Ex won’t remortgage

fewcloudy

silvercar said:

elsien said:

silvercar said:

If you have the right to remain in the home until your child leaves school, then it is just bloody minded of him not to comply. Does he realise that his credit rating will be effected if you fall behind with payments and he does nothing to help?

There isn’t a right to remain in the house until the child leaves school unless that’s been specifically agreed between the parties as part of a financial settlement.

And where does the comment that you can’t be forced to sell if you have a child under 16 come from? If whoever wrote that could post the relevant legislation that would be helpful.

From the alternative point of view, if the ex is needing to claim means tested benefits and has partial ownership in a house that they’re not using, or need to buy or rent somewhere themselves and fail affordability checks because of being named on the mortgage, they find themselves in a difficult position It’s not always down to sheer bloody-mindedness, and sometimes the only realistic option is to sell up.

That is normally what is agreed. The parent who stays in the home with the child(ren) often is allowed as part of the agreement to remain in the home until the child finished education. The financial settlement may require that the parent in the family home makes the mortgage payments, but if the non resident parent is named on the mortgage then they also have a liability to the lender for this payments. So both credit records would be trashed if payments weren’t made. 

Given that running two homes is more expensive than one, and presumably both parents want there to be sufficient money to bring up the children, it is sheer bloody mindedness to refuse a remortgage request that has no impact on the non resident parent other than leaving the ex with extra income, some of which will be spent on their child.

I don't agree with you or your previous post re. it is just being sheer bloody mindedness.  It COULD be that, but not necessarily so.

It is not always feasible to continue paying a mortgage on a house you don't live in. This does not mean you are being bloody minded; it can also mean you are not rich.

Is the ex not allowed to meet a new partner, have a family, have a house to live in with them? In your eyes he must continue to pay for a mortgage where he no longer lives?

The OP says "he wants to get the house repossessed so I and our child (9) are forced to leave".  That's the sort of rhetoric often heard following separation; he would doubtless say something quite different.  Them being forced to leave may be the corollary of not paying the mortgage on a house he no longer lives in, but it may not be the intention.

Exodi

silvercar said:

some lenders allow remortgages to be booked online, in which case they should be allowed from one persons online account, as you don’t share online access to accounts.

This isn't "top 10 crazy loopholes that NRP's don't want you to know about!", when I last remortgaged online I had to explicitly declare that I had the permission of the other mortgage holder(s). Signing a contract on someones behalf, without their knowledge, is fraud.

silvercar said:

Given that running two homes is more expensive than one, and presumably both parents want there to be sufficient money to bring up the children, it is sheer bloody mindedness to refuse a remortgage request that has no impact on the non resident parent other than leaving the ex with extra income, some of which will be spent on their child.

It is not necessarily sheer bloody mindedness. We are all running off the assumption that there is a court order allowing the RP to reside in the property with the child - that may not even necessarily be the case. As ACG points out, we see countless threads of "ex refuses to sell house" where people are supportive.

But there are three points to consider:

• The first (as you identify) is that there are two sets of housing costs. In that sense, forcing a sale so the OP has to pay (possibly higher) rent instead of a mortgage would appear to be spiteful (and probably not in the ex's interests either, considering equity built through mortgage payments is likely to be shared in the future).
• The second is that there is possibly a chunk of equity tied up in the property. The ex can not access that equity for as long as the OP resides in the house. This could possibly enable the ex to buy a new property.
• The third is that while the ex is jointly and severally liable for this mortgage, they may struggle to get another mortgage.

enthusiasticsaver said:

Unfortunately this is a common problem after marital breakdowns.  Hard to believe he wants the house to be repossessed though effectively leaving you and his child homeless.  Does he know that will ruin his chance of getting a mortgage anytime soon too?  If it is joint you are between  a rock and a hard place though as both signatures are needed to move to a new deal. Any chance of you taking it over yourself and effectively releasing him from it? 

I won't repeat what I put above, but I'd just add that "Does he know that will ruin his chance of getting a mortgage anytime soon too" is a bit of a red herring - as he's unlikely to be able to get a mortgage soon currently while he is already liable for another mortgage.

The ex may be better off by trashing his credit rating for a few years, getting some equity from the house and then buying in the near future, than the current default position of waiting for a decade before he sees a sniff of equity, all the while he is likely forced to rent.

Exodi

fewcloudy said:

silvercar said:

elsien said:

silvercar said:

If you have the right to remain in the home until your child leaves school, then it is just bloody minded of him not to comply. Does he realise that his credit rating will be effected if you fall behind with payments and he does nothing to help?

There isn’t a right to remain in the house until the child leaves school unless that’s been specifically agreed between the parties as part of a financial settlement.

And where does the comment that you can’t be forced to sell if you have a child under 16 come from? If whoever wrote that could post the relevant legislation that would be helpful.

From the alternative point of view, if the ex is needing to claim means tested benefits and has partial ownership in a house that they’re not using, or need to buy or rent somewhere themselves and fail affordability checks because of being named on the mortgage, they find themselves in a difficult position It’s not always down to sheer bloody-mindedness, and sometimes the only realistic option is to sell up.

That is normally what is agreed. The parent who stays in the home with the child(ren) often is allowed as part of the agreement to remain in the home until the child finished education. The financial settlement may require that the parent in the family home makes the mortgage payments, but if the non resident parent is named on the mortgage then they also have a liability to the lender for this payments. So both credit records would be trashed if payments weren’t made. 

Given that running two homes is more expensive than one, and presumably both parents want there to be sufficient money to bring up the children, it is sheer bloody mindedness to refuse a remortgage request that has no impact on the non resident parent other than leaving the ex with extra income, some of which will be spent on their child.

I don't agree with you or your previous post re. it is just being sheer bloody mindedness.  It COULD be that, but not necessarily so.

It is not always feasible to continue paying a mortgage on a house you don't live in. This does not mean you are being bloody minded; it can also mean you are not rich.

Is the ex not allowed to meet a new partner, have a family, have a house to live in with them? In your eyes he must continue to pay for a mortgage where he no longer lives?

The OP says "he wants to get the house repossessed so I and our child (9) are forced to leave".  That's the sort of rhetoric often heard following separation; he would doubtless say something quite different.  Them being forced to leave may be the corollary of not paying the mortgage on a house he no longer lives in, but it may not be the intention.

I don't think silvercar was suggesting that he should make mortgage payments towards the property (they actually say the opposite above - that it is likely down to the financial settlement - usually in which the RP covers the full mortgage). I think silvercar was outlining the contractual position that he is liable to ensure mortgage payments are made on the property.

If the OP stopped making mortgage payments, and he didn't either - they'd both be in breach of their mortgage agreement, irrelevant of the financial agreement they decided among themselves.

Which is clearly not an issue to the OP's ex, given that he probably wants the house to be repossessed.

Gycraig

It’s kind of understandable really, I wouldn’t like the idea of renting while having equity stuck in a house my ex is living in. Which also blocks me from being able to get another mortgage as well.