that the mortgage is paid so it will become an issue.

As I see it the OP is legally responsible for the mortgage if it was taken out jointly. If it was, my view is that the OP needs to take some specific actions.

Unless the lodger has an agreement (seems unlikely based on what OP has said) OP should get legal advice on evicting him legally.

OP should get the house emptied and valued with a view to selling it.

I note that the house is in disrepair but if it was purchased in 1999 it would have probably increased in value by 50%.It would have to be in a terrible state to be worth less than they paid for it.

Clearly we have not seen it but my view is that it might look bad now, but when empty it might look a lot better. The important thing is whether it is structurally sound.

OP, I would not transfer the property to the ex's parents unless they agree to settle the mortgage in the process. IN any case I do not think the mortgage provider will let you do it without that agreement.

J20BABY

Thanks for all that have commented. Sorry for such a long delay, the interim death certificate was finally issued last week but it will go to the Coroners court next year.

So, back to the matter in hand. His parents have finally spoken to me this evening (albeit with contempt) and told me that the druggy lodger pays £140 a month which they have paid off the mortgage each month (he get's housing benefit of double that apparently-some dodgy arrangement that they will have come up with together) so a tenancy agreement must exist for that HB to be paid.

They've also told me that if I sell the house then I have to give half of any profit to his estate or if I don't then 'buy him out'. Pretty sure this is not true as with we were joint tenants rather than tenants in common. (I know this as I checked with the Land Registry people)

They seem to think the druggy will leave easily as 'he knows he needs to go' but I have also heard he has been going round saying I am trying to get him out of HIS house.

All of this is irrelevant really, I just wanted to update the thread as people were good enough to give time to try and help.

I am waiting on the mortgage company receiving the death certificate and then I guess I need to take some action, not sure what though yet. The main thing right now that has been worrying me is that no buildings insurance exists on the property. Every way I tried to do it-empty property, or landlord insurance, none of it was true so it would be invalid anyway. I just have to hope that it doesn't get burnt down.

Yorkshireman99

J20BABY wrote: »

Thanks for all that have commented. Sorry for such a long delay, the interim death certificate was finally issued last week but it will go to the Coroners court next year.

So, back to the matter in hand. His parents have finally spoken to me this evening (albeit with contempt) and told me that the druggy lodger pays £140 a month which they have paid off the mortgage each month (he get's housing benefit of double that apparently-some dodgy arrangement that they will have come up with together) so a tenancy agreement must exist for that HB to be paid.

They've also told me that if I sell the house then I have to give half of any profit to his estate or if I don't then 'buy him out'. Pretty sure this is not true as with we were joint tenants rather than tenants in common. (I know this as I checked with the Land Registry people)

They seem to think the druggy will leave easily as 'he knows he needs to go' but I have also heard he has been going round saying I am trying to get him out of HIS house.

All of this is irrelevant really, I just wanted to update the thread as people were good enough to give time to try and help.

I am waiting on the mortgage company receiving the death certificate and then I guess I need to take some action, not sure what though yet. The main thing right now that has been worrying me is that no buildings insurance exists on the property. Every way I tried to do it-empty property, or landlord insurance, none of it was true so it would be invalid anyway. I just have to hope that it doesn't get burnt down.

You should ask the mortgage company to arrange insurance as they have an insurable interest.

dancingfairy

As far as I understand there is no requirement for anybody to administer probate. As there are no assets in the estate then you may be as well to not bother with probate. I believe the ownership of the house passes to you anyway and you don't need pobate for that. I think you need to decide if it worth your while spending time and money getting the person living in the house out and trying to get the house back into a liveable state or would you just sell as is? If there is a profit to be made then that is one thing but if you are going to be left with substantial debts or a house you can't sell with an outstanding mortgage on it then you may well find bankruptcy is the best option. If ( and I stress if) Bankruptcy is likely to be your best option you may as well do this from the start and not get involved in the whole issue of trying to evict etc etc. Of course you can of course get the ball rolling on trying to sort everything and then go bankrupt later if you need to. I'd try talking to the probate office first to check you don't need probate and don't need to administer an insolvent estate and then take advice from national debt line or step change.
Df

antrobus

J20BABY wrote: »

...They've also told me that if I sell the house then I have to give half of any profit to his estate or if I don't then 'buy him out'. Pretty sure this is not true as with we were joint tenants rather than tenants in common. (I know this as I checked with the Land Registry people)..

If you were joint tenants, and the Land Registry people would know for certain, then this is what you need to do;

http://www.landregistryservices.com/faqs/removal-of-a-joint-tenant.asp

Or get a solicitor to do it for you.

Yorkshireman99

dancingfairy wrote: »

As far as I understand there is no requirement for anybody to administer probate. As there are no assets in the estate then you may be as well to not bother with probate. I believe the ownership of the house passes to you anyway and you don't need pobate for that. I think you need to decide if it worth your while spending time and money getting the person living in the house out and trying to get the house back into a liveable state or would you just sell as is? If there is a profit to be made then that is one thing but if you are going to be left with substantial debts or a house you can't sell with an outstanding mortgage on it then you may well find bankruptcy is the best option. If ( and I stress if) Bankruptcy is likely to be your best option you may as well do this from the start and not get involved in the whole issue of trying to evict etc etc. Of course you can of course get the ball rolling on trying to sort everything and then go bankrupt later if you need to. I'd try talking to the probate office first to check you don't need probate and don't need to administer an insolvent estate and then take advice from national debt line or step change.
Df

As a property is involved then probate is required. If there is no will then the intestacy rules apply.

Mojisola

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

As a property is involved then probate is required. If there is no will then the intestacy rules apply.

We didn't need probate when Mum died. She and Dad owned the house as joint tenants.

Land_Registry

Just to clarify on a point that antrobus made earlier today, the information we hold is not necessarily definitive on whether a property is held as joint tenants or tenants in common. Lots of things can happen to 'sever' a joint tenancy that we won't necessarily hear about. Should stress that this doesn't affect any of the advice and information given previously, and it probably has no relevance for the original question, but thought I should mention that the register is not necessarily definitive on this.

Yorkshireman99

Mojisola wrote: »

We didn't need probate when Mum died. She and Dad owned the house as joint tenants.

Which is totally different with tenants in common. In the case of a JT ownership passes by survivorship alone.

antrobus

Land_Registry_representative wrote: »

Just to clarify on a point that antrobus made earlier today, the information we hold is not necessarily definitive on whether a property is held as joint tenants or tenants in common. Lots of things can happen to 'sever' a joint tenancy that we won't necessarily hear about. Should stress that this doesn't affect any of the advice and information given previously, and it probably has no relevance for the original question, but thought I should mention that the register is not necessarily definitive on this.

Thanks for the clarification.