At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Hi I wondered if anyone could help me I am living with my partner but the mortgage is only in my name. I am divorced and I kept the house (bought my ex out) As my new partner pays half of everything I think it is only fair he is included in my mortgage. Can anyone please advise how you do this, if it costs, if the mortgage company will do this (he is self employed)
Thanks
Like I said, you need to get the permission of the lender. Then execute a quit claim deed, deeding the property from you to both of you. The lender can help you do this.
No and no.
You do not need the lender's permssion to QC it to yourself and another person.
And, the lender will most likely NOT help you to do this.
You can contact your local county courthouse, and they may tell you what's needed, or you can get in touch with the title company/closing attorney with whom you did your refi and they can assist you with this matter.
It's a very simple process, however be sure that this is really what you want to do, as this is really tough to reverse without your partner's full cooperation once it's done.
BEFORE you do this, I think it would be smart to get a full credit report on your partner, as well as a background check. Once you share ownership, that person's problems become yours. Any past or future judgments can be attached to that property, whether or not you had any involvement or knowledge.
This may not be a comfortable conversation to have, but let me tell you a few stories about some people who didn't do this....
You do not need the lender's permssion to QC it to yourself and another person.
The purpose of a lien is to PREVENT the transfer of ownership of a property untiul the lien is satisifed. If one doesn't get the permission of the lender the lender can call the loan.
Most likely they will not object to just adding someone like a spouse or partner. Is it worth the risk to take the chance and not ask them?
Most likely they will not object to just adding someone like a spouse or partner. Is it worth the risk to take the chance and not ask them?
This is very common practice, particularly when people get married.
But do you honestly think that they spend any time investigating this?
As long as the original borrower is still on title, what are the odds of this being questioned?
In today's environment, with foreclosure rates as high as they are, do you think that the lenders have added mattress police to track down these types of transfers?
Do you really think they want to ADD to their foreclosure rolls?
I would suggest that if this appears to be a risk anyone, they might first stop jaywalking, quit driving a car, and cut their calorie consumption by 25% or more... as all of these involve higher risk than adding someone to title.
In the event that this person does contact the lender for "permission," I'd be curious to see how many hours they invest in obtaining this variance, and whether or not they ever obtain it in writing.
A simple phone call to a rep from the lender may suffice. And I agree the likelihood of a refusal or it being questioned is small. But that doesn't change the facts.
Again, when a simple phone call can take care of this, why not make it?
This is very common practice, particularly when people get married.
But do you honestly think that they spend any time investigating this?
As long as the original borrower is still on title, what are the odds of this being questioned?
In today's environment, with foreclosure rates as high as they are, do you think that the lenders have added mattress police to track down these types of transfers?
Do you really think they want to ADD to their foreclosure rolls?
I would suggest that if this appears to be a risk anyone, they might first stop jaywalking, quit driving a car, and cut their calorie consumption by 25% or more... as all of these involve higher risk than adding someone to title.
In the event that this person does contact the lender for "permission," I'd be curious to see how many hours they invest in obtaining this variance, and whether or not they ever obtain it in writing.
The bottom line is, it's not advisable to encourage someone to go against their terms of their written agreement. The Borrower should contact the Lender. An issue that has already been addressed in this thread.
I think where the all the confusion in adding someone to the deed etc was coming in is that most people are under the impression that your note and your deed are the same thing. The lender only cares about who "promised to pay" the loan back. For example if a husband and wife get a divorce and the wife is given the house in the divorce and then doesnt make the payments, the lender can go after both people. A divorce decree is simply an agreement between the two parties not the lender. So along those same lines, you can add whoever you want to your deed. If the persons on the note default on that loan they will go after who signed the note, not who is on title. Now if this were a car note we were talking about, that you do need the lenders permission to add someone to the title of the car. I know I jumped around to a few different scenarios, but I think you get the jist of it. :-)
I think where the all the confusion in adding someone to the deed etc was coming in is that most people are under the impression that your note and your deed are the same thing. The lender only cares about who "promised to pay" the loan back. For example if a husband and wife get a divorce and the wife is given the house in the divorce and then doesnt make the payments, the lender can go after both people. A divorce decree is simply an agreement between the two parties not the lender. So along those same lines, you can add whoever you want to your deed. If the persons on the note default on that loan they will go after who signed the note, not who is on title. Now if this were a car note we were talking about, that you do need the lenders permission to add someone to the title of the car. I know I jumped around to a few different scenarios, but I think you get the jist of it. :-)
I still disagree. If you were talking about an unsecured loan you would be right, but in a secured loan the lender needs to know they can recover the collateral in case of default. Therefore, they do not want clouds on the title to inhibit a foreclosure.
To use your divorce example, the couple agrees that the wife gets the house. The husband then executes a quit-claim deed to the wife. The lender gets informed about the change and says sorry no. If you want to make a change of ownership we are calling the loan.
As I've said before the purpose of a lien is to prevent transfer of ownership of a property until the lien is satisifed. This give the lienholder the right to have a say in ANY change of ownership.
I still disagree. If you were talking about an unsecured loan you would be right, but in a secured loan the lender needs to know they can recover the collateral in case of default. Therefore, they do not want clouds on the title to inhibit a foreclosure.
How does a transfer of ownership "cloud" the title, with regard to a mortgagee's interest in a property?
[quote=ScottGem]To use your divorce example, the couple agrees that the wife gets the house. The husband then executes a quit-claim deed to the wife. The lender gets informed about the change and says sorry no. If you want to make a change of ownership we are calling the loan. QUOTE]
Can you give us specific examples of this happening... preferably instances where you have direct, personal knowledge?
How, exactly, could a lender prevent an owner from recording a QC?
Would they send representatives down to the courthouse to intercept the document?
Would they infiltrate the county computer system to erase it and destroy the evidence after it's recorded?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
As I've said before the purpose of a lien is to prevent transfer of ownership of a property until the lien is satisifed. This give the lienholder the right to have a say in ANY change of ownership.
Is the purpose of a lien to prevent transfer or is it to establish priority of claim and document the lienholder's interest in the collateral?
Please tell us, specifically, how a change in ownership would inhibit or compromise a lienholder's ability to collect on the debt, or foreclose when necessary?
Scott, you're probably a bright guy, but it's not helpful if you're giving advice that's incorrect and clearly out of your sphere of expertise.
I noticed you've made over 9,000 posts. I hope that those posts were better-informed.
I must defend Scottgem's position. The main purpoe of the Due on Sale Clause is to prevent a non creditworthy buyer from assuming a mortgage. The lender's right to do this has long been settled by the courts. Just because lenders don't always enforce this right does not mean that they cannot. There is a Federal exemption for transfer of property to an ex, in case of divorce. That is the only exemption that I have been able to find. The link that I posted earlier, even states that the DOS clause can be triggered by a lease of over 3 years, or a lease with an option to purchase. In the real world, the lender would not be aware of such a lease unless the document was recorded. Home Retention Agency and kanicky73 are confusing "the law" with "customary practice".
The problem here is you are making assumptions about my knowledge and information. In this thread, I am obviously not the only one taking this position, So I don't believe I am giving incorrect advice. Nor do I appreciate the attempted aspersions on my record based on one difference of interpretation.
The incorrect advice here would be to ignore the fact that the lienholder has the right to a say in any change of ownership. I stand by my statement that the purpose of the lien if to prevent transfer of ownership. Obviously a lien does establish priority and document a claim against the property. But the primary purpose is as stated.
I didn't say a lender could prevent the recording of a QC. I do believe that a Recorder of Deeds would be tasked with informing the lienholder of any attempt to change ownership. Once informed, they could then exercise the Due on Sale clause to call the loan.
As Dr D points out, I'm referring to what the law says is possible, not what might be usual practice. Therefore, my advice, which I stand by, is that anyone seeking to alter the ownership of a property that has a lien against it, should get the permission of the lienholder. Not doing so, could cause the loan to be called or other complications. If you have any facts that directly contradicts that advice feel free to produce it.
Linear Mode
