Well given I'm not working impossible for me to take over the mortgage.
Negative Equity Sale of tracker property with ex
- Thread starter Suebee
- Start date
Well given I'm not working impossible for me to take over the mortgage.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,048
You could suggest that you will apply for a Personal Insolvency Arrangement or bankruptcy, but as you have equity in your family home, this could be accessed to pay your creditors.
If this worked though, your ex would be liable for the full shortfall.
Brendan
If this worked though, your ex would be liable for the full shortfall.
Brendan
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,048
While that is correct, either the lender or your ex could get a judgement against you and lodge it on the family home to be discharged if and when you sell the house.
Not a good solution either.
Brendan
Actually the OP is in an even stronger position as regards any equity in her family home. She's not working, nor contributing to the mortgage. Ergo all the equity is her husband's.
Waste of time her ex going down this route. In any case it's a very tricky legal area. And costly for ex, with no confirmation legally in advance of winning it. Certainly not if Sue and her husband confirm the husband made all repayments. And this is despite the title being in both names.
She needs to be tough on Monday. Have all her ducks in a row. And don't deviate.
I've no idea why you're panicking. To me they haven't a hope of getting anythign from you. I didn't mean to scare you. What I mean is you have to be firm and clear in your head as to what you will agree to at the meeting. And don't be intimidated or bullied. These bankers etc are well used to dealing with people in your position and will be in there to get the best option for the bank.
So it's like there are three people in the room each wanting something.
Your ex: wants you to pay
Sue: has no ability to pay
The bank: doesn't care who pays as long as they get paid.
But of all of those you hold the better hand. When you have nothing, the bank will be looking to your ex and he's not being realistic.
I actually find it excellent that your ready to go in there and be firm about your inability to pay. If your own home now comes up, say to the bank your husband made all the payments and any equity in it is his. They might 'suggest' 'hint' around it being a possibility for them but I doubt if they will as they have your ex over a barrel.
So it's like there are three people in the room each wanting something.
Your ex: wants you to pay
Sue: has no ability to pay
The bank: doesn't care who pays as long as they get paid.
But of all of those you hold the better hand. When you have nothing, the bank will be looking to your ex and he's not being realistic.
I actually find it excellent that your ready to go in there and be firm about your inability to pay. If your own home now comes up, say to the bank your husband made all the payments and any equity in it is his. They might 'suggest' 'hint' around it being a possibility for them but I doubt if they will as they have your ex over a barrel.
So Sue you talked to the EA and got a result. Which was to make your ex cop on and realise he can't just put the property on the market without a solution for the NE.
Your ex is still wrong, the house can't be sold without the mortgage being cleared. Technically yes you could go sale agree and even sign contracts but the legal transfer can not happen without the mortgage being cleared. The EA is well aware of this and so won't waste his time selling it (as he doesn't get paid if there is no sale) knowing the issue of the NE isn't sorted. The EA will now want it in writing from one or both of you that you have the money for the shortfall or an agreement from the bank before wasting his time (or else he's a pretty stupid EA, and the whole country has many similar cases to yours so EA's are well aware and don't want the hassle).
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,048
Great summary Bronte.
Sue, the current arrangement suits you perfectly. There is no need for you to change it at all.
There is an advantage to your former husband, but he should seek to negotiate it with you. Refusing to talk to you is crazy.
You should drop him an email setting out your position clearly.
"It makes no sense for you and me to meet the bank on Monday without us having first a discussion on what we want.
You and I should reach agreement beforehand.
I am prepared to sit down and talk to you.
But if you are not prepared to sit down, we can't solve anything.
I will, of course, attend the meeting with the bank on Monday, but I don't really see the point of it. "
In the very unlikely event that he takes legal action against you, you will have a record of correspondence showing that you are being reasonable.
Brendan
This is your pointers for the meeting. Ie option 2, 3 and 4. Keep calm and reasonable and don't deviate. I would bring a calm person, not your husband, to the meeting. Someone to support you and help you to stay on track, though you seem pretty focused to me so that might not be necessary. Also take notes. It steadies the mind. And don't let any one rush you.
(Option one as BB says the bank will not agree to - why would they)
I'm not sure in these heated 'ex' cases with the way she's posting about the ex that it is wise to meet him. That man has added pressure on him now with his new partner. Not everybody can be reasonable and hold their temper. But the email is a good idea.
If they do meet they should do it in a formal environment, like a lobby of a hotel where there are other people. Where one can walk away easily enough.
Bronte and Brendan thank you for your responses.
I will hold firm on this as I have my two children who are 6 and 1.5 to consider.
I can only assume he needs to get a mortgage from BOI for his new house and move his negative equity in to this. The negative equity mortgage would allow him to get around the 20% deposit rule for 2nd time buyers and mean he only has to pay a 10% deposit and can carry negative equity in (subject to normal lending criteria of course)
I am assuming this is his plan otherwise he would have circa 85k (50k 20% deposit for new property) plus 35 k aprox to clear negative equity plus additional for fees and costs. And if he did have this amount of money surely it would make more sense to apply for a 2nd mortgage and pay a larger deposit.
I will hold firm on this as I have my two children who are 6 and 1.5 to consider.
I can only assume he needs to get a mortgage from BOI for his new house and move his negative equity in to this. The negative equity mortgage would allow him to get around the 20% deposit rule for 2nd time buyers and mean he only has to pay a 10% deposit and can carry negative equity in (subject to normal lending criteria of course)
I am assuming this is his plan otherwise he would have circa 85k (50k 20% deposit for new property) plus 35 k aprox to clear negative equity plus additional for fees and costs. And if he did have this amount of money surely it would make more sense to apply for a 2nd mortgage and pay a larger deposit.
Sorry but I think this is all crazy talk.
The OP is playing out scenarios in her head, and Brendan and Bronte are responding to those scenarios.
Some facts. The mortgage is being paid, it is not in arrears. The OP does not want to sell. The OP cannot sell as she couldn't pay the shortfall of the NE.
In the real world the bank will not allow a sale unless they are paid in full.
I cannot see any reason why the OP should attend this meeting on Monday, it is only giving credence to the craziness. Some people just can't leave well enough alone.
What the OP should do now.
Write to the ex and say that as things are tight she can no longer subsidise his living costs and he must pay her rent on her share of the apartment. She might (but she probably shouldn't ) as an aside say that she understands that he would like to sell, but unfortunately she would not be in a position to do so at present or at any time while the property is in NE.
The OP should write to the bank and point out that she understands the co-mortgagor would like to sell, she is not willing to do so and in any case could not meet any potential shortfall.
She does not need a solicitor, just because her ex has fantasies about what he would like to do. He cannot do anything of the sort.
The OP is playing out scenarios in her head, and Brendan and Bronte are responding to those scenarios.
Some facts. The mortgage is being paid, it is not in arrears. The OP does not want to sell. The OP cannot sell as she couldn't pay the shortfall of the NE.
In the real world the bank will not allow a sale unless they are paid in full.
I cannot see any reason why the OP should attend this meeting on Monday, it is only giving credence to the craziness. Some people just can't leave well enough alone.
What the OP should do now.
Write to the ex and say that as things are tight she can no longer subsidise his living costs and he must pay her rent on her share of the apartment. She might (but she probably shouldn't ) as an aside say that she understands that he would like to sell, but unfortunately she would not be in a position to do so at present or at any time while the property is in NE.
The OP should write to the bank and point out that she understands the co-mortgagor would like to sell, she is not willing to do so and in any case could not meet any potential shortfall.
She does not need a solicitor, just because her ex has fantasies about what he would like to do. He cannot do anything of the sort.
I am not avoiding this. He appears to be legally entitled to sell without your consent. That doesn't mean that he is in a position to sell. The bank wont let him, it really is as simple as that.
This is just an idle threat. If the bank wont allow the sale, it means nothing.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,048
Hi cremeegg
What is the downside in attending the meeting? She will meet her ex and discuss this for the first time. The bank will be present and will set out the options. She will be able to make sure that the bank does not take any action without her approval. She will be able to tell the bank and her ex that she is willing to give up her stake in the house if her name is taken off the mortgage. The bank may allow that.
And if this goes to court, then she can show that she cooperated all along.
The only downside in attending is that her ex and the bank may browbeat her into signing something she shouldn't sign. Only she can say if that is possible.
Brendan
Because he is being a bully and she is a person who does not deal well with bullies. Even if she doesnt sign anything, it will advance the proposition that the property should be sold as if it were a real possibility. I cant understand why the bank is going to the meeting. I suspect they dont know the full story.
In fairness I can even see the thing from his point of view, he is probably under huge pressure too, but that is not the OPs problem. I was originally going to say, she shouldn't go to the meeting because she is a woman, and my pc conscience stopped me, I'm glad it did because it is due to the type of person she is. I'm sure Bronte would give the ex the ticking off he deserves.
The whole thing is a great study in different psychological approaches to relationships. If the OP had just told him to get real day one, they would probably still be on speaking terms.
Cremegg I deal perfectly well with bullies which is exactly why I am going to the bank on Monday to put it up to him.
Yes it's a farce ....but I farce myself and my family are sick of entertaining