A loan from the ex in laws

-taff

Samdapanx said:

Yeah my worry is I don't have the money to. Pay it back. I live in the house with my 3 young kids. My ex isn't paying the mortgage or maintenance so don't see how I can pay it back

They'e trying to get you to sell the house so he can have a pot of money again and not have to, as above, pay the mortgage ntil they'r eof age. Legalbeagles forum. They will put your mind at rest.

macman

bris said:

You have a letter stating the terms, this doesn't need to be signed to be legally binding so don't think for one minute a signature really matters here.

The fact the letter exists and you got the money is proof enough, the amount is what they can prove they gave you.

Bottom line is when you sell the house you settle the outstanding monies due, to both the lender and the in laws.

Right, so if I send you a letter to sign stating that I have lent you £X, repayable on Y date, and with Z% interest, that's legally binding is it? 
The only contract here is verbal, which means that it's one person's word against another. 
Even if the OP had signed it, it would be worthless, as the amount isn't stated: the loan/gift could have been a pound.

JimmyTheWig

macman said:

bris said:

You have a letter stating the terms, this doesn't need to be signed to be legally binding so don't think for one minute a signature really matters here.

The fact the letter exists and you got the money is proof enough, the amount is what they can prove they gave you.

Bottom line is when you sell the house you settle the outstanding monies due, to both the lender and the in laws.

Right, so if I send you a letter to sign stating that I have lent you £X, repayable on Y date, and with Z% interest, that's legally binding is it? 
The only contract here is verbal, which means that it's one person's word against another. 
Even if the OP had signed it, it would be worthless, as the amount isn't stated: the loan/gift could have been a pound.

It's a reasonable indication, along with the transfer of money into their account, that it was a loan to be repaid.

TripleH

But as has been touched on above, a mortgage was obtained with said 'loan'.
If it came to it, hypothetically were not the parents, son and Op complicit in mortgage fraud? 
It leaves me with a bitter taste in the mouth that a grandparent would force their grandchildren (minors) out their home because their child split from their spouse. There are plenty of solutions available that 'reasonable' people could reach. They here I expect is the word reasonable.

macman

JimmyTheWig said:

macman said:

bris said:

You have a letter stating the terms, this doesn't need to be signed to be legally binding so don't think for one minute a signature really matters here.

The fact the letter exists and you got the money is proof enough, the amount is what they can prove they gave you.

Bottom line is when you sell the house you settle the outstanding monies due, to both the lender and the in laws.

Right, so if I send you a letter to sign stating that I have lent you £X, repayable on Y date, and with Z% interest, that's legally binding is it? 
The only contract here is verbal, which means that it's one person's word against another. 
Even if the OP had signed it, it would be worthless, as the amount isn't stated: the loan/gift could have been a pound.

It's a reasonable indication, along with the transfer of money into their account, that it was a loan to be repaid.

No, it's an indication that the in-laws hoped and asked that it might be repaid. But no such repayment was ever agreed to contractually by the OP. When you move house, you have contracts before exchange. If one party doesn't sign, then they aren't bound by the terms of a document that they did not sign. The sale does not proceed, the contract is void.

JimmyTheWig

macman said:

JimmyTheWig said:

macman said:

bris said:

You have a letter stating the terms, this doesn't need to be signed to be legally binding so don't think for one minute a signature really matters here.

The fact the letter exists and you got the money is proof enough, the amount is what they can prove they gave you.

Bottom line is when you sell the house you settle the outstanding monies due, to both the lender and the in laws.

Right, so if I send you a letter to sign stating that I have lent you £X, repayable on Y date, and with Z% interest, that's legally binding is it? 
The only contract here is verbal, which means that it's one person's word against another. 
Even if the OP had signed it, it would be worthless, as the amount isn't stated: the loan/gift could have been a pound.

It's a reasonable indication, along with the transfer of money into their account, that it was a loan to be repaid.

No, it's an indication that the in-laws hoped and asked that it might be repaid. But no such repayment was ever agreed to contractually by the OP. When you move house, you have contracts before exchange. If one party doesn't sign, then they aren't bound by the terms of a document that they did not sign. The sale does not proceed, the contract is void.

Exactly - the contract is void and both parties are put back in the position they were.
Lets say you are buying my house. The solicitors have a lapse of judgement and don't realise that I haven't signed the contracts. We exchange contracts. You pay me for my house. I say "Sorry, I didn't sign anything. You can't have my house. Thanks for the money, though." That's not how it would work. Either I would say that I meant to sign the contracts and everything would proceed or I would say that I wasn't happy and you would get your money back. There's no chance that anyone would see they money as a gift just because I hadn't signed to say otherwise.
The same is true here - if the people borrowing the money didn't agree to the terms on which they were being lent it they should have given it straight back.

SashikoStitcher

Do you have a solicitor? If not, why not? 

Am Internet forum is not the place to untangle this mess. You need advice from someone who is (a) qualified (b) in possession of all the facts and documents and (c) understands what you hope to achieve overall, not just in relation to the loan.  For example, you say he is not paying maintenance. That has to be sorted out. 

Good luck. 

macman

OP, simply sit and wait to see if they actually start legal action. I wager a 4-pack of toilet roll that they won't. If they do, deal with it then.
The morality of your action is different, and something only you can determine.

John_

macman said:

OP, simply sit and wait to see if they actually start legal action. I wager a 4-pack of toilet roll that they won't. If they do, deal with it then.
The morality of your action is different, and something only you can determine.

I don’t really agree on the last part, everyone else can see the morality too.

JReacher1

John_ said:

macman said:

OP, simply sit and wait to see if they actually start legal action. I wager a 4-pack of toilet roll that they won't. If they do, deal with it then.
The morality of your action is different, and something only you can determine.

I don’t really agree on the last part, everyone else can see the morality too.

What is the morality?

That the OP doesn’t want to make her kids homeless as her in laws have decided to serve notice on a £27k loan with limited notice just because the OP is divorcing their son. If the OP was still with their son it appears there would have been no request for this loan to be repaid.