Mortgage on my ex-wife's house

#1
Good evening all.

Before contacting a solicitor I though I would first see what the great Arrse has to say.

I have done a quick search and found answers to questions similar in vein to my own, but not quite exactly the information I'm after so I apologise if this thread seems familiar.

My ex-wife and I first separated 4 1/2 years ago, which resulted in an eventual divorce and me passing on the house to her in it's entirety. Santander however were no willing to remove me from the mortgage because of the financial position of my ex.

Fast forward to the present... the current 5 year fixed rate is nearing its end and both of our circumstances have changed considerably. My ex is now cohabiting and engaged, but Santander are still not willing to remove me off the mortgage as her fiancee is self employed but not yet got 2 years of books and they do not accept the use of guarantors.

It caused an upset when I refused to sign a new 3-year fixed deal, despite offering advice on finding a lender that will take a guarantor as both of their parents have plenty of capital in their own homes.

In the original divorce papers, it was stated by the court that my name was to be removed "as soon as possible". With my ex cohabiting, her and her fiancee expecting to make the house their matrimonial home and both sets of parents having enough capital to cover the £60k debt, can they be forced to changed lenders and use guarantors?

Many thanks in advanced.

FBG
 
#3
I am no lawyer, but if the court said remove it surely they have to remove it. Get your lawyer on the case that's what you pay the ridiculously exorbitant fees for. Forget the ARRSE collective as sooner or later someone will recommend you take an SLShhh around there or ask if you have seen Miss Lawless topless (have you?)


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
#4
Good evening all.


In the original divorce papers, it was stated by the court that my name was to be removed "as soon as possible".
FBG
I suspect that what you really mean is that you agreed what is known as a "consent order" in which she agreed to use her "best endeavours" to secure your release from your covenants under the mortgage, and in any event to indemnify you against any liability thereunder. That would be the standard thing.

The court cannot order her to get you off the mortgage as it is not within her power. Only the mortgage company can do that - should they so choose.

The court cannot order the mortgage company to do anything as the mortgage company is not a party to proceedings. In any event, you and she entered into a legally binding contract (the mortgage) with the mortgage company and the court cannot interfere with that contract. Hence it is only an agreement that she will use her best endeavours.

See a lawyer by all means, but the answer is likely to be that if she has tried to achieve your release from the mortgage then she has done all that she had signed up to do.

What if she has done bugger all? Good question. The court will want to see her do something jolly fast, but as it cannot actually enforce your removal from the mortgage the whole thing may be fairly academic.

So legally you both remain "jointly and severally liable" for the mortgage. The mortgage company has to deal with both of you for any variations in the mortgage terms. You wont get yourself off the mortgage (and the ex won't get you off it till the mortgage company decides that they are happy to let that happen.

Generally speaking, you're fucked.
 
#5
If they are paying the mortgage then why not stay on the current deal which no doubt will move onto a variable rate, that should be an incentive for them to sort it out ASAP.

Or do you still cover the mortgage in which case, get a better deal!
 
#6
What will happen if you just stop paying your part of the mortgage? Let her sort out the deficit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#10
The court could surely demand she sell the house if removal from the mortgage isn't happening?




Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
Unlikely. If a sale was the desired outcome, that would have been ordered. If the ex staying in the property is the desired outcome, you end up with a transfer of the property to the ex, on her agreement and/or undertaking (promise to the court), to use her best endeavours to get him off the mortgage.

I'm guessing there are children residing with the ex in the property. If so, their welfare is the first consideration of the court and it would be highly unlikely that a sale would be ordered, as that would be seen as detrimental to the welfare of the children.




Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
#11
#12
I'm no lawyer, but I would just stop paying, as you have done. Santander can hardly repossess the house from you and it would make things tricky for the ex-Doris and the current human dildo.

OZ
 
#14
I'm no lawyer, but I would just stop paying, as you have done. Santander can hardly repossess the house from you and it would make things tricky for the ex-Doris and the current human dildo.

OZ
He's not paying. He hasn't done for a long time. See post 8.

House transferred to her, it's her responsibility to pay for it. She will have indemnified him against all liability.

The thing is that, for understandable reasons, he wants his name and legal liability off the mortgage.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
#15
the only way is to officially sell the house I think. if she cant raise the mortgage then he could stay on it for a while in return for half the equity which will make her sort it out sharpish.

because I hadn't been in proper work long enough we had her dad put on the mortgage and it took forever and a lot of money to sort it out.
 
#16
It has been transferred to her, on the understanding that she would try to get him off the mortgage, but (crucial bit, this) in the knowledge that the mortgage company might not agree to his release. So it is possible that he will stay on the mortgage (in name at least) right through to the end of the mortgage term. Knowing that, the court made an order transferring the house to her. It was a final order. Job done. The court will not now order a sale of the property and there will be no division of the equity. The consent order has already divvied up all the matrimonial assets.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
#17
I suspect that what you really mean is that you agreed what is known as a "consent order" in which she agreed to use her "best endeavours" to secure your release from your covenants under the mortgage, and in any event to indemnify you against any liability thereunder. That would be the standard thing.

The court cannot order her to get you off the mortgage as it is not within her power. Only the mortgage company can do that - should they so choose.

The court cannot order the mortgage company to do anything as the mortgage company is not a party to proceedings. In any event, you and she entered into a legally binding contract (the mortgage) with the mortgage company and the court cannot interfere with that contract. Hence it is only an agreement that she will use her best endeavours.

See a lawyer by all means, but the answer is likely to be that if she has tried to achieve your release from the mortgage then she has done all that she had signed up to do.

What if she has done bugger all? Good question. The court will want to see her do something jolly fast, but as it cannot actually enforce your removal from the mortgage the whole thing may be fairly academic.

So legally you both remain "jointly and severally liable" for the mortgage. The mortgage company has to deal with both of you for any variations in the mortgage terms. You wont get yourself off the mortgage (and the ex won't get you off it till the mortgage company decides that they are happy to let that happen.

Generally speaking, you're fucked.
Told you I wasn't a lawyer.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
#18
i'm in the same boat re my ex, and Schweik has hit the nail on the head regarding the mortgage.
As part of my consent order I have to pay half the mortgage as joint and severally liable for the debt, so a charge was placed on the house so in the event of its sale, so I get a certain percentage of the sale, or the ex or her current partner can buy my share of the debt. This is assuming the ex plays ball which mine doesn't as she is wholly reliant upon benefits and maintenance and has done f all in putting a charge in place with the land registry, and let the property fall into a shit state thus lowering its value.
 
#19
To the OP, if you let your lawyer put a consent order in place whereby you have liability but not chance for gain you're a twonk mate.

If your lawyer didn't explain the ramifications of the above then they are bastards, but then so are most lawyers.

You are by the look of it still as Schweik has said jointly and severally liable for the mortgage. Your worst case scenario is: Ex stops the mortgage, property gets repossessed, Ex has no money and the Lender comes after you for the outstanding balance of the loan and you get years of hassle followed by possible bankruptcy should you not pay off their debt and all the while you aren't entitled to any equity in the property. ( if this is the case, you Sir have been kippered well and truly)

You need to sort it and you need to find (if there is such a thing) a decent lawyer.
 
#20
I haven't paid a penny towards it since 9 months after we separated.
I take it then that you are concerned about bailiffs tipping up at your door if she defaults payment.

I wouldn't worry, the house belongs to Santander, if she defaults they will just get eviction and repossession orders for the house.

Try impressing on her that as she already pays the complete mortgage, that getting you removed is the best option. She can't sell it, she can't remortgage it, she can't use it as equity for a loan and if she dies you get half the house.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top