Partner wants to pull out after exchange.

davidmcn

Comms69 wrote: »

Im not sure what you mean? Can you elaborate so there's no confusion.

They entered into the contract jointly. They're jointly liable for any losses.

Comms69

davidmcn wrote: »

They entered into the contract jointly. They're jointly liable for any losses.

That is irrelevant to what I said.


If she fails to complete, they are jointly liable to their vendors, and up the chain.


But the ex could be pursued by the OP. Totally separate from the chain etc.

davidmcn

Comms69 wrote: »

But the ex could be pursued by the OP.

On what basis?

thelem

Most of the answers here are the standard response to "buyer wants to pull out after exchange", but that's not really what the OP has asked. They want to change the number of buyers after exchange. The penalties for pulling out after exchange are all to protect the vendor, but the vendor is free to accept different terms if all parties agree.


You'll definitely need a new mortgage offer, and need to pass the affordability criteria on your own. Other than that I can't see why anyone would object to the change. You might need to pay fees for additional paperwork, but I wouldn't expect that to be as much as your existing conveyancing fee.


On the other hand, if you purchase in joint names and then later she sells her share to you then both of you may have to pay stamp duty her share (once for joint purchase, once for transfer). You'd still need the mortgage in your name, and would have to pay exit fees for the joint mortgage. The sole mortgage might come in with a lower valuation, as it would no longer be a new build. She'd also lose her status as a first time buyer, if applicable.

chalky_white_2

Speak with your solicitor about this. It is a serious situation, where there are a number of possibilities.

If you can obtain a mortgage in your sole name, and your Partner confirms they agree the purchase can go ahead in your sole name, then you should be fine. The Developer is unlikely to care who owns the Property at the end of the transaction.

But if this is not possible, then you will need to agree terms with your Partner (and probably instruct your own solicitors to formalise this) to set out what will happen to the Property, ownership etc.

Your Partner is likely to be advise that she is better off completing the Purchase. As the Developer can demand 10% deposit on a failed completion, and it can come after either you or your Partner to get this (or both). Whereas completion provides her with only a mortgage debt, which is likely to be paid seeing as you will live there.

This can be sorted after completion, but then you will be stuck until the mortgage's fixed term expires, or you will pay the early repayment charge.

Be proactive on this matter.

Comms69

davidmcn wrote: »

On what basis?

Not sure if you're being obtuse or not. But on the basis that, but for his or her actions, this loss would not happen.


There is still a contract, though likely verbal, between joint applicants, tenants, borrowers etc.

davidmcn

chalky_white wrote: »

Your Partner is likely to be advise that she is better off completing the Purchase.

Except their mortgage offer has presumably been issued to them as joint owner-occupiers. If they're no longer planning to merrily skip over the threshold together when they get their keys, then that would have to be disclosed to the lender, who may well have second thoughts.

davidmcn

Comms69 wrote: »

Not sure if you're being obtuse or not. But on the basis that, but for his or her actions, this loss would not happen.

Whose actions though? Is it anybody's "fault" that they've split up? As I mentioned above, can they get finance if they're no longer together? Do you think they're contractually obliged with each other to move into the new house?

Comms69

davidmcn wrote: »

Whose actions though? Is it anybody's "fault" that they've split up? Splitting up is irrelevant. They are buying a property, the action is failing to complete not splitting up As I mentioned above, can they get finance if they're no longer together? Do you think they're contractually obliged with each other to move into the new house?

I don't see the relevance of them having to move in.

davidmcn

Comms69 wrote: »

I don't see the relevance of them having to move in.

As above - assuming it's a standard residential mortgage then it's on the basis that they're both going to be owner-occupiers. So either they grit their teeth and move in together (do either of them want to do that?), or they'll have to rearrange their finances somehow.