The mortgage lender has agreed, with the caveat, that she has a CASH injection of nearly £40,000 towards the outstanding balance, or, that her father provides an income from his pensions.
The mortgage lender has NOT made contact with me. OF COURSE, i am looking at my options here.
We are going to need the full background please, children, incomes, etc.
We need as much detail as possible. Thank you
Ok, thanks for the reply.
Male, 46, earning £31k basic per year.f/t
Femail, 39, earning £9330 basic per year p/t
One Child, age 13.
Currently, Male earnings go into his Bank Account, which then transfers the required monthly amount to cover direct debits etc, including mortgage of £599.00 + £60.00 loan on mortgage as well. Mortgate has 14 years left to run.
All outgoings financially, including Foodbill = £1850.00 per calendar month.
Outstanding amounts on mortgage = £101,000
It has been suggested, that taking into account Child Tax Credit, Working Tax Credit, Child Benefit, Council tax benefit etc, the femail WOULD have in theory a salary of £26k...which if a bank would provide a mortgage for this, in theory, she would only require a deposit of around £15 - £20k to allow her to do this.
My feeling on this, is that the Female, automatically assumes that I am prepared to go along with this for the welfare of our child, which is actually a form of blackmail. I have also suggested, that I take on the financial aspects of the seperation, (as I am doing currently), and therefore I remain in the property until our daughter leaves full time education, but this suggestion has fallen on deaf ears.
Please let me know, if I have missed anything.
Mortgage provider = HSBC
Who has been the primary carer of the child until now?
Is it proposed that your wife has residence of the child?
Is the house in joint names?
My wife stayed at home for the first 5 years of our daughters life, and then proceeded to work part time, moving from 2 days, to now 3 days per week. Our child is in secondary education. I have been the sole financial earner in our family.
It is MY WIFE'S proposal that she takes over the property. If that means that she has residence with our child, as part of that particular process then that is part of that process. It is not my suggestion. I dont believe that my wife would consider that point, only that she is appearing to be moving this faster than I particular want to allow at this time, due to work committments.
The Mortgage and everything associated with the property has been in joint names since we got married.
You need to step aside and back and forget what you both want and look atthis purely from a child welfare point of view.
You have a 13-year-old child and you are both under a duty to provide ahome for the child until aged 18
one parent will become the resident parent and the other one will havecontact although, it will be equally involved in a child's life, the court canorder joint residence.
On these facts, it appears that your wife has been the main carer until nowby virtue of the fact that she worked part-time and therefore she is likely toget residence of the child until the child is 18.
It is highly likely therefore that she would be granted occupation of thehouse until your child is 18 and then, it would be sold for you each to haveyour money out.
Meanwhile, not be liable for the bills all the mortgage of the house if youdo not live in it.
Unless an immediate sale of the house would release enough money to giveyou some and provide a home for your wife and child, an early sale does notseem likely.
You are looking upon this from the point of view that you want to live inthe house and provide a home for the child and for your wife to move out. Sheis looking for the same and provided she can afford to pay the mortgagemeanwhile she is likely to get occupation of the house for another five years.
At age 18, if you cannot agree finances with regard to the house, the courtwill decide and ultimately, ordering to be sold and the proceeds divided
I appreciate this is not the answer you wanted there is no point in memisleading.
Can I help further?
Please bear with me today because I am online and off-line. Please don'tforget to positively rate my answer service (even if it was not what you want tohear). If you don't rate it positively, then the site keep your deposit and Iget 0 for my time. It is imperative that you give my answer a positive rating.It doesn't give me "a pat on the head", "good boy" (like ebay), it is mylivelihood!If in ratings you feel that you expected more or it only helped a little,please ask.
Thank you for this answer. I appreciate you are online/offline.
Disregarding the reasons for the marital breakdown, i appreciate that we are
Both looking to find a suitable and amicable solution to the property.
We realise that providing a roof over our daughters head is of paramount importance, however I wanted to make sure that there was not a law that just allowed one party
In a mortgage to simply get the other partys name removed.
I appreciate that providing evidence of a divorce/decree nisi would be sufficient evidence
To a mortgage lender, but as we are not divorced, or even discussing that aspect, of course I want to protect my financial interest in the property and subsequently, possibly my daughters inheritance from me.
So in reality...is there a law that allows this to happen? I am sorry if I missed it in an earlier point.
There can be circumstances where the house is awarded completely toone-party and the other person's name is removed by court order however that isnot likely on these facts.
The court however cannot order someone removed from the mortgage unless thelender can send.
Does that answer? Don't worry about missing things, I am happy to clarifyif I have not made it clear.
Thank you for the quick response. You said....
"The court however cannot order someone removed from the mortgage unless the lender can send". Was this sentence unfinished?
Would I also be correct in assuming that a lender cannot just remove someones name from the mortgage liabilities as well?
The answers so far, lead me to thinking that, for as long as I remain in the property, continually talking and trying to work out the issues, then my wife cannot lawfully remove my name from the mortgage unless I agree to it. Would I be correct in this assumption?
Ops, my voice type program heard "unless the lender consents" " as "unlessthe lender can send".
It needs the lender's consent.
The liability to pay the mortgage remains provided the name is on themortgage however a person is liable for the mortgage of the bills of a propertythat they do not live in although they do remain liable to the lender if theperson who is still living in the house stopped paying.
On these facts, she is most unlikely to get you removed from the titledeeds without your consent and it is most unlikely that she would get a courtorder to do that.
In order to remove you from the mortgage, she would have to pay it off! Youwould however remain on the deeds.
Please remember the title deeds and the mortgage are separate.
You can be removed from the deeds but can remain on the mortgage but youcannot be removed from the mortgage and remain on the deeds.