Do I have a case against the bank?

chanpan

Hi,

For 5 years I have been living in a house bought by my husband and 2 of his friends in 2006 (with a 100% mortgage with the intention of flipping it in three years). Unfortunately everyone knows what happened next, the other 2 boys, who are still good friends of ours, emigrated and we have made the house our home in the meantime and have finally decided to buy the house outright.

Here comes the dilemma though when we started digging around for paperwork we discovered the mortgage had been put solely in the name of one of the other boys; he worked for the bank and they signed off on a special staff rate for him at the time despite the deed of the house going into the 3 names.

Our mortgage adviser believes what they did was highly illegal and we should be in a position to approach them for a large write down however our lawyer says they only do write downs for people in arrears and no point going any further with it. My husband is very loyal to this lawyer but I feel we should go to someone else (especially as I think his interests may be compromised as he was the person to do the convalescing on the house originally).

Has anyone come across anything like this or have any opinions on how we should proceed?

Many many thanks.

Addle

It was just irresponsible of the bank rather than illegal I think.
It'd be to their detriment if their employee defaulted.

Wanderer78

Banks! They're kinna a law onto themselves! Best of luck op, hope it works out for you

893bet

What would your case be exactly?

What financial loss have you suffered as a result?

dubrov

I think it depends on a lot of things.

Are you sure your husband and your friends didn't orchestrate this to avail of the better rate?

Did you sign a mortgage contract?

Are your husband's friends refusing to recognise your share of the property?

jimmycrackcorm

I don't see the issue when the deed is in your joint names.
Had it been reversed and you were responsible for the mortgage and not in the deeds then you might have an issue.

Otherwise good luck on your joint looking for some sort of fairy-tale outcome

Del2005

chanpan wrote: »

Hi,

For 5 years I have been living in a house bought by my husband and 2 of his friends in 2006 (with a 100% mortgage with the intention of flipping it in three years). Unfortunately everyone knows what happened next, the other 2 boys, who are still good friends of ours, emigrated and we have made the house our home in the meantime and have finally decided to buy the house outright.

Here comes the dilemma though when we started digging around for paperwork we discovered the mortgage had been put solely in the name of one of the other boys; he worked for the bank and they signed off on a special staff rate for him at the time despite the deed of the house going into the 3 names.

Our mortgage adviser believes what they did was highly illegal and we should be in a position to approach them for a large write down however our lawyer says they only do write downs for people in arrears and no point going any further with it. My husband is very loyal to this lawyer but I feel we should go to someone else (especially as I think his interests may be compromised as he was the person to do the convalescing on the house originally).

Has anyone come across anything like this or have any opinions on how we should proceed?

Many many thanks.

If you've been on a preferential rate that you don't qualify for for 13 years you might owe the bank money as opposed to them owing you money.

SeaFields

Strikes me that they used the bank employee friends preferential rate to keep the costs down during their little joint dabble at property speculation.

The Bishop Basher

Del2005 wrote: »

If you've been on a preferential rate that you don't qualify for for 13 years you might owe the bank money as opposed to them owing you money.

This was my first thought as well..

This sounds a bit like one of those, "I fell down a pothole 20 years ago am i entitled to loads of money now ?" threads.

Why would you be entitled to a write down from the bank when, by your own admission, you've been underpaying them for years ?

You're far more likely to end up owing them money then any sort of write down imo.

joeguevara

The deed is in three names but the mortgage is in two is what you are saying. The way this will work is that if you do a voluntary sale the bank will get their mortgage paid and the profit split in three.

You won’t get a write down but you will get a third profit if not in negative equity. If not on mortgage you have no obligation to pay mortgage payment but the two others do. Don’t think you will get a write down. Be careful. If a mortgage on property then it needs to be paid.

gwalk

Seems like entitlement culture is still alive and well,

i want to claim, i want this, i want i want i want

Franz Von Peppercorn

Rennaws wrote: »

This was my first thought as well..

This sounds a bit like one of those, "I fell down a pothole 20 years ago am i entitled to loads of money now ?" threads.

Why would you be entitled to a write down from the bank when, by your own admission, you've been underpaying them for years ?

You're far more likely to end up owing them money then any sort of write down imo.

I’d argue the only person who owes the mortgage is the mortgage holder so she and the bf have been overpaying a mortgage they are not own. It’s not clear if the mortgage holder is still paying.

The banks were crazy a few years ago. I’d get rid of preferential rates for employees as well.

joeguevara

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I’d argue the only person who owes the mortgage is the mortgage holder.

That won’t help op. The deeds are mortgages and first charge against them. Can’t get out of that and if not paid repossession tobpay mortgage. Also if the moth gage holders aren’t living their the code of conduct on mortgage arrears won’t apply and consumer protection codebwill which is easier to get payment.

AndyBoBandy

If what the bank did was highly illegal why should YOU get a large write down?

How has paying less than you should have paid negatively impacted your life to such an extent you should have the mortgage written off?

Franz Von Peppercorn

joeguevara wrote: »

That won’t help op. The deeds are mortgages and first charge against them. Can’t get out of that and if not paid repossession tobpay mortgage. Also if the moth gage holders aren’t living their the code of conduct on mortgage arrears won’t apply and consumer protection codebwill which is easier to get payment.

You mean the deeds are held by the banks until the mortgage is paid and that obligates all deed holders to pay the mortgage, named or not?

Nobody is dead here.

Squatter

chanpan wrote: »

Our mortgage adviser believes what they did was highly illegal and we should be in a position to approach them for a large write down

Maybe we should blame the "professional" adviser for putting bad thoughts in the mind of the OP and her man! She's probably a decent gal who believes him!

Franz Von Peppercorn

Op. Who has been paying the mortgage? All three or just the residents?

Misguided1

Availing of a preferential staff rate didn't mean only that person was named on the mortgage. A staff member was entitled to a 100% mortgage at a reduced rate (3.99% versus 5% way back in the early 2000's) but the mortgage was in the name whoever the purchasers were i.e. staff member plus spouse, sibling, friend etc. etc.

OP its unlikely this occurred just to secure the mortgage. Surely the annual mortgage statements would have made it obvious that there was only one name on the account though.....right?

Mitch Connor

gwalk wrote: »

Seems like entitlement culture is still alive and well,

i want to claim, i want this, i want i want i want

FFS - when they went looking into purchasing the other shares in the house their mortgage advisor told them there may be an issue to look in to, and their lawyer has said it isn't worth it - they have opened a thread for opinions on the conflicting advise they are getting and if the hive mind of boards might know what the scenario would be (given the OP isn't likely to be a lawyer or a mortgage broker etc).

"Entitlement culture"... really? Asking questions regarding conflicting advise provided by professionals is entitlement?

As someone not in either professional field, I would also think it odd if I bought a house with someone, had my name on the deeds but wasn't included on the mortgage information. That would be something I would think should be looked at and if a lawyer said different I would look for some opinions on it.

Actually, I would also wonder if it means I would still qualify as a first time buyer if no mortgage has previously been recorded against me.

pyramuid man

chanpan wrote: »

Our mortgage adviser believes what they did was highly illegal and we should be in a position to approach them for a large write down however our lawyer says they only do write downs for people in arrears

I wouldn't be so sure about this information first of all. Unless he has had experience with a specific case of this, I would be skeptical of this.

However, there are a number of benefits to your situation.

First of all, you have been on a preferential rate for what? 15 years. That would mean you have saved a fortune.

Secondly, Your partner has never technically bought a house and may have the advantages of a first time buyer if you wanted to buy out the mortgage or if you wanted to buy another house. Im not sure about it but I cant see why you wouldnt be classified as first time buyers if you are not named on the mortgage.

Finally, if the mortgage ever has gone into or goes into arrears in future, there will be no impact on your credit profile as you are not named on the loan. It sounds to me you have a lot of benefits of home ownership without a lot of risk here.

Wheety

You looking for a new lawyer to pursue a write down?

Squatter

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Actually, I would also wonder if it means I would still qualify as a first time buyer if no mortgage has previously been recorded against me.

Unlikely. The buyers' PPSNs would (should) have been lodged by their solicitor at the time that Stamp Duty was being paid. So Revenue would have a record of that.

beechwood55

Whose name in printed on the annual mortgage statement and annual interest certificate that you receive from the bank?

La.m

Looks like the solicitor may have messed up here when the mortgage was originally put in place. Banks would usually want the ownership to reflect mortgage as otherwise they have problems enforcing the mortgage. It's no skin off your nose but if you start looking to get a write down off the bank, the bank may pursue your solicitor.

Marcusm

chanpan wrote: »

Hi,

For 5 years I have been living in a house bought by my husband and 2 of his friends in 2006 (with a 100% mortgage with the intention of flipping it in three years). Unfortunately everyone knows what happened next, the other 2 boys, who are still good friends of ours, emigrated and we have made the house our home in the meantime and have finally decided to buy the house outright.

Here comes the dilemma though when we started digging around for paperwork we discovered the mortgage had been put solely in the name of one of the other boys; he worked for the bank and they signed off on a special staff rate for him at the time despite the deed of the house going into the 3 names.

Our mortgage adviser believes what they did was highly illegal and we should be in a position to approach them for a large write down however our lawyer says they only do write downs for people in arrears and no point going any further with it. My husband is very loyal to this lawyer but I feel we should go to someone else (especially as I think his interests may be compromised as he was the person to do the convalescing on the house originally).

Has anyone come across anything like this or have any opinions on how we should proceed?

Many many thanks.

It sounds, on the face of it, that you and your husband have no interest in the house nor obligation to pay the mortgage. That’s very much a double edged sword.

dubrov

The deed of the house is in 3 names so they do have an interest in the house, just not the mortgage.
It looks like the bank screwed up in the OP's favour.

There would be no point in the OP suing as they suffered no damage as a result of the action.
Someone in the bank made a bad mistake though.

Technically, if the OP's friend stopped paying the mortgage they can't chase the OP for the debt.
The bank also couldn't force sell the house as the OP owns a portion of it.

Jim2007

chanpan wrote: »

Our mortgage adviser believes what they did was highly illegal and we should be in a position to approach them for a large write down.

Does he also give out medical advice by any chance? Let me put it very simply, he is proposing bribery, which is a criminal offense. You walk into a bank and start threatening them with bribery and you will find it will go down hill very quickly. Ditch this clown PDQ.

The starting point for you is to clearly establish what the facts are. It is extremely unlikely that the bank turned around and gave out a loan on the full value of the house to someone who only owned a third of the property, there are too many checks and balances for that to happen so easily. It would also be pointless for the bank to hold the deeds if they could not enforce it against all three owners. There is something missing here.

I suspect there has been some kind of pledge or guarantee from the other two owners to the bank... which is probably why you are not getting much support from the solicitor or your partner. I doubt you are getting the whole story here.

368100

Joint mortage sole title or vice versa is not illegal but is isnt usually granted by banks (at least not these days)

All the parties should have been made aware of this when they signed, id say your case is more against the solicitor than the bank if they weren't advised exactly what they were signing

Marcusm

dubrov wrote: »

The deed of the house is in 3 names so they do have an interest in the house, just not the mortgage.
It looks like the bank screwed up in the OP's favour.

There would be no point in the OP suing as they suffered no damage as a result of the action.
Someone in the bank made a bad mistake though.

Technically, if the OP's friend stopped paying the mortgage they can't chase the OP for the debt.
The bank also couldn't force sell the house as the OP owns a portion of it.

It would be very very irregular for the funds to be advanced without a valid claim on the property meaning all owners being obligors/mortgagors or guarantors/mortgagors.

chanpan

Thanks for all your opinions guys especially those which constructive advise rather than making assertions on my character..I am not now nor ever have I been someone who looks for free money..we just want to buy a house and were getting 2 different opinions from professionals and weren't sure what path to take/who to believe.

3DataModem

OP, there is conflicting advice here.

If you are the only person de-facto paying the mortgage now, and your name is not on the mortgage documentation, then you do have a lot of leverage with the bank. They will be horrified that your name is on the deed and not the mortgage, they will almost never be able to evict you and force a sale if the mortgage remains unpaid and this remains your family home.

The bank released funds without doing their own due diligence.

In banking parlance, the "collateral is imperfect". I would suggest you get a good solicitor (not a local town conveyance/will guy, but a proper 300-euro-for-a-consultation guy) and see what they suggest. The local solicitor will not want to get adversarial with a bank, but a good one won't care.