What does this legal term mean?

stator

ReadingTim wrote: »

...at which point the lender (or their estate) may find a way to terminate the agreement and the OP has to pay the money back, which may cause a problem if they have to sell the house to do so.

OP - while your mate's son might want your name off the title deeds, he can't do that. However, he can, in exactly the same way as a bank or building society does, put a charge over the property to ensure that he gets his money back when you come to sell it (it you haven't repaid the loan beforehand). This isn't unreasonable, whatever you might think of him personally.

He can only put a charge on the property if the loan agreement says he can.
All mortgage agreements say in the T&C that you will allow them to put a charge on the property.
With this informal agreement I doubt it says anything at all about a charge, so he can't apply for one.

It may be a 'reasonable request' to put one in a NEW loan agreement for a NEW loan. But it's not reasonable to retrospectively and unilaterially change a loan agreement that is already in effect.

ReadingTim

mrginge wrote: »

Personally I think it's totally unreasonable for one party to demand a change of contract terms without offering something in return.

I suspect the "something in return" is the chance, here and now, to repay the full outstanding amount if the OP doesn't like the new terms, rarther than slowly over the next 15 years as originally set out.

None of us have seen the "relatively basic loan agreement" which was agreed between the OP and his mate a decade ago, but I would suggest it's pretty niave to think one can simply rely on that agreement running its course, especially as the estate of one party to it is no longer in agreement with it (as it were). The status quo is extremely unlikely to continue.

The OP therefore needs to seek specialist, paid for legal advice, from a solicitor, not a random freebie forum "off of the internet"; but ultimately realise that their choices are limited to either accepting the charge, or repaying the loan now. And it will be entirely "legal".

Miss_Samantha

ReadingTim wrote: »

but ultimately realise that their choices are limited to either accepting the charge, or repaying the loan now. And it will be entirely "legal".

No, as said if the agreement does not allow the creditor to call on the loan then he has no right to do so and OP can just continue to pay as agreed.

This may sour the relation with the friend's son, but contracts exist to prevent one party from moving the goal posts as they please.

Cheeky_Monkey

OP - have you continued to make the loan repayments since your friend's death? If so, who have you been paying the money to?

Or, as I suspect, you have not and it's enabled you to buy a flat with cash as per your previous thread.

xylophone

If the OP does default, presumably the son could ask the court for a charging order?

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/action-your-creditor-can-take/charging-orders/

jimbog

In the words of that 80's icon Zamo - 'just say no'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCLs0jv_Efk

Hoploz

You need to show the original agreement to a solicitor for advice. Many solicitors will give some basic info for no payment in an initial meeting. Then you can decide whether you wish to proceed with them representing your interests in defence of the son's claim, or whatever. I would think even if you had to pay, some legal advice would be vital in this instance.

mrginge

ReadingTim wrote: »

I suspect the "something in return" is the chance, here and now, to repay the full outstanding amount if the OP doesn't like the new terms, rarther than slowly over the next 15 years as originally set out.

None of us have seen the "relatively basic loan agreement" which was agreed between the OP and his mate a decade ago, but I would suggest it's pretty niave to think one can simply rely on that agreement running its course, especially as the estate of one party to it is no longer in agreement with it (as it were). The status quo is extremely unlikely to continue.

I would be pretty confident that the status quo would continue, since that is presumably what the legal agreement is and law of contract is fairly well defined.

I would also be pretty confident that if the other party felt they had the right to add a charging order then they wouldn't be asking for permission to do so.

And I would also be pretty confident that if the option was sign or settle which you seem to be suggesting, then that would be written in very large letters on the document from the solicitor.