Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Judge decreed house should be transferred to my sole name but bank refuses

Options
  • 13-12-2011 12:22pm
    #1
    Jellybean72
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5 ✭


    Hi. Ive been separated over 5 1/2 years . Since the separation I have been paying the mortgage myself. In court for legal separation the judge ruled the mortgage should be transferred to my sole name. In the divorce this same ruling was made. The bank is refusing to comply because they say I cannot pay the mortgage myself - depsite the fact I have been doing so for over 5 years.

    I get no maintenance from my ex for the children or any financial support whatsoever. He no longer resides in this country and I do not even have an address or phone number for him. He was absent from all the court sittings so the judge ruled that, in the event he (my ex) refuses to sign the papers regarding transfer of ownership, the court could do so instead. It was farther ruled that he has no claim on my estate (i.e. house) should I die.

    Despite all of this the bank insists they cannot have a sole name on the mortgage - basically because if they only have one name on it they only have one person to chase should payments fall into arrears.
    I have never once been in arrears with the mortgage. I have struggled to pay many other bills and have had phone , esb, internet etc cut off on various occasions and have had to get handouts from kind family and friends over the years, and I also had to renegotiate terms of loan repayments as I was left with all of these as well. This has of course affected my credit rating.
    Nevertheless, I have managed to keep the mortgage payments going without fail and I am livid that the bank is refusing to look at this as an individual case - it appears it's a one size fits all scenario and as long as they have two boxes with a name in each one they're satisifed.
    It is ludicrous to suggest a man who has zero claim on the house and no rights even to live in it , a man who has reneged on every aspect of financial repsonsibilty towards his children could still be considered 'security' shoud I fail to make payments. My solicitor is writing to the bank to empahsise all of this and plead my case but I just wondered whether anyone else has had a similar experience? I know the recession and property downturn is playing havoc in family law .

    I have no plans to sell the house or to remortgage - I just want to keep going, paying it off so I have something to leave my children.
    Tagged:


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Kosseegan
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 987 ✭✭✭Kosseegan


    Are you seeking to sell or re-mortgage? If not, by simply paying off the loan you will end your ex's involvement.


  • Options
    #3
    Jellybean72
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5 ✭Jellybean72


    .. yes - except that the house won't be paid off for another 20 years ! the other thing is that if I WERE to fall into arrears or found myself in a situation where I needed to renegotiate the terms of the mortgage, I cannot do that without his signature. If I decided to emmigrate in a few years time I would be unable to sell up. If one of my children became seriously ill and I needed to remortgage to get money, I couldn't do that either. There are so many things that can happen bewteen now and 20 years down the road.
    The other concern I have is that, should I die, despite the fact the court ruled my ex has no claim the bank might see it differently as his name is still on the deeeds.
    So, no, your suggestion isn't really a viable option.


  • Options
    #4
    Kosseegan
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 987 ✭✭✭Kosseegan


    When you die your life assurance will pay off the bank so the bank will no longer be concerned about the court order. If your spouse dies the same should happen although you may not learn of his death in time.


  • Options
    #5
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Firstly your solicitor will advise you.

    In relation to your problem it seems you have a court order. Is that court order relating to the putting the property into your sole name or the loan into you sole name or both.

    In relation to the property bring transferred that is no problem the county reg signs any required transfer on your husbands behalf.

    In relation to the loan to be honest I don't know and property people will be able to tell you, but I would think the court does not have the power to order a third party to give up security. Once your husbands name is off the property it really does not matter about the loan, I would have thought. Your husband would have no rights to the house but he could be still liable for any shortfall.


  • Options
    #6
    Jellybean72
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5 ✭Jellybean72


    My solcitor has come across this many times before and has written to the bank. He says unfortunately the banks take a broad brush approach and it can be difficult to get them to look at a case from any otehr perspective.

    The court order as per the divorce is for the house i.e. mortgage to be transferred into my name.
    My ex doesnt pay anything towards the mortgage and has no claim on the house, is in unknown location and clearly likes it that way. I was forced to go to court so I could get an order allowing me to apply for passports for my children without him.

    Nothing will change by removing his name from the paperwork.

    The bank somehow insisits that they need his name so they could turn to him for payment should I fail. If the local gardai couldnt find him and the tax revenue people couldnt find him and his own solcitor is unable to locate him for money due them I really dont fancy the bank's chances. the thing is ludicrous.

    I was really interested in hearing from anyone who may have similar experience to mine..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Yahew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭Yahew


    If the banks are told to do it, they have to do it. There are in legal violation. Get a sheriff and seize their computers.


  • Options
    #8
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Puts the bank in contempt of court then, no? I'd send any correspondence to the judge and also to you solicitor.

    If a judgement was made the bank can appeal the decision but not refuse the order.


  • Options
    #9
    Jellybean72
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5 ✭Jellybean72


    That was my initial thought also. But I don't think it is that simple - it appears to be another of these legal grey areas that has yet to be properly clarified.
    The court makes one decision but then the bank says it breaches the terms of their contract and they decide against it. It's a tricky one.


  • Options
    #10
    Jellybean72
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5 ✭Jellybean72


    the only thing is that I have experience of banks playing hard ball with me (after my separation I was struggling to keep all the loans going which were in joint name but fell to me.. ) - and once it became clear they could not get what was simply not there they changed their tune and were happy to negotiate with me. it was tough because I had to stand my ground and force them to accept what I was offering. Guess it's par for the course these days.


  • Options
    #11
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Jellybean72 wrote: »
    That was my initial thought also. But I don't think it is that simple - it appears to be another of these legal grey areas that has yet to be properly clarified.
    The court makes one decision but then the bank says it breaches the terms of their contract and they decide against it. It's a tricky one.

    Pretty sure the judge would have taken the contract into consideration. I guess that's the reason he made the decision that he did. If the bank cared so much they,d have been present at the hearing.

    Can't see how that contract overides his descision. Solicitor or the judge is the person to ask.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Kosseegan
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 987 ✭✭✭Kosseegan


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Pretty sure the judge would have taken the contract into consideration. I guess that's the reason he made the decision that he did. If the bank cared so much they,d have been present at the hearing.

    Can't see how that contract overides his descision. Solicitor or the judge is the person to ask.


    Parties to litigation should not write to Judges. Judges do not give legal advice, particularly concerning matters put before them. The bank would have no right to be present at an in camera hearing, but if something concerned them they should have been made a notice party. Judges cannot remove property rights.


  • Options
    #13
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    That explians it. Doesn't explain why the judge would issue that order in that case.


  • Options
    #14
    Kosseegan
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 987 ✭✭✭Kosseegan


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    That explians it. Doesn't explain why the judge would issue that order in that case.


    The judge can order that the husband has no equity in the house as part of his powers to make provision for the wife. He cannot affect the bank's rights. If he did intend to affect the banks rights he would have had the bank made a notice party ( which would add to the costs of the proceedings) and heard what the bank had to say. The bank is not getting divorced only the o/p and her spouse.


  • Options
    #15
    Yahew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭Yahew


    Kosseegan wrote: »
    The judge can order that the husband has no equity in the house as part of his powers to make provision for the wife. He cannot affect the bank's rights. If he did intend to affect the banks rights he would have had the bank made a notice party ( which would add to the costs of the proceedings) and heard what the bank had to say. The bank is not getting divorced only the o/p and her spouse.

    I don't know how legal that opinion is, however at the moment the judge has ruled that the mortgage is to be transferred to the OP, solely. This would appear to be an instruction to the bank, as well as the estranged spouse.

    OP should do this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPfrez69BzE


  • Options
    #16
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Jellybean72 wrote: »
    My solcitor has come across this many times before and has written to the bank. He says unfortunately the banks take a broad brush approach and it can be difficult to get them to look at a case from any otehr perspective.

    The court order as per the divorce is for the house i.e. mortgage to be transferred into my name.
    My ex doesnt pay anything towards the mortgage and has no claim on the house, is in unknown location and clearly likes it that way. I was forced to go to court so I could get an order allowing me to apply for passports for my children without him.

    Nothing will change by removing his name from the paperwork.

    The bank somehow insisits that they need his name so they could turn to him for payment should I fail. If the local gardai couldnt find him and the tax revenue people couldnt find him and his own solcitor is unable to locate him for money due them I really dont fancy the bank's chances. the thing is ludicrous.

    I was really interested in hearing from anyone who may have similar experience to mine..

    You say the order of the Court is for the house to be transferred I.e. mortgage to be transferred to you. They are two very different things a property can be transferred between parties. But the mortgage is a totally different issue it is a contract between you your ex and the bank. The bank agreed to advance the money on certain conditions one of those conditions would be that you and your ex are both liable to pay the debt.

    The above is the reason I asked specifically did the court order that your husband be removed from the mortgage. I really don't know enough and maybe someone else would know but is the court acting ultra vires if he is removing a security of a third party.


  • Options
    #17
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,322 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    I d


  • Options
    #18
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,322 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    I don't see that the court could interfere with the bank's private property rights without notice to the bank. I also fail to see why it should. Tge court will make an order that Tge property is vested in Tge OP's name and it remains subject to the charge/mortgage in favour of the bank/lender. The bank also has recourse to the divorced spouse although the divorced spouse should have no interest in or ability to interfere with the property or the registration if it. If the OP believes that she can refinance and change lender there should not be any barrier as the bank will release the mortgage/charge on receipt of repayment. I can see that it might be possible that the bank might be less willing to renegotiate the terms of the loan if the other spouse remai s living and theoretically liable.


  • Options
    #19
    snor
    Registered Users Posts: 528 ✭✭✭snor


    I am no expert by any means but I was in a similar position and in order for me to take over the mortgage myself, I had to be assessed by my lender to ensure that I would qualify for the (remaining) mortgage based on my earnings alone. Luckily I did (just about). To strengthen your case, apply to another lender for a mortgage in your own name and see do you qualify. If you do qualify with another lender, you have a stronger case with your current lender and indeed may have a case to take up with the ombusman.
    If you are on a tracker currently, a lot of lenders will use this as an excuse to get you off it so you end up paying a lot more each month - so be prepared for that. Like you, I was paying the mortgage in full on my own and ex refused to sign any paperwork. Such a nuisance and so time consuming!


Advertisement