Ex refuses to sign so I can remortgage

DE_612183

Helpplease2024 said:

With a lower income I can only borrow so much currently. There are health issues involved I am not going to get into. I want to borrow enough to buy him out. If anyone can recommend a good mortgage broker fire ahead. 

Have you tried here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6190962/mortgage-broker-ask-me-anything#latest

Helpplease2024

The bank always had the first charge on land registry anyway so that wont change. 

MWT

Helpplease2024 said:

The bank always had the first charge on land registry anyway so that wont change. 

It changes the moment your current mortgage is redeemed, that removes the banks charge and promotes his charge to first place.

Then your new mortgage lender needs his consent to place their charge in first place, which is where you are hitting the problems...

Helpplease2024

MWT said:

Helpplease2024 said:

The bank always had the first charge on land registry anyway so that wont change. 

It changes the moment your current mortgage is redeemed, that removes the banks charge and promotes his charge to first place.

Then your new mortgage lender needs his consent to place their charge in first place, which is where you are hitting the problems...

Yes unfortunately 😕

BarelySentientAI

Was there ever a plan to pay off any of the mortgage capital?  Or was it just to wait 20-odd years and hour someone would lend you even more? 

It seems like more than 100% of the value of the property is owed to various people - that didn't normally work well. 

Preferably, you should have paid off some of the mortgage by now, or saved enough to have been able to pay some of it off, then paying his 30% would have been less of a problem.  Obviously, that hasn't happened. 

Unfortunately, I don't know of any way to compel him to sign.

MWT

BarelySentientAI said:

Unfortunately, I don't know of any way to compel him to sign.

That is where the court order is poorly framed, there was the obligation on the OP to execute the charge as was appropriate, but given the order also permitted transferring the charge to a new property and new mortgage and there should also have been an obligation on the Ex to execute the documents necessary to actually do that, and similarly an obligation to execute documents which removed the ex from the current mortgage.

I know there will be views that favour other routes and actions that could have released the Ex earlier, but I'd still be surprised at this point if a count didn't side with the OP to the extent that the Ex should not be able to block their removal from the current mortgage and permit the remortgage as long as it doesn't reduce the equity in the process.

BarelySentientAI

MWT said:

BarelySentientAI said:

Unfortunately, I don't know of any way to compel him to sign.

That is where the court order is poorly framed, there was the obligation on the OP to execute the charge as was appropriate, but given the order also permitted transferring the charge to a new property and new mortgage and there should also have been an obligation on the Ex to execute the documents necessary to actually do that, and similarly an obligation to execute documents which removed the ex from the current mortgage.

I know there will be views that favour other routes and actions that could have released the Ex earlier, but I'd still be surprised at this point if a count didn't side with the OP to the extent that the Ex should not be able to block their removal from the current mortgage and permit the remortgage as long as it doesn't reduce the equity in the process.

Does seem like it could have been fixed with very little extra wording, doesn't it. 

And I don't think that the ex is being put in any worse a position by this.  Could they assume (a court) that it was the intent of the order to allow this change?

Helpplease2024

BarelySentientAI said:

MWT said:

BarelySentientAI said:

Unfortunately, I don't know of any way to compel him to sign.

That is where the court order is poorly framed, there was the obligation on the OP to execute the charge as was appropriate, but given the order also permitted transferring the charge to a new property and new mortgage and there should also have been an obligation on the Ex to execute the documents necessary to actually do that, and similarly an obligation to execute documents which removed the ex from the current mortgage.

I know there will be views that favour other routes and actions that could have released the Ex earlier, but I'd still be surprised at this point if a count didn't side with the OP to the extent that the Ex should not be able to block their removal from the current mortgage and permit the remortgage as long as it doesn't reduce the equity in the process.

Does seem like it could have been fixed with very little extra wording, doesn't it. 

And I don't think that the ex is being put in any worse a position by this.  Could they assume (a court) that it was the intent of the order to allow this change?

Thank you. Exactly what I think !

Helpplease2024

MWT said:

BarelySentientAI said:

Unfortunately, I don't know of any way to compel him to sign.

That is where the court order is poorly framed, there was the obligation on the OP to execute the charge as was appropriate, but given the order also permitted transferring the charge to a new property and new mortgage and there should also have been an obligation on the Ex to execute the documents necessary to actually do that, and similarly an obligation to execute documents which removed the ex from the current mortgage.

I know there will be views that favour other routes and actions that could have released the Ex earlier, but I'd still be surprised at this point if a count didn't side with the OP to the extent that the Ex should not be able to block their removal from the current mortgage and permit the remortgage as long as it doesn't reduce the equity in the process.

Exactly it will only reduce his equity if he doesn’t sign and it gets repossessed. Im trying to get a mortgage for now to stop that then remortgage to buy him out in a few years. 

MWT

Helpplease2024 said:

Exactly it will only reduce his equity if he doesn’t sign and it gets repossessed. Im trying to get a mortgage for now to stop that then remortgage to buy him out in a few years. 

I know this isn't particularly helpful, but no, that wouldn't 'reduce his equity' as you have undertaken to indemnify him and so it would leave you owing him the money anyway...

That order really wasn't well written...

The way the order was framed, the expectation was that you would simply repay the mortgage in full at the point it reached term, which you did not, or that you would sell and move somewhere else and transfer the liability for his equity to the new property.

It did not envisage you remortgaging the existing property.

That is not all that was wrong, but it is enough to leave you in the current situation.