Buying house in joint names - can you have mortgage in single name?

Zipppy

When buying a house jointly (deeds will be joint names) can only one party take out a mortgage if other party pays cash and doesnt need a mortgage??

So housein joint names, mortgage in single name??

killers1

Zipppy wrote: »

When buying a house jointly (deeds will be joint names) can only one party take out a mortgage if other party pays cash and doesnt need a mortgage??

So housein joint names, mortgage in single name??

No, all parties on the title deeds need to be party to the mortgage. Impossible for the bank to repossess the property if there is a 3rd party who owns the property but isn't on the mortgage deed

Zipppy

killers1 wrote: »

No, all parties on the title deeds need to be party to the mortgage. Impossible for the bank to repossess the property if there is a 3rd party who owns the property but isn't on the mortgage deed

But if one puts cash in why should they be tied to a mortgage ??

Marcusm

Zipppy wrote: »

When buying a house jointly (deeds will be joint names) can only one party take out a mortgage if other party pays cash and doesnt need a mortgage??

So housein joint names, mortgage in single name??

What is the relationship between the proposed owners? There Re two types of joint ownership , joint tenancy (each owns the house together, no division of ownership) and tenancy in common (each owns a particular element usually a %age of the house). In theory, with tenancy in common, a mortgage could be charged against only that person's interest in the property which would mean that only one party was liable for the debt. Finance may be harder to come by as it would be less common!

Lantus

In addition to whats been said it's worth pointing out that if you are not on the mortgage you dont own the house anymore than the man living down the street. It doesn't matter how much you pay towards it if the person on the mortgage wanted to sell or rent it out the other party could do nothing.

On the flip side for a person not on the mortgage they can walk away at any time if they get bored or feel they dont want a house anymore and the person on the contract for the next 30 years is responsibe to pay it.

Get everyone involved on the mortgage!! You could look at contracts drawn up by legal people outside of a mortgage but I dont know how robust they would be in court.

killers1

Zipppy wrote: »

But if one puts cash in why should they be tied to a mortgage ??

The issue is that the bank lend money and 'own' the house until the debt is repaid. If there is another owner who is not bound by the mortgage then the bank would have difficulty in repossessing the property to sell it in order to clear their debt as a 3rd owner claims rights to the property. Bank's only like to lend to all owners so that if they need to repossess and sell the property they have the owners prior agreement as per the mortgage conditions.

killers1

Marcusm wrote: »

What is the relationship between the proposed owners? There Re two types of joint ownership , joint tenancy (each owns the house together, no division of ownership) and tenancy in common (each owns a particular element usually a %age of the house). In theory, with tenancy in common, a mortgage could be charged against only that person's interest in the property which would mean that only one party was liable for the debt. Finance may be harder to come by as it would be less common!

Joint tenancy and tenancy in common relate to what happens the property when 1 owner dies. In joint tenancy ownership passes to the other owner whereas if the property is purchase as tenants in common the deceased persons share is left to their estate and not the other party. This would be common where properties are purchased by 2 friends...

killers1

Lantus wrote: »

if you are not on the mortgage you dont own the house anymore than the man living down the street.

This is not strictly true as it is very common for a mortgage to be in joint names with title in one name particularly in the area of self builds where the site has been gifted to the 'owning' party. The non-owning person is still liable for the mortgage as they have signed the mortgage deed.

Marcusm

killers1 wrote: »

Joint tenancy and tenancy in common relate to what happens the property when 1 owner dies. In joint tenancy ownership passes to the other owner whereas if the property is purchase as tenants in common the deceased persons share is left to their estate and not the other party. This would be common where properties are purchased by 2 friends...

Rubbish; what happens when one of the owners dies causes the difference in treatment on death but the different ownership applies for all rights prior to death including who can sell what and who can mortgage what. There may not be many banks willing to lend on this basis at the moment but what I have written is correct and is the means by which the non borrowing owner can protect themselves from liability for the mortgage debt (especially important if property values may fall).

killers1

There may not be many banks willing to lend on this basis at the moment.

absolutely none unfortunately

trishasaffron

Why on earth would any lending institution take security on part only of the property? How on earth would they get their money back by taking over the property if they didn't have a mortgage over the whole thing?

Sounds like you need really serious legal advice.

scrawnybawny

is there a particular advantage in just one party applying for a mortgage (i.e. and the other member of the couple essentially acting as a paying tenant and hence maintaining their first time buyer status) - i can' think of an advantage( under the current system anyway)

Victor

OP, would I have it right that this is a couple buying a property and one is committing a lot more cash than the other? I imagine the bank will insist on both being on the mortgage for the bank's peace of mind.

It might be useful for each party to get independent legal advice, separate from thr other party.

scrawnybawny wrote: »

is there a particular advantage in just one party applying for a mortgage (i.e. and the other member of the couple essentially acting as a paying tenant and hence maintaining their first time buyer status) - i can' think of an advantage( under the current system anyway)

They wouldn't retain first tome buyer status as they would have paid for part of the property and be on the deeds.

scrawnybawny

It might be useful for each party to get independent legal advice, separate from thr other party.



They wouldn't retain first tome buyer status as they would have paid for part of the property and be on the deeds.

sorry, what i was getting at was; would it be possible if one half of couple remained completely uninvolved in mortgage application and process , and therefore acted as a standard tenant. ([1] is it possible and [2] is it advantageous)

killers1

scrawnybawny wrote: »

It might be useful for each party to get independent legal advice, separate from thr other party.



They wouldn't retain first tome buyer status as they would have paid for part of the property and be on the deeds.

sorry, what i was getting at was; would it be possible if one half of couple remained completely uninvolved in mortgage application and process , and therefore acted as a standard tenant. ([1] is it possible and [2] is it advantageous)

It's possible if the couple aren't married. There's no advantage in the way their used to be as stamp duty is the same for first and non-first time buyers. The disadvantage is that you'll miss out on that persons tax relief at source entitlement and if they don't buy a property themselves this year they'll have missed out on TRS altogether.

jocotty

Lantus wrote: »

In addition to whats been said it's worth pointing out that if you are not on the mortgage you dont own the house anymore than the man living down the street. It doesn't matter how much you pay towards it if the person on the mortgage wanted to sell or rent it out the other party could do nothing.

On the flip side for a person not on the mortgage they can walk away at any time if they get bored or feel they dont want a house anymore and the person on the contract for the next 30 years is responsibe to pay it.

Get everyone involved on the mortgage!! You could look at contracts drawn up by legal people outside of a mortgage but I dont know how robust they would be in court.

hi,

what if it was the same situation as above, only the couple get married.
would both then be joint owners of the house?