Remortgage as single applicant

siobhan24

New Member
Messages
3
Hi, I want to remortgage my home. Plenty of equity on, worth approx 200k, I’ve a 58k mortgage on it now. While the house and mortgage is in my name, l am married and my husband is blacklisted due to a repossession in the crash. I need to get approx 100-150k to extend. My salary can easily cover it. BOI have said as it’s the family home (2kids also), my husband must go on the application but I can ask for his name to be left off the deeds and mortgage. I haven’t told them the reason I don’t want him included. My question is am I better going through a broker? Would a credit union mortgage be more understanding? If I had to do a legal separation what would this entail? Many thanks.
 
Thank you for your reply. It’s is old debt. Unresolved, repossessed house with outstanding debt and it was with KBC, now gone. Legal advice at the time was to do nothing. Don’t know now if that was a good idea.
 
Last edited:
What exactly is the issue? Personal insolvency? Poor credit history? What does his CCR record say?


I would strongly advise against this in all circumstances. So many things could go wrong.

So he has an outstanding debt.

Has he considered a personal insolvency arrangement?
Yes. Would that be more favourable in terms of my remortgage?
I disagree with Dr.Strangelove - strategic separation may work for you.
What would this entail?
 
It's not unheard of for a married applicant to get a mortgage in single name, banks don't like to do it but I see several cases where people got them lately on a self build page I am on. Once his name goes on the application at all then they do a credit check, there is no such thing as putting him on the application and not on the mortgage, the whole point of putting him on application is so that he will be on mortgage. On the deeds is a different situation and it can be done that the deeds are in one name again dependent on bank policy.

I think it could be an idea to contact a broker, they will know if there is any lender who is more disposed towards this situation than others as it's not unheard of and is nearly always for the same reason as yours.
 
Would this not be fraudulent? Basically providing information that you are separated while you are very much not, in orderfor financial gain?
Surprised to see this as advice on this forum to be honest.
 
Basically providing information that you are separated while you are very much not,
Thats not what is suggested; legal separation is required.

If two men, who are not in a relationship, can marry solely to avoid inheritance tax, then two people can separate.
 
Thats not what is suggested; legal separation is required.

If two men, who are not in a relationship, can marry solely to avoid inheritance tax, then two people can separate.

A man and woman can also get married to reduce the risk of ending up paying inheritance tax should one of them die.
That is irrelevant to the proposals being made here advising OP to consider legal separation when they are very much not separated.

There could be any amount of unforseen consequences with this approach including medical decisions, tax implications and fraudulently declaring that they are "separated" since a certain date when they are clearly not. Its a legal agreement that they are signing.

"strategic separation may work for you." was the advise given above, but we all understand that it traslates to basically lying to pretend you are separated to avoid paying debts due.
 
Your statement is incorrect.

It means obtaining a legal separation so that one party is no longer carrying the others debt.

It is entirely legitimate to do so.

Getting married also carries legal consequences.

Edit to add: you are correct to say that any combinations of gender may marry. I specifically referenced men in my example as there was a widely reported incidence of this several years ago. Someone with a better memory can provide the date I'm sure.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top