New Beginning?? Long term resolution for unwanted house.

Beardyman

Hi all,

I have a house that I bought with my ex-partner who decided to leave me 6 years ago. Much to my regret (and pressure on her behalf!) I ended up buying her out. Anyways, I now no longer live anywhere near the house and have rented it out. The rent comes nowhere near the interest-only portion of the mortgage (KBC Bank), let alone the life and household insurance. The house costing me hundreds of euro every month and is worth about 53% of the outstanding mortgage.

I've been lucky enough to meet someone else and we hope to marry next year. She has no debt but once we are married she will end up inheriting my negative equity. Therefore I am determined to sort something out long-term as soon as possible.

I'm considering trying New Beginning to see if they can get me some kind of deal. If anyone has any experience of using them I'd love to hear it. Or any other experiences or recommendations would be a great help.

Many thanks for any help or suggestions!

D3PO

why should you get a deal ?

You can pay but don't want to. Tough luck deal with it.

djmcr

This is Ireland, no one is responsible for their decisions here

Beardyman

D3PO wrote: »

why should you get a deal ?

You can pay but don't want to. Tough luck deal with it.

I won't waste my time commenting on this reply as this person has no idea of the acutal difficulty of the situation and is merely speculating without the facts.

As I said above I'm not concerned for myself. It's going to be my fiancée's problem once we get married for something that happened years before I met her. That is the issue.

If I was single I'd keep plugging away but but that won't be the case from next year and she'll end up spending her lifetime repaying my problem.

StillWaters

Your new partner will not inherit your debt. That is yours to deal with regardless of marriage. New Beginnings charge for their services now. Have a look at keepingyourhome.ie for your options.

Beardyman

StillWaters wrote: »

Your new partner will not inherit your debt. That is yours to deal with regardless of marriage. New Beginnings charge for their services now. Have a look at keepingyourhome.ie for your options.

THanks for that, I only came across that website last night.

If my partner wishes to buy a house once married she is obliged to provide her spouse's financial details as well. I know this is my debt but it will impact her ability if she ever wants to own her own home.

djimi

Would moving back into the house be an option? It might not be ideal, but it cant be any worse than paying rent/mortgage on two properties *(assuming you dont own the place you currently live in).

D3PO

Beardyman wrote: »

I won't waste my time commenting on this reply as this person has no idea of the acutal difficulty of the situation and is merely speculating without the facts.

As I said above I'm not concerned for myself. It's going to be my fiancée's problem once we get married for something that happened years before I met her. That is the issue.

If I was single I'd keep plugging away but but that won't be the case from next year and she'll end up spending her lifetime repaying my problem.

and you think your unique why ?

Guess what I'm in NE my new wife has no debt she too is in the same situation your wife will be. Makes no difference pay your debts, like myself and everybody else, if she doesn't want to get into the situation stay unmarried....

D3PO

Beardyman wrote: »

THanks for that, I only came across that website last night.

If my partner wishes to buy a house once married she is obliged to provide her spouse's financial details as well. I know this is my debt but it will impact her ability if she ever wants to own her own home.

then stay unmarried and let her buy a home first before you get married ...

valleyoftheunos

OP stay away from the likes of Newbeginings, they will do you no favours and happily take your money. If you want genuine advice about your fiance's legal position go see a solicitor.

HardyEustace

StillWaters wrote: »

Your new partner will not inherit your debt. That is yours to deal with regardless of marriage. New Beginnings charge for their services now. Have a look at keepingyourhome.ie for your options.

Is it true that the new marriage partner will not inherit your debt?

I've searched through the citizens advice bureau website and have done a google search but I can't find anything to verify this.

Beardyman

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

OP stay away from the likes of Newbeginings, they will do you no favours and happily take your money. If you want genuine advice about your fiance's legal position go see a solicitor.

I've sent them a couple if mails but if I want to meet anyone there's a minimum charge of €150. I understand they must be inundated with queries but if you've already sent on all of your financial details they must be able to state whether or not they can do anything for you before you start handing over money. I was just wondering if anyone actually had any experience of dealing with them?

Ray Palmer

HardyEustace wrote: »

Is it true that the new marriage partner will not inherit your debt?

I've searched through the citizens advice bureau website and have done a google search but I can't find anything to verify this.

I find it strange too, if you get married your asset go to joint ownership especially when you go for a divorce. Don't get how it would be different with debts. Then you hear of people moving things into your partners names to keep it away from creditors. It seems to be inconsistent and complex and requires a lawyer.

StillWaters

HardyEustace wrote: »

Is it true that the new marriage partner will not inherit your debt?

I've searched through the citizens advice bureau website and have done a google search but I can't find anything to verify this.

Yes its true. Debts do not become joint debts on marriage. The partner has no liability to pay this debt. However as OP says, it will need to be disclosed on any future loan or mortgage applicant so will impact in that way.

nino1

Beardyman wrote: »

If my partner wishes to buy a house once married she is obliged to provide her spouse's financial details as well. I know this is my debt but it will impact her ability if she ever wants to own her own home.

If your wife has enough income to buy a house in her own name then the amount of debt you are in is completely irrelevant.

This is a pretty ridiculous reason to look for a write down!!!

HardyEustace

StillWaters wrote: »

Yes its true. Debts do not become joint debts on marriage. The partner has no liability to pay this debt. However as OP says, it will need to be disclosed on any future loan or mortgage applicant so will impact in that way.

And I guess one house becomes the marital residence and you will lose out on associated benefits there, i.e. one mortgage interest relief rather than two

D3PO

HardyEustace wrote: »

And I guess one house becomes the marital residence and you will lose out on associated benefits there, i.e. one mortgage interest relief rather than two

and you can potentially gain by reassignment of tax credits depending on both your earning potential etc. Look this could go on and on about the pros and cons financially of getting married.

This shouldn't be a consideration for getting married and it sure as hell shouldn't be a reason to think you should look for or be entitled to a writedown on debt.

tommylimerick

I think ye will owe this money
how much you talking about ?50 percent of the value of your house is a nice amount to have to make up . anything greater would be accident terroritory
I get through ten a day

John Mason

I am in negative equity, i got married last year. my husband had no debt but he loved me so, he was happy to marry me negative equity and all.

are you sure you are not looking for a way out of the wedding?

Ray Palmer

John Mason wrote: »

I am in negative equity, i got married last year. my husband had no debt but he loved me so, he was happy to marry me negative equity and all.

are you sure you are not looking for a way out of the wedding?

I think he is being a bit more sensible and trying to get rid of his debt before marrying. One person bankrupt is better than both with the debit shared.

If he doesn't have to bring the debt in he should try not to. The problem is should he be able to? From what he has said I find it unlikely. It is morally questionable and of his own doing.

tommylimerick

free society but we got lumbered with debt too it costs a fair bit to get to the us of a next time pay attention ok ? what age are you can you work till 82. if not pass on the debt to the next generation cause we all know you just can t pay but why should that bother me you took a risk ,not only is greed good but it s legal too ,

whippet

OP ... once you can actually pay off the debt as it is due I don't think anyone like New Beginnings etc will be able to help.

To even have a bank consider giving a write down / debt relief they will want to see all incomings and outgoings; by your own admission you can actually service the debt on your own .. but by the sounds of it you just don't want to service it.

By the evidence you have given you won't be a candidate for any sort of debt relief / bankruptcy process should they become available .. these programmes are for people who can't pay not people who would prefer not to pay as it impacts on their lifestyle and ability to get in to more debt.

StillWaters

I agree with Whippet, the Personal Insolvency legislation probably has nothing in it for you, as you are solvent.
You could try to negotiate with your bank, there are quiet deals being done, but again if you are servicing the debt and earning an ok wage, it's doubtful they will cut a deal but it's worth a shot.
The other route of course is the UK but that requires a move there for a year and you will scupper any chances of a joint mortage in the future.

_Kaiser_

I'll say the same thing I always say in these kinds of threads..

While I sympathise with your situation OP, your debt is not MY responsibility - as me and other taxpayers will ultimately end up carrying the can for it if you did get a "deal".

You chose to buy a house (regardless of pressure from your ex) and while I'm sorry it hasn't worked out for you, you were the one who signed the papers (and if property had continued to boom I'm sure would have taken the inflated price and run when the time came), so it's your issue to deal with.

If you're having problems with the payments then negotiate with your lender. That's the only "deal" you'll get as the fact is that that you just don't WANT to deal with it any more which is just tough really.

pwurple

You've probably involved the banks already on this, as you've gone interest-only. Did you remortgage to buy the other party out at some point? If it was 5/6 years ago there were still tracker mortgages available. Did you get one?

Interest rates are the lowest they have been for ages. When the interest rate dropped did you keep the repayment the same and put the rest towards the capital? You can chip away at the capital if you are on a variable or tracker, and basically get rid of the neg equity over time.

People want everything immediately these days. Property is long term.

strongback

"your debt is not MY responsibility"

Spoken like a man with a small mortgage or none at all. This line is a bit patronising to anyone who bought their first modest starter house during the height of the boom and is carrying around a €500,000 mortgage and a job hanging by a thread. If people keep talking like this Ben Dunne's army will start to march.

strongback

strongback wrote: »

Spoken like a man with a small mortgage or none at all. This line is a bit patronising to anyone who bought their first modest starter house during the height of the boom and is carrying around a €500,000 mortgage and a job hanging by a thread. If people keep talking like this Ben Dunne's army will start to march.

500K mortgage for a first modest starter house......?

murphaph

strongback wrote: »

Spoken like a man with a small mortgage or none at all. This line is a bit patronising to anyone who bought their first modest starter house during the height of the boom and is carrying around a €500,000 mortgage and a job hanging by a thread. If people keep talking like this Ben Dunne's army will start to march.

He also said "if the bubble hadn't burst those looking for relief now wouldn't have been offering the taxpayer a slice of their increased equity", which NOBODY will dispute.

Btw, a "modest starter house" cost half a million at the height of the boom?? I call bullsh!t on that one.

Edit: Evelynn Ancient Beer beat me to it.

_Kaiser_

strongback wrote: »

Spoken like a man with a small mortgage or none at all. This line is a bit patronising to anyone who bought their first modest starter house during the height of the boom and is carrying around a €500,000 mortgage and a job hanging by a thread. If people keep talking like this Ben Dunne's army will start to march.

Correction - Spoken like a man who takes responsibility for his actions and the consequences of same - good and bad.

Besides, the OP makes no mention of his job hanging by a thread etc - he simply doesn't WANT to be dealing with his debt/responsibility.

I'm sick to death of this mentality that it's someone else's fault that their property investment/lifestyle choice hasn't worked out and that the same someone else should pick up the tab. Certainly their lenders should be forced work with people to come to reasonable/realistic terms that will change depending on circumstances, but that's it.

LowKeyReturn

Evelynn Ancient Beer wrote: »

500K mortgage for a first modest starter house......?

Easily! 1 Bed apartments could go for almost 300K so a three bedroom house in South Dublin easily 500K. What's more the banks would lend on this even if the your income was quite low.

djimi

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Easily! 1 Bed apartments could go for almost 300K so a three bedroom house in South Dublin easily 500K. What's more the banks would lend on this even if the your income was quite low.

Its one thing saying that people bought €500k houses; noone is disputing that. Its another thing entirely to describe a €500k house as a "modest starter house"...!

LowKeyReturn

djimi wrote: »

Its one thing saying that people bought €500k houses; noone is disputing that. Its another thing entirely to describe a €500k house as a "modest starter house"...!

What would describe as a modest starter home when 1 bed apartments cost 300K? A three bedroom house is roughly what a family would start out in. 500K probably wouldn't have even got you that!

Q4 Daft Report from 2006

331 - 602K for a three bed in Dublin.

djimi

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

What would describe as a modest starter home when 1 bed apartments cost 300K? A three bedroom house is roughly what a family would start out in. 500K probably wouldn't have even got you that!

Q4 Daft Report from 2006

331 - 602K for a three bed in Dublin.

So you think a house that is priced on very much the high side of your price range in the most expensive part of the country is modest?

murphaph

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Easily! 1 Bed apartments could go for almost 300K so a three bedroom house in South Dublin easily 500K. What's more the banks would lend on this even if the your income was quite low.

Dublin is not and never was limited to South Dublin. People always had the option of shock horror buying in West Dublin or even the dreaded Northside. If someone bought their first home for 500k in South Dublin then that way a lifestyle choice and nothing else.

LowKeyReturn

djimi wrote: »

So you think a house that is priced on very much the high side of your price range in the most expensive part of the country is modest?

Dublin is where the majority of the population and work is, so yes I would consider a mortgage somewhere within 30 - 45 minutes commute modest.

Scortho

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

What would describe as a modest starter home when 1 bed apartments cost 300K? A three bedroom house is roughly what a family would start out in. 500K probably wouldn't have even got you that!

Q4 Daft Report from 2006

331 - 602K for a three bed in Dublin.

A 3 bed semi d is a normal house for a family.
People just got the mentality post 2000 that you'd buy a house and flip it on 3 years later and use the profit to trade up, forgetting that the new house will have rose more.
Starter houses didn't exist pre 1995-2000.
People bought their first house and generally spent the rest of their life in it. If their circumstances changed and allowed them to trade up, they traded up, if it didn't, they stayed and continue to enjoy their home.
If they couldn't afford to buy, they didn't buy and they didn't move halfway across the country to do so either. Buying in the likes of Longford when you work in sandyford is and always was a rediculous idea.

LowKeyReturn

murphaph wrote: »

Dublin is not and never was limited to South Dublin. People always had the option of shock horror buying in West Dublin or even the dreaded Northside. If someone bought their first home for 500k in South Dublin then that way a lifestyle choice and nothing else.

Northside would still have set you back around €400K (county) or 460K for North City.

Grandpa Hassan

I've heard it all now. A €500k 3 bed house in south Dublin is a 'starter' home? Geez!

That thinking just shows how we ended up in this mess....

Why should the tax payer pick up the cost for someone that wanted to skip the first rung on the property ladder?

djimi

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Dublin is where the majority of the population and work is, so yes I would consider a mortgage somewhere within 30 - 45 minutes commute modest.

But from that link you posted there are plenty of parts of Dublin (Clondalkin, Balbriggan, even North Kildare towns) where the average for a 3 bed semi d was about €350k. Thats a "modest starter house" (by the standard of the time).

LowKeyReturn

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

I've heard it all now. A €500k 3 bed house in south Dublin is a 'starter' home? Geez!

That thinking just shows how we ended up in this mess....

Why should the tax payer pick up the cost for someone that wanted to skip the first rung on the property ladder?

Read the report - 2006 wasn't even the peak. Northside was more expensive than South in 2007.

Grandpa Hassan

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Read the report - 2006 wasn't even the peak. Northside was more expensive than South in 2007.

There were plenty of places where you didn't have to pay €500k.

LowKeyReturn

djimi wrote: »

But from that link you posted there are plenty of parts of Dublin (Clondalkin, Balbriggan, even North Kildare towns) where the average for a 3 bed semi d was about €350k. Thats a "modest starter house" (by the standard of the time).

I'd describe that as entry level. 500K at the height of the boom was not extravagant. (Well it was but not for the time)

djimi

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

I'd describe that as entry level. 500K at the height of the boom was not extravagant. (Well it was but not for the time)

Whats the difference between entry level and starter home? Surely the definition of a starter home is an entry level property?

And I dont care how you look at it; half a million quid on a pile of bricks is extravagant regardless of what the market is doing. There are 25 and a half counties where you could have bought a very nice home, even in the boom, without having to spend anything like that much.

LowKeyReturn

djimi wrote: »

Whats the difference between entry level and starter home? Surely the definition of an entry home is an entry level property?

And I dont care how you look at it; half a million quid on a pile of bricks is extravagant regardless of what the market is doing. There are 25 and a half counties where you could have bought a very nice home, even in the boom, without having to spend anything like that much.

The description was modest. I assume it was a family home, therefore three beds with schools, facilities and various commutes to think about. I'm sorry but it's simply not bull**** to think that people have 500K of debt from their mortgages and didn't go bananas when they purchased.

I've not suggested people shouldn't have to pay it back themselves but it's very possible to be in 500K of debt based on boom pricing.

djimi

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

The description was modest. I assume it was a family home, therefore three beds with schools, facilities and various commutes to think about. I'm sorry but it's simply not bull**** to think that people have 500K of debt from their mortgages and didn't go bananas when they purchased.

I've not suggested people shouldn't have to pay it back themselves but it's very possible to be in 500K of debt based on boom pricing.

Of course its possible for people to have a mortgage of that size, and Im not suggesting that there is anything wrong with that. I just find it a bit funny to describe any €500k purchase as modest, because quite frankly its not. There were a lot of properties in a lot of areas that would not have you in that kind of debt.

LowKeyReturn

djimi wrote: »

Of course its possible for people to have a mortgage of that size, and Im not suggesting that there is anything wrong with that. I just find it a bit funny to describe any €500k purchase as modest, because quite frankly its not. There were a lot of properties in a lot of areas that would not have you in that kind of debt.

Yes and I do accept that - however as I say there are many factors (not all of them sensible) to consider. Beyond that I've never considered living in Wexford and working in Dublin to be a particularly good idea. You have to consider quality of life. Furthermore a modest income in 2006/2007 for a couple could easily be over €100K a year - suddenly spending another 100K over 25 years doesn't seem (at the time) to be such a big deal.

All this said the solution is not writing down that debt but neither is repossession and forcing people hang on to properties they don't need. Make the debt portable and manageable.

strongback

Evelynn Ancient Beer wrote: »

500K mortgage for a first modest starter house......?

Funny that, I'm sure 2 bedroom apartments in the likes of Dublin 3 and further out of the city were selling for €500,000+ at the end of 2006/ start of 2007.

3 bedroom semi-d's were going for a minimum of €600,000 in the same area's the apartments were €500,000. Look up a property page from a newspaper from 2007 for evidence.

strongback

Its been discussed before but the division in opinion is getting clearer, the two tiers (or more) moving further apart:

Family buys their house before the boom attitude: "Not my problem you can't pay your boom time mortgage, you took the risk"

Family buys in the boom years: "I'm crippled with debt with my 40 year mortgage I'll be paying back until I'm 70".


It's clear as day where people sit when they give their opinion on this issue and it's all based on their own personal level of debt.

The funny thing is the two imaginary quotes I've given could be from next door neighbours the first aged 45 an the other one aged 35.


Buying your house in the 1980's or 90's meant you hit the jackpot. The value of your property rose experientially and at the same time your wages doubled and quadrupled.

To then turn around and patronise younger people and lecture on the responsibilities of debt is, shall I say, a little hard to take. If you were born in the 1960's you were handed the golden goose.


The kid's of the 70's and 80's do have an option...........more will be taking it.

D3PO

strongback wrote: »

Its been discussed before but the division in opinion is getting clearer, the two tiers (or more) moving further apart:

Family buys their house before the boom attitude: "Not my problem you can't pay your boom time mortgage, you took the risk"

Family buys in the boom years: "I'm crippled with debt with my 40 year mortgage I'll be paying back until I'm 70".


It's clear as day where people sit when they give their opinion on this issue and it's all based on their own personal level of debt.

The funny thing is the two imaginary quotes I've given could be from next door neighbours the first aged 45 an the other one aged 35.


Buying your house in the 1980's or 90's meant you hit the jackpot. The value of your property rose experientially and at the same time your wages doubled and quadrupled.

To then turn around and patronise younger people and lecture on the responsibilities of debt is, shall I say, a little hard to take. If you were born in the 1960's you were handed the golden goose.


The kid's of the 70's and 80's do have an option...........more will be taking it.

What a load of b0ll0x. I fit into category 2 in some ways in that I bought during the boom. But 1 I didnt get a 40 year mortgage and b im not crippled in debt because I wasn't stupid enough to over extend myself.


My attitude is that of the first quote. You make a decision you live by it tough luck if you were an idiot and over extended then boo hoo live with it.

strongback

strongback wrote: »

Funny that, I'm sure 2 bedroom apartments in the likes of Dublin 3 and further out of the city were selling for €500,000+ at the end of 2006/ start of 2007.

3 bedroom semi-d's were going for a minimum of €600,000 in the same area's the apartments were €500,000. Look up a property page from a newspaper from 2007 for evidence.

Il check my files for a newspaper from 07;) I'm just saying you can't put 500k and modest starter home in the same sentance

strongback

Evelynn Ancient Beer wrote: »

Il check my files for a newspaper from 07;) I'm just saying you can't put 500k and modest starter home in the same sentance

People bought apartments in unfashionable parts of Dublin for €500,000, that really did happen.

Cork and Galway got almost as ridiculous. If you are talking about the average around the country then that's different.