In a court order, I have agreed to transfer the house to my ex, and she has paid me a lump sum. The mortgage couldn't be solely in her name at the time so I am still on the mortgage. She has agreed a fixed date to take me off the mortgage 'to her best endeavours' and if she cannot solely take on the mortgage by this date then the house is to be sold. I am indemnified and she is fully responsible to meet all mortgage payments until she can take on the mortgage herself or have to sell the property.
She has now told me she cannot afford the mortgage payments and any default or repayment plan she makes will effect my credit rating. (bullying tactics) She is saying I should be contributing to the mortgage even though I have a court order to say I am indemnified.
Can anyone confirm if they have come across this before and what my rights are to ensure my credit rating is protected? Bank is saying because its joint names then we are both still responsible for payments so what is the point of getting indemnified??
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
What is the exact wording of the order? Is there a clause permitting sale if she defaults?
Is there a spousal maintenance arrangement in place?
The problem with an indemnity clause is that the court cannot force a lender to take any particular action. You are still jointly and generally liable for the joint mortgage. The order will only allow for you to recover money you have to pay to stop the mortgage going into arrears.
What has changed that means she can no longer pay?
There is a clause permitting sale if she cannot transfer the mortgage into her name or somehow release me from the mortgage, but I don't think there is a clause permitting sale if she defaults.
No spousal maintenance in place, we have agreed to a Clean Break. There is child maintenance payments in place which of course I am happy to pay.
There has been no change in circumstance since signing of the order (it was only a couple of months ago). I did wonder how she was going to afford it but this was a proposal she put forward and wanted. I did agree to the order but my fears came true in which she is now saying she cannot afford the payments therefore I think she has misunderstood what she was signing (I feel not my problem though as this is something she should take up with her solicitor)
Thanks for clarifying, that makes sense. Will it cost me in court fees etc to take her to court though to recoup the monies lost? I feel its just so unfair I have to go through all the agreements and cost MORE money to fight this when its something she wanted and said she was going to pay.