Charging order on the house for deceased ex

Cammo66

Hi all

My girlfriend is looking to remortgage her house and her mortgage advisor has advised that there is a charging order appearing against the house in the name of her ex-husband. Her ex passed away in July 2017, and this was the first that she knew of any charging order.

The charging order was taken out in April 2005 by Direct Legal & Collection, in relation to a CCJ against her ex over a Citibank credit card. For the record they divorced in 2010. The amount is just under £9k.

The equity in the house was transferred to my gf following their divorce, but they both remained on the deeds as tenants in common despite him moving on to another location.

Can anyone advise what the status is of the charging order? As it was in relation to a credit card debt in his name, does it pass with his passing?

Many thanks!

silvercar

Interesting.

Years ago we were in the process of buying a house where the lady selling found charges had been placed on the deeds by her now deceased husband in relation to his business. She argued that the charges were placed without her knowledge or consent and that all the equity in the property was hers. There was a lot of legal wrangling. After a couple of months we withdrew our offer and bought elsewhere, but on the grapevine I did hear that she managed to eventually persuade the charge holders to remove the charges. It did take 6 further months before she sold and probably a hefty legal bill.

I suspect that the debt should have formed part of the deceased's estate and settled at the time.

If you need to negotiate (because legal costs are going to eat into the £9k pretty quickly), then the argument that they should accept a lower amount now or you won't be in a position to sell, may sway them.

antrobus

So the sequence of events were:

charging order in April 2005
divorced in 2010
ex died in July 2017

And the property held as tenants in common (each owned a set share).

If the property was always held as tenants in common, I'd guess it was a valid charge against the husband's share of the property.

The questions I would ask are these;

Who arranged the divorce in 2010? When the husband was transferred the beneficial interest to the GF, what was relinquished was the value of his share less the value of the charging order. Did nobody check the LR at the time?

Who was the executor/administrator of the ex-husband's estate in 2017? Given that the husband had already signed over his beneficial interest in 2010, the property would not have formed part of his estate. The husband may well have retained a legal interest (named on the deeds), to the PR would have needed to sign a few forms to transfer that into the GF's name, but there would have no need to have settled the debt, because that had been dealt with 2010. Perhapss the PR was unaware of the charging order or believed that the GF already knew.

See a solicitor. Get proper legal advice.

antrobus

silvercar wrote: »

Interesting.

Years ago we were in the process of buying a house where the lady selling found charges had been placed on the deeds by her now deceased husband in relation to his business. She argued that the charges were placed without her knowledge or consent and that all the equity in the property was hers. There was a lot of legal wrangling. After a couple of months we withdrew our offer and bought elsewhere, but on the grapevine I did hear that she managed to eventually persuade the charge holders to remove the charges. It did take 6 further months before she sold and probably a hefty legal bill.

Well yes, but in this case it seems the couple were tenants in common. No need for the OP's GF to consent to a charging order on somebody else's share in the property.

silvercar wrote: »

I suspect that the debt should have formed part of the deceased's estate and settled at the time.

I suspect not for the reasons stated above.

silvercar wrote: »

If you need to negotiate (because legal costs are going to eat into the £9k pretty quickly), then the argument that they should accept a lower amount now or you won't be in a position to sell, may sway them.

The OP doesn't mention selling. (But that might explain why the charging order has come to light.)

What legal costs do you think Direct Legal & Collection are going to have? If it's a valid charging order, they don't have to do anything except wait. They have waited 13 years already, what's another 13 years?

I think, on the basis that the debt originated from a Citibank credit card dating back to 2005, that there won't be any interest accruing on the debt. So Direct Legal & Collection might offer a lower settlement. But the GF would have to ask them.

shortcrust

antrobus wrote: »

See a solicitor. Get proper legal advice.

Madness!