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

How to go about buying an ex out of my house (parents gifted site for property to me)

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    standardg60
    Registered Users Posts: 4,699 ✭✭✭standardg60


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    this kind of thing is why Ireland needs pre-nups asap. The cohabiting ownership rule also needs to be abolished. A parent should be able to gift their son/daughter land or a house or anything and it never be able to be taken from them by a partner. We live in an awful time where you can't even live with a partner for a few years without them being able to take things they don't deserve

    It can work both ways. It's all about morality at the end of the day.

    Unfortunately that's something which is in very short supply in this country.


  • Options
    #33
    jlm29
    Registered Users Posts: 3,818 ✭✭✭jlm29


    standardg60 wrote: »
    jlm29 wrote: »
    A joint mortgage could and would have been given if the site was in a single name. It mightn’t make any legal sense, and if might not seem right to you, for the very valid reasons outlined above. But it happens all the time. I am a joint mortgage holder on a house I do not own.

    There are two very valid reasons why this cannot be the case.

    Firstly, any jointly held mortgage protection cover will state that in the event of the death of one party the title deeds will automatically pass to the other. No other third party e.g next of kin has any legal standing.

    Secondly, no mortgage provider will on the completion of a jointly held mortgage return the deeds to only one of those holders, why would anyone in their right mind enter into a joint mortgage agreement if that were the case?

    People may not be aware or be informed, but all solicitors handling joint mortgage applications will automatically transfer the deeds of the property, site or whatever into both names before furnishing to the mortgage provider.

    I can 100% tell you that the deeds weren’t transferred into both our names before the mortgage was drawn down. I know this, because the solicitor told us he was going to do it, but then he subsequently told us that if he did, I would be liable for stamp duty and tax, because we aren’t married. I was requested by the bank to get a letter from our accountant to say that I had received independent financial advice regarding the implications of taking out a joint mortgage on a property that I’m not named on the deeds of. I am definitely named on the mortgage documents, I’m not just guaranteeing it.


  • Options
    #34
    jlm29
    Registered Users Posts: 3,818 ✭✭✭jlm29


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    jlm29 wrote: »
    A joint mortgage could and would have been given if the site was in a single name. It mightn’t make any legal sense, and if might not seem right to you, for the very valid reasons outlined above. But it happens all the time. I am a joint mortgage holder on a house I do not own.

    You can't mortgage what you don't own. You might be able to guarantee a mortgage but you can't give a mortgage on your property.

    My name is on the mortgage documents, right beside my partners.


  • Options
    #35
    Glass fused light
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Glass fused light


    standardg60 wrote: »
    People may not be aware or be informed, but all solicitors handling joint mortgage applications will automatically transfer the deeds of the property, site or whatever into both names before furnishing to the mortgage provider.

    No law abiding solicitor will transfer any property without the proper authorisation and consent of the owner. To attempt to do so without the owner being aware or informed would result in a disbarment disciplinary and a criminal case for fraud.


  • Options
    #36
    standardg60
    Registered Users Posts: 4,699 ✭✭✭standardg60


    Amazing.

    So you are aware that you are 50% responsible for repayment of that loan without any recourse to the assets secured on it?

    Who is providing your mortgage protection cover? Does it state that the deeds will transfer to your partners next of kin?

    You are surely just acting as a guarantor.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    jlm29
    Registered Users Posts: 3,818 ✭✭✭jlm29


    standardg60 wrote: »
    Amazing.

    So you are aware that you are 50% responsible for repayment of that loan without any recourse to the assets secured on it?

    Who is providing your mortgage protection cover? Does it state that the deeds will transfer to your partners next of kin?

    You are surely just acting as a guarantor.

    I am aware that I am liable for the mortgage, yes. I’m not a guarantor on the mortgage, it’s a joint mortgage. We intend to get married in the near enough future, so that will eliminate the issue. It’s a very very small mortgage, that’s why I was comfortable with it. I’ve been living here for a few years, the amount I haven’t paid in rent is well more than half the mortgage.
    We don’t have a joint mortgage protection policy, we both have separate ones.


  • Options
    #38
    standardg60
    Registered Users Posts: 4,699 ✭✭✭standardg60


    Thanks for clarifying, so in your case there was a small remortgage on a house that was fully owned by your partner already, in which case a transfer of ownership would have resulted in a large cgt/ stamp duty bill.

    I assume you would agree then that you would not have done the same in the case of a full purchase/house build?


  • Options
    #39
    jlm29
    Registered Users Posts: 3,818 ✭✭✭jlm29


    standardg60 wrote: »
    Thanks for clarifying, so in your case there was a small remortgage on a house that was fully owned by your partner already, in which case a transfer of ownership would have resulted in a large cgt/ stamp duty bill.

    I assume you would agree then that you would not have done the same in the case of a full purchase/house build?

    Thats exactly the case, as you describe it above. I wouldn’t personally have done it in the case of a full purchase/house build, but I know people who have. I know of two couples who built houses on family land, owned by one half of the couple. Both were given joint mortgages to build.


  • Options
    #40
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    standardg60 wrote: »
    Thanks for clarifying, so in your case there was a small remortgage on a house that was fully owned by your partner already, in which case a transfer of ownership would have resulted in a large cgt/ stamp duty bill.

    I assume you would agree then that you would not have done the same in the case of a full purchase/house build?

    As I stated in my post it is not uncommon at all what jim29 is describing. I know of one married couple in a brand new house that is the name of only one but has a joint mortgage as it is beneficial for a number of reasons to do it this way.

    I know a number of other cases of this also, so its far from the unheard of situation you are making it out to be.


  • Options
    #41
    standardg60
    Registered Users Posts: 4,699 ✭✭✭standardg60


    Glass fused light wrote: »
    No law abiding solicitor will transfer any property without the proper authorisation and consent of the owner. To attempt to do so without the owner being aware or informed would result in a disbarment disciplinary and a criminal case for fraud.

    Of course. I was implying that not being aware or informed of the implications is not necessarily the same as not being told.

    I can fully understand there being beneficial reasons, but only in the case of married couples were ownership rights are already conferred.

    Has co-habiting couple legislation conferred new rights to people not named on deeds?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    jlm29
    Registered Users Posts: 3,818 ✭✭✭jlm29


    Freya Tender Garbage wrote: »

    I know a number of other cases of this also, so its far from the unheard of situation you are making it out to be.

    Those exactly- it was in our original mortgage offer that we would need to have the house transferred into joint names, and our solicitor was very surprised- he said that in any case previously that he’d dealt with, there was no issue with issuing a joint mortgage on a house or site owned by one party. As soon as he queried it with the bank it was removed from the paperwork.


  • Options
    #43
    Glass fused light
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Glass fused light


    standardg60 wrote: »
    Of course. I was implying that not being aware or informed of the implications is not necessarily the same as not being told.

    I can fully understand there being beneficial reasons, but only in the case of married couples were ownership rights are already conferred.

    Has co-habiting couple legislation conferred new rights to people not named on deeds?

    You stated that a solicitor would transfer ownership, the solicitor acts on instruction from and on behalf of the client. Anyway they are no longer premitted to act for the seller and buyer so one party would need a different solicitor to change the ownership of a property. Tthe bank want to receive confirmation that the party with no ownership has received professional advice. This so that neither party can claim that they were not aware of the legal and financial implications of the contract.
    If some of the argumets made in court recently are setting a tone, I would think even with jointly held property, banks may actually start looking for each party to have a separate solicitor appointed to ensure that each has independant legal advice.

    Married couples don't have ownership rights over their partners assets. Assets/property bought by one party are owned only by the purchasing party. Historicaly men's legal standing has always been recognised while women on marraige lost their legal identy eg. had no property rights, and could not sue or be sued in court. The married womens act in the 50's was to fully recognise a married woman as independant from her husband. The family home act in the 70's prevented a partner who owned the marital home from selling or mortgaging the property without the consent of the other parther. It did not give the non-owning partner ownership rights.

    The acts and the cohabiting act gives the parties the right to go to court and argue a case as to why the court should look at the economic relationship historical and current and seek redress for a perceive loss or financial dependency. The judge will look at all circumstance (eg co-mingling of funds where partner A bought property using partner B's funding etc) to determine a fair split.


Advertisement