Hmm really? Then how can a court order a property to be transferred, but the remaining spouse to make "best efforts" to remove the other from the mortgage? If the transfer is at the mercy of the lender then surely both would have a best efforts clause?
The court can order the transfer and often do, but the person ordered to sign it over can say no, so then you take it back to be enforced, if your lucky the judge will sign the transfer, but if the property is mortgaged the lender can place a restriction meaning land registry will refuse.
If you talk to one of the land registry lawyers they will tell you the TR1 is not enough to remove the restriction only a specific order from a judge will do, if by this point you are still happy to be pouring money down the lawyers neck, the lawyer will tell you they need to seek council more money, council will say its up to the judge, the judge will tell you they don`t know if they have the authority, good eh?.
But they can chase both debtors for the debt anyway. It doesn''t matter who on paper owns the property. They just reposess it, sell it for what they can then chase BOTH the parties to the loan for the difference.[/quote]
May I also add that you cannot take a lodger or rent your property without the bank''s agreement. It is part of your mortgage terms & conditions. Why? Because, as I said before, if you cannot pay the mortgage without the lodger, the lodger has an interest in the property.
I am not a legal expert. However I worked for a high street bank in lending and debt recovery. I came across a few mortgage cases.
Sorry it isn''t funny at all really but Dukey so spot on it really made me laugh.
Just to add to your misery (sorry but lifes a horrible learning curve and most of us public are the cannon fodder) you will never see lawyers exit your company so fast as when you admit you haven''t any cash.
Well if its between laugh or cry i`d go for the laugh.
For a long while i thought much the same as cookie, you buy the books do your homework, its not until you move from the books to court you really find out what is what, there is a chasm of difference between the two, i remember DL telling me as much and thinking nah its all set in stone, how wrong i was.
Renting a room is a legitimate means of earning additional income. I can do this tax-free for up to £4250. I might be able to arrange a pay rise up to £33K. If the wife is willing to pay off her share of negative equity and walk away (say £16.5K) I can pay that off the mortgage debt reducing it to £166.5K. The house is only worth £160K so I might be able to raise £14.5K from family to get myself into a position of having a 5% deposit.
Alternatively, if the wife forces the sale, I don''t know how that can happen but will assume eventually that it will, then the bank will be owed £16.5K by me with no means to pay it (without family handouts that they don''t know about). Surely they would prefer the option of releasing the house to me for continued repayments?
I would like to insist that we try to obtain a ''consent to let'' for 12 months to let the property and try to recoup some additional value by perhaps selling a year later. She is not pushing for divorce, only a Separation Agreement, so I assume that gives us two years before she can actually force the sale of the house against my will, when divorce is filed?
If she continues to pay half of the mortgage (interest-only), where do I stand if I just refuse to sell it?
Alternatively, if she stops paying the mortgage, can I go ahead and bring in a lodger without her permission? What would the consequences be? Does a lodger not only have an interest in the property, where a tenancy is created? I have been advised that I do not have to inform my lender to rent a room if I continue to live in the property myself, only my insurer.
Lots here I know, just thrashing out all my thoughts.
I should perhaps add, I CAN afford the mortgage on my own. I CAN''T afford the £304 loan I have on top of sole mortgage payment. I need the lodger to raise extra income, i.e. to pay my loan. Does this make a difference or am I trying to argue semantics?