Can I be on the Title Deeds if I'm not on the mortgage?

Sarahloulouise

Hi,

We are buying a house. Due to a muck up by a company that falsely put a CCJ on my credit report (fighting to be removed but scores don't update quickly) we have only been able to put the mortgage in my partner's name.
We are putting in 20k each as a deposit, so obviously I want to secure a 50% right to the property.
Can my name be added to the title deeds and it be sold as Joint Tenants according to the land registry?

Thank you.

AdrianC

Depends on the lender, but usually no.

If they're lending your OH (say) 80% of the property value, but your OH only owns 50% of the property, that's 160% loan to value... Not happening! And that's before considering how they would repossess just half of a jointly owned property.

Tom99

Even with just your partner buying they may have problems with the mortgage since the £20,000 you are putting in is obviously not intended to be a gift, you will also presumably be living there.
It might be possible for your partner to be the sole legal owner but hold it in trust for the two of you. Speak to your solicitor about that.

ThePants999

AdrianC wrote: »

If they're lending your OH (say) 80% of the property value, but your OH only owns 50% of the property, that's 160% loan to value...

The lender's charge is placed on the property, not on one person's share of the property. They would get paid before the remainder of the proceeds were distributed between the owners. Agree with the rest though!

AdrianC

ThePants999 wrote: »

The lender's charge is placed on the property, not on one person's share of the property.

Sure, because the borrowers are all the joint owners...

If only one person is a borrower, though, they have zero claim to the other owner's portion of the proceeds. That's the whole problem...

Let's say you and I are joint owners of a property. I mortgage my half, but based on the entire value - so the debt is larger than my share. I fail to pay my mortgage... How thrilled are you going to be at only getting a small portion of your equity out, because the lender have repossessed your half and then satisfied their charge before releasing 50% of what's left to you...?

And, yes, I'm sure the lender would need paperwork showing full authorisation and awareness of the charge. And I'm equally sure that won't be hard for some borrowers to "produce".

Tom99

AdrianC wrote: »

If only one person is a borrower, though, they have zero claim to the other owner's portion of the proceeds.

The mortgagee has a charge on the legal title ie 100% of the property, they are not bothered how the legal owners have decided to split the beneficial interest. On a sale they will be repaid in full and what's left will be split between the owners.

steampowered

You will have to remortgage when the initial mortgage term comes to an end.

If the CCJ was genuinely false - and wasn't your fault due to you failing to respond to court documents - you could consider asking the company responsible to pay the costs incurred.

ThePants999

AdrianC wrote: »

If only one person is a borrower, though, they have zero claim to the other owner's portion of the proceeds. That's the whole problem...

Let's say you and I are joint owners of a property. I mortgage my half, but based on the entire value - so the debt is larger than my share. I fail to pay my mortgage... How thrilled are you going to be at only getting a small portion of your equity out, because the lender have repossessed your half and then satisfied their charge before releasing 50% of what's left to you...?

That's between me and you. You can only get a mortgage if I agree to let the lender put a charge on the property - and if I do, I'm consenting to exactly what you describe. So the lender isn't bothered, because they're protected. (Corollary: it would be very unwise of me to actually agree to this, without a separate agreement between the two of us to address this situation!)

Their ability to actually repossess is, as you originally said, still an issue. Where you have people resident in the property but not owning it, mortgage lenders require that they sign a form consenting to vacate if the lender needs to repossess - but I don't think that's sufficient with a legal owner, who can block the sale.