Engagement from a legal pov

simu

Does enagement have any sort of legal standing? I always thought it was a purely informal affair but recently someone I know had to declare that they had not been engaged and broken it off in the last three years as part of a mortgage contract. Why would this be necessary? I mean, isn't it very hard to prove that sb was engaged in the first place?

Karoma

Curious.

Does enagement have any sort of legal standing?

Doubt it - Other than coinciding common-law 'marriage' status perhaps.

...someone I know had to declare that they had not been engaged and broken it off in the last three years as part of a mortgage contract. Why would this be necessary?

Context? Most likely, they're trying to gauge whether the couple will remain together for the duration of the mortgage period?

Perhaps it was really a dating agency pretending to be a bank?

I mean, isn't it very hard to prove that sb was engaged in the first place?

In my day, we announced it in the 'papers. But, nowadays... virtually impossible, unless they go asking around (A whole new meaning to Personal Banking).


</layman>

hullaballoo

I'm not great at this area of the law, but it used to be a contract involved (either the ring or dowry was consideration). As far as I'm aware, it's not the case now that it's actually a contract, but I suppose if it were tangled up in a mortgage, it could become contractual.

I'd imagine a scenario where it could be written into a mortgage contract that the couple have to be married within certain time constraints to validate the mortgage, but it would be very unlikely that the courts would uphold such a contract.

To be honest, I really can't see my way clear to saying that they'd have to actually get married, but they might have to remain a couple for a certain term of the mortgage.

There's a typical lawyer's opinion for you!

dermot_sheehan

simu wrote:

Does enagement have any sort of legal standing? I always thought it was a purely informal affair but recently someone I know had to declare that they had not been engaged and broken it off in the last three years as part of a mortgage contract. Why would this be necessary? I mean, isn't it very hard to prove that sb was engaged in the first place?

Under very old law there could be a contract for marriage, i.e. a contract to marry and not marriage itself. As far as I know it would prevent you entering any other marriage, also you might be liable for damages if you don't marry. It's specifically mentioned in the statute of frauds (requiring contracts for the sale of land, indemnity to a 3rd party, or marriage, be made or evidenced in writing).

It's unlikely that marriage contracts would have been enforced in the 20th century for reasons of public policy, the legislature put the issue in any case beyond doubt by making them unenforceable in the Family Law Act 1981 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA22Y1981S2.html

EducatedGuess

Agree with the above on common law grounds, but an engagement is not a legal contract, it shows an intention to marry but is not binding at all. The bank are only asking this question to grasp the position of the couple. It is a risk assessment question, nothing legal. A mortgage contract cannot stipulate that they get married within a time period, then the marriage itself would be illegal [full consent], they would be forced by an outside agreement.

simu

Uh, this person is getting the mortgage on their own though!

A family home declaration is required for all sales, mortgages or leases. In it the party providing the decalaration who is saying they are single usually is required to state that they have not been party to a marriage or an agreement to marry, as in each case there may be a third party who must consent to the transaction under the Family Home Protection Act 1976.

hullaballoo

simu wrote:

Uh, this person is getting the mortgage on their own though!

Hmmm, then I can't imagine how the engagement could be binding. Any idea how it arose that the engagement was an issue at all simu?

Oryx

I questioned this when signing for our mortgage, and was told it related to either of us being engaged to anyone, not only each other. Am vague on this but it had something to do with another ex-fiancee possibly having claim to joint monies.(?is this a word?)

EducatedGuess

The family home protection act only comes into effect when it is a family home, and family under the constitution is a married man and married woman not a proposal of marriage. Although the question is asked its a presumption by the bank of an interest in the money or property that may exist in the future.

NUTLEY BOY

If you pretend to be engaged to someone to help in securing a loan from a financial institution could this be fraudulent conduct on your part ?

Alternatively, can you get engaged without prejudice ? Not very romantic but would it cover your tail ? I suspect not.

EducatedGuess

EducatedGuess wrote:

The family home protection act only comes into effect when it is a family home, and family under the constitution is a married man and married woman not a proposal of marriage.

Whn I mentioned the FHPA I was referring to the umbrella of legislation that deals with this area, which includes the Family Home Act of 1981 which certainly does deal with 'agreements to marry' which have terminated. While it is correct to say that a family home must have been occupied by a married couple, the legislation is much wider and the banks are concerned to see that no third party can use any of the legislation to veto the transaction.

The Act itself is short enough, and is self explanatory...

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1981_22.html

simu

hullaballoo wrote:

Hmmm, then I can't imagine how the engagement could be binding. Any idea how it arose that the engagement was an issue at all simu?

I think it was just there in the contract by default or something, not sure. As it happens, the person who is getting the mortgage is engaged and told the solicitor about that but the solicitor had no interest in this at all! Odd!

simu

simu wrote:

the solicitor had no interest in this at all! Odd!

(S)he did a quick cost benefit analysis. Spending hours running around trying to get the consent of the fiancee and figuring if anything in the property is a pre-marriage gift or something bought for the marriage...or not probing too deeply and being put on notice of a potential problem and figuring that it's a chance in a thousand if something goes wrong. The Solicitor won't get paid an extra €1k for what could be a lot more work.

Victor

AFAIK there is some provision where the house and the engagement are together that some rights are created and this is what the bank wants to avoid.