What is a home owner

ligertigon

As per title.
Who is a property owner?
One with an outstanding mortgage
or
One with the deeds and no mortgage?

Because logic suggests it can't be both?

Any suggestions appreciated

murphaph

Logic doesn't suggest any such thing. If your mate lends you a fiver to buy a pint it's your pint but you owe your mate a fiver. Otherwise drinking it would be stealing your mate's pint!

johndaman66

I would suggest that a homeowner is someone who is in possession of the title deeds to the house and there is no finance whatsoever outstanding on the house. As such the expression homeowner is most likely one that is frequently misused.

The_Conductor

johndaman66 wrote: »

I would suggest that a homeowner is someone who is in possession of the title deeds to the house and there is no finance whatsoever outstanding on the house. As such the expression homeowner is most likely one that is frequently misused.

I'd suggest that Philip's analogy is the most accurate.
You own the house- however there is a lien on the asset- until such time as you clear the debt secured on the asset.

Yes- you owe money associated with the asset- but you still own the asset.

ligertigon

interesting. what about proof of ownership?

The_Morrigan

ligertigon wrote: »

interesting. what about proof of ownership?

Its on the title deeds. The bank doesn't own the house they have a lien or interest in it until the debt is discharged.

johndaman66

The_Conductor wrote: »

I'd suggest that Philip's analogy is the most accurate.
You own the house- however there is a lien on the asset- until such time as you clear the debt secured on the asset.

Yes- you owe money associated with the asset- but you still own the asset.

I'm unsure who Philip is but I wouldn't agree with the way you are looking at it Conductor. I personally wouldn't consider myself to own something until I can do with it as I please...assuming of course its not an illegal activity....i.e. I may own a gun but of course that doesn't mean I can shoot people.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/own

If you consider the definition of to own and look at the full definition of own I think part a may back up your point of view - "to have or hold as property". However, part b may be more inclined to back up my point of view - "to have power or mastery over".

I think its fair to say that if you were paying a mortgage on a house you would not have the power or mastery to legally sell it unless the bank agreed to you selling which as we both know quite often they wont in the case of someone in negative equity unless they can make up the shortfall. All other things being equal and assuming all the other legal boxes are ticked it is not illegal to sell the house....

I personally wouldn't consider myself to become the homeowner until the mortgage is paid off in full

MicktheMan

johndaman66 wrote: »

I personally wouldn't consider myself to become the homeowner until the mortgage is paid off in full

So who owns it then when there is a mortgage on it?

The_Morrigan

MicktheMan wrote: »

So who owns it then when there is a mortgage on it?

The person paying the mortgage owns it legally.

johndaman66

The_Morrigan wrote: »

The person paying the mortgage owns it legally.

Legally maybe but that still doesn't tick the boxes of the definition of what it is to own something

"to have power or mastery over"

The_Morrigan

johndaman66 wrote: »

Legally maybe but that still doesn't tick the boxes of the definition of what it is to own something

"to have power or mastery over"

But you do....another person can't sell your house or gain entry to it, or alter it without your permission.
The banks involvement isn't on the ownership, it's on the debt used to purchase it.

pwurple

How do you not have "mastery" over a house with a mortgage? You can paint it puce with tiger stripes, change it inside and out, extend it, sell it.... Ad nauseum.

You also need to pay back the loan you took out in order to purchase it.

I'm strongly leaning towards ditching irish classes in school in favour of some very basic financial concepts for the irish population. An awful lot of irish people seem to come through the entire system with no idea of what a loan is!

johndaman66

The_Morrigan wrote: »

But you do....another person can't sell your house or gain entry to it, or alter it without your permission.
The banks involvement isn't on the ownership, it's on the debt used to purchase it.

Well true but the same could be said of a rented property. A renter may not allow another person entry yet it may be the case that the LL owns the house.

Ignore the legal side of it, would you agree that a person paying a mortgage on a property does not own it in the true definition of own

Taken from the below site:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/own

Full Definition of OWN

transitive verb
1
a : to have or hold as property : possess
b : to have power or mastery over <wanted to own his own life>

2
: to acknowledge to be true, valid, or as claimed : admit <own a debt>

On the basis of part 1 (b) I wouldn't consider myself to own the house until the mortgage is paid in full on it. Thats the way I'd look at it anyways..

The_Morrigan

johndaman66 wrote: »

Well true but the same could be said of a rented property. A renter may not allow another person entry yet it may be the case that the LL owns the house.

Ignore the legal side of it, would you agree that a person paying a mortgage on a property does not own it in the true definition of own

Taken from the below site:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/own

Full Definition of OWN

transitive verb
1
a : to have or hold as property : possess
b : to have power or mastery over <wanted to own his own life>

2
: to acknowledge to be true, valid, or as claimed : admit <own a debt>

On the basis of part 1 (b) I wouldn't consider myself to own the house until the mortgage is paid in full on it. Thats the way I'd look at it anyways..

No I don't agree with your interpretation. Ownership is a legality that's why we have so much law surrounding it; it's why we have the statute of fraud, the family home protection act and the endless string of cases under the law of equity concerning equitable interests in property.

Hannibal Smith

pwurple wrote: »

How do you not have "mastery" over a house with a mortgage? You canith tiger stripes, change it inside and out, extend it, sell it.... Ad nauseum.

You also need to pay back the loan you took out in order to purchase it.

I'm strongly leaning towards ditching irish classes in school in favour of some very basic financial concepts for the irish population. An awful lot of irish people seem to come through the entire system with no idea of what a loan is!

Its not as simple as understanding what a loan is. You may take the money as a loan but you put your house up as security in exchange for that loan which compromises your power over it. . As regards doing what you want with the property most mortgages have conditions in them to say that you won't do anything to your property to negatively effect their security.

If you by a property, you are thr unequivocal owner. Any register will reflect you as such and show that it is effected by the mortgage. Most mortgages include a condition to say you won't sell or transfer or offer the property as security for any other loan so you don't have the freedom to do as you want because any subsequent sale would be invalid. The bank can take the property from you if you don't repay the loan.

Your title deeds, your very proof of ownership, remains with the bank so even if that condition regarding future sales didn't exist nobody would buy the property from you without title deeds.

You are a home owner though, you are the clear owner, but that ownership is subject to the mortgage.

johndaman66

The_Morrigan wrote: »

No I don't agree with your interpretation. Ownership is a legality that's why we have so much law surrounding it; it's why we have the statute of fraud, the family home protection act and the endless string of cases under the law of equity concerning equitable interests in property.

Ok, I agree with you, from a legal point of view a person would be considered to own the property even if there was finance outstanding on it, in this jurisdiction anyway.

I was answering the OP's question from my interpretation of the definition "to own" and on the basis of that broader definition of "to own" I would not agree someone paying a mortgage on a property actually owns it. I don't think you could specifically look at the legal aspect of home ownership in isolation in answering the OP's question unless of course thats what they specifically asked for

The_Morrigan

johndaman66 wrote: »

Ok, I agree with you, from a legal point of view a person would be considered to own the property even if there was finance outstanding on it, in this jurisdiction anyway.

I was answering the OP's question from my interpretation of the definition "to own" and on the basis of that broader definition of "to own" I would not agree someone paying a mortgage on a property actually owns it. I don't think you could specifically look at the legal aspect of home ownership in isolation in answering the OP's question unless of course thats what they specifically asked for

To be honest with you, in that definition part b doesn't apply to property, hence the distinction from part a.

johndaman66

The_Morrigan wrote: »

To be honest with you, in that definition part b doesn't apply to property, hence the distinction from part a.

I would doubt if we should make that assumption when reading the definition. I would suggest that part a and b are both relevant when defining to own. Hardly correct to ignore one part for a particular asset type or if you do chop and change what its applicable to does that not mean that the definition is meaningless?

Hardly correct that Irish property law or indeed the property law in any other jurisdiction over-rides the actual definition of to own

irishmover

If you've got a registry of titles or deeds in your name then the property is technically yours. With or without having a mortgage to pay off. The titles registry office will not have a variation in title ownership if there's a mortgage on it. They have it in black and white that its yours.

However, no matter if you've debt on the property or not the state could decide they want to build a dump or new road straight through your house and can thus do a compulsory purchase by law. Thus leaving you with no rights of ownership on your property with some compensation to accommodate the upheavel.

So really its not as simple as I own this. There's a lot more to it.

The_Morrigan

johndaman66 wrote: »

I would doubt if we should make that assumption when reading the definition. I would suggest that part a and b are both relevant when defining to own. Hardly correct to ignore one part for a particular asset type or if you do chop and change what its applicable to does that not mean that the definition is meaningless?

Hardly correct that Irish property law or indeed the property law in any other jurisdiction over-rides the actual definition of to own

The definition of 'to own' doesn't just apply to tangible assets hence the reason to have more than one application. They give you a example in the definition.

ligertigon

irishmover wrote: »

If you've got a registry of titles or deeds in your name then the property is technically yours. With or without having a mortgage to pay off. The titles registry office will not have a variation in title ownership if there's a mortgage on it. They have it in black and white that its yours.

However, no matter if you've debt on the property or not the state could decide they want to build a dump or new road straight through your house and can thus do a compulsory purchase by law. Thus leaving you with no rights of ownership on your property with some compensation to accommodate the upheavel.

So really its not as simple as I own this. There's a lot more to it.

Yes, just like the UK, the Crown is the ultimate owner of all real estate.

So, this post was prompted by the revenue sending me a letter about property tax, and me having purchased a house recently. I have exemption as recent first time buyer, but it made me think, did I purchase a house? because I recon I am a co-owner with the bank.
Shouldn't they pay a pro rata rate of property tax then when the time arrives?
Anyone got a murdochs dictionary handy?

murphaph

ligertigon wrote: »

Shouldn't they pay a pro rata rate of property tax then when the time arrives?

Only if your bank manager can kip on your sofa whenever he feels like it

The_Morrigan

ligertigon wrote: »

Yes, just like the UK, the Crown is the ultimate owner of all real estate.

So, this post was prompted by the revenue sending me a letter about property tax, and me having purchased a house recently. I have exemption as recent first time buyer, but it made me think, did I purchase a house? because I recon I am a co-owner with the bank.
Shouldn't they pay a pro rata rate of property tax then when the time arrives?
Anyone got a murdochs dictionary handy?

Yes you bought the house.
The bank is not an owner or co-owner.
No the bank should not be paying any taxes associated with property ownership.

ligertigon

murphaph wrote: »

Only if your bank manager can kip on your sofa whenever he feels like it

Please please let her be blonde, female and good looking!:p