house owner - me or me and wife

[Norfolkandchance]

Hi,

wife and I are just about to move house. Sold old house which was in my name only and ported mortgage to new house. New house mortgage in my name only too due to bad advice from mortgage advisor. Wife is full time stay at home mother. Due to exchange now but have been advised that if wife and I split up then she wouldn't be entitiled to share of the house. We had assumed that as we were married it wouldn't matter who paid it, we'd both own it.

Mortgage firm looking into making new offer but might need to start the whole 8 week process again and pay for new surveys etc.

Options please?

Thanks

[anonymous-user]

Do not take legal advice from mortgage firms or estate agents. You wife would have a claim to a share of the house in the event of divorce. The extent of her share would depend on circumstances.

Also, what matters is not who is the mortgagor, but who has legal and beneficial interests in the house. You both have beneficial interests. Legal ownership will be indicated by whomever is registered owner.

[TooMany2cvs]

You own it. But, in a divorce, it'll count as an asset to be divided. With the "stay-at-home mother" bit, you'll probably be moving.

[speedking31]

Slightly OT but make sure that you are both named on house insurance and utilities as well. Then if either of you leaves or dies the other can carry on paying and using the services.

[3Dee]

Further to the above, the only issue you might just have is complications in respect to what might happen if one of you die (less options that don't attract IHT if your estate at the time is big enough), or become infirm and need to go into a care home (funding), although unlikely if you both are in top health and have a good way to go before getting old like me. However accidents do happen. I would recommend ideally having both names as joint owners, but this might now be a problem as only one of you is the mortgagee, and the mortgage company might cut up rough if you do. I would certainly have the dialogue with a good professional to see if it can be achieved though.

[TooMany2cvs]

3Dee said:

Further to the above, the only issue you might just have is complications in respect to what might happen if one of you die (less options that don't attract IHT if your estate at the time is big enough)

No IHT between spouses (spice?) anyway.

[Norfolkandchance]

Breadvan72 said:

Do not take legal advice from mortgage firms or estate agents. You wife would have a claim to a share of the house in the event of divorce. The extent of her share would depend on circumstances.

Also, what matters is not who is the mortgagor, but who has legal and beneficial interests in the house. You both have beneficial interests. Legal ownership will be indicated by whomever is registered owner.

Are you sure? It is our solicitor who advised that as an "occupier" my wife would have no claim.

Is it because my name would be down as the registered owner as I pay the mortgage?

[pork911]

Norfolkandchance said:

Breadvan72 said:

Do not take legal advice from mortgage firms or estate agents. You wife would have a claim to a share of the house in the event of divorce. The extent of her share would depend on circumstances.

Also, what matters is not who is the mortgagor, but who has legal and beneficial interests in the house. You both have beneficial interests. Legal ownership will be indicated by whomever is registered owner.

Are you sure? It is our solicitor who advised that as an "occupier" my wife would have no claim.

Is it because my name would be down as the registered owner as I pay the mortgage?

Are you sure that was the advice from your Solicitor?

[3Dee]

TooMany2cvs said:

No IHT between spouses (spice?) anyway.

I am well aware of that fact, however the comment still stands as it is wise to plan for most eventualities, and major assets held in the right way can give better flexibility overall if needed.

[anonymous-user]

Norfolkandchance said:

Breadvan72 said:

Do not take legal advice from mortgage firms or estate agents. You wife would have a claim to a share of the house in the event of divorce. The extent of her share would depend on circumstances.

Also, what matters is not who is the mortgagor, but who has legal and beneficial interests in the house. You both have beneficial interests. Legal ownership will be indicated by whomever is registered owner.

Are you sure? It is our solicitor who advised that as an "occupier" my wife would have no claim.

Is it because my name would be down as the registered owner as I pay the mortgage?

Unless she has her own income/equity that is worth more than your house.

[longblackcoat]

Norfolkandchance said:

Breadvan72 said:

Do not take legal advice from mortgage firms or estate agents. You wife would have a claim to a share of the house in the event of divorce. The extent of her share would depend on circumstances.

Also, what matters is not who is the mortgagor, but who has legal and beneficial interests in the house. You both have beneficial interests. Legal ownership will be indicated by whomever is registered owner.

Are you sure? It is our solicitor who advised that as an "occupier" my wife would have no claim.

Is it because my name would be down as the registered owner as I pay the mortgage?

I would change my solicitor; the advice you've been given is, to put it mildly, not all that good.

[Ekona]

Might as well just give her the keys now

[anonymous-user]

Sack your solicitor if he really is giving that advice.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 12th September 15:32

[M3DGE]

longblackcoat said:

Norfolkandchance said:

Breadvan72 said:

Do not take legal advice from mortgage firms or estate agents. You wife would have a claim to a share of the house in the event of divorce. The extent of her share would depend on circumstances.

Also, what matters is not who is the mortgagor, but who has legal and beneficial interests in the house. You both have beneficial interests. Legal ownership will be indicated by whomever is registered owner.

Are you sure? It is our solicitor who advised that as an "occupier" my wife would have no claim.

Is it because my name would be down as the registered owner as I pay the mortgage?

I would change my solicitor; the advice you've been given is, to put it mildly, not all that good.

Indeed, that is absolute shxte. Our house is in my name only, because my wife has her own business and if it went belly up we'd want to keep the creditors away. We have twice had legal advice from separate firms that this makes no difference at all in the event of a divorce.

[Soov535]

Norfolkandchance said:

Breadvan72 said:

Do not take legal advice from mortgage firms or estate agents. You wife would have a claim to a share of the house in the event of divorce. The extent of her share would depend on circumstances.

Also, what matters is not who is the mortgagor, but who has legal and beneficial interests in the house. You both have beneficial interests. Legal ownership will be indicated by whomever is registered owner.

Are you sure? It is our solicitor who advised that as an "occupier" my wife would have no claim.

Is it because my name would be down as the registered owner as I pay the mortgage?

You need to find a solicitor who isn't pissed.

[anonymous-user]

Soov535 said:

You need to find a solicitor who isn't pissed.

Dude, it's Friday afternoon; that's a big ask.

[Soov535]

Breadvan72 said:

Soov535 said:

You need to find a solicitor who isn't pissed.

Dude, it's Friday afternoon; that's a big ask.

Fair shout.

You at Goodwood, Breaders?

[Rude-boy]

Norfolkandchance said:

Are you sure? It is our solicitor who advised that as an "occupier" my wife would have no claim.

Is it because my name would be down as the registered owner as I pay the mortgage?

1. They said WHAT!!!!!

2. I am a property solicitor and not only is this my area but you appear to be in my area. Please PM me the Firm this person works for, or even better let me have their name so that I can ensure I never let a conflict Client near them!

3. Someone else (higher up the food chain) in that shop needs to look at your file pronto.

If you have a little look back through the SP&L forum you will see there have been many threads about this sort of situation. You'll also see that a barrister, at least one partner level solicitor specialising in property and a number of other legal bods have made posts and given advice that is totally at odds with that you have received.

I'm wondering if the 'solicitor' is a solicitor and also HTF they have come up with this 'advice'. One wonders if they have read the Deed of Consent and Charge/Postponement your other half will have been required to sign by the lender and got the wrong end of the stick?

BTW, and I am really shorthanding here, signing that form means that any claim she may have WRT any equity in the house falls behind any claim from the lender (in fact she is saying if there isn't enough that belongs to him you can take the extra out of what I am owed) and that if they repo the house she will not claim any rights but get out quietly. It does not mean that she has no claim on the equity!

[anonymous-user]

Soov535 said:

Breadvan72 said:

Soov535 said:

You need to find a solicitor who isn't pissed.

Dude, it's Friday afternoon; that's a big ask.

Fair shout.

You at Goodwood, Breaders?

Nar, at Canary Wharf and only had one drink today. Bummer.

[Rude-boy]

Soov535 said:

Breadvan72 said:

Soov535 said:

You need to find a solicitor who isn't pissed.

Dude, it's Friday afternoon; that's a big ask.

Fair shout.

You at Goodwood, Breaders?

Oi!

Jober as a Sudge here!

Goodwood? How quaint. I'm off to Donington!