# Judgement Mortgage



## complicated

I would like to buy out my ex-husband's half of the house which is jointly owned. It will just be a matter of signing it over to my name.

There is a judgement mortgage on the house in relation to debts he hasn't paid off and currently can't afford to repay.  Is it possible to transfer his equity into my name without me being liable to any of the debts.

The bank have told me that I can afford to take over his half but that the judgement would have to be discharged first.

I'm not sure if some sort of agreement could be drawn up with a solicitor that he has no further or future interest in the house and that he will take full liability for the judgement?


----------



## onq

I am not an expert in these matters but I don't think you can revisit a judgement on a house or property quite like that.

I think the judgement must be cleared before the house can be transferred into your sole name - this seems to be the point of registering judgements against properties.

However the normal course of events is that if a sale occurs the proceeds from the sale go to pay off the judgement.

There must be some mechanism for this to occur since the property is an asset which may have to be sold to clear the judgement mortgage.

So long as the amount you are paying your ex for his half exceeds the amount of the judgement, there should be some way of sorting this out.

I am happy to stand corrected on this matter.

ONQ.


----------



## mf1

"It will just be a matter of signing it over to my name."

It won't. 

"Is it possible to transfer his equity into my name without me being liable to any of the debts."

No. 

"The bank have told me that I can afford to take over his half but that the judgement would have to be discharged first."

They are telling you both to get rid of the judgment mortgage before they will deal with any transfer.

"I'm not sure if some sort of agreement could be drawn up with a solicitor that he has no further or future interest in the house and that he will take full liability for the judgement? "

There is no question of a creditor agreeing to remove a judgment mortgage from the property to enable you to have the house - unless they are paid. They have security - why would they let that go? 

You can sell the house, discharge the judgment mortgage ( if there are sufficient funds) and take your share but without everyone's agreement or paying off the judgment mortgage, you cannot have the house without the judgment mortgage.

mf


----------



## complicated

Unfortunately the house is in negative equity so even if it was sold we would not have enough to pay back either the mortgage bank or the judgement.

It seems incredibly unfair that I am being held liable for a debt which has nothing to do with me and which I didn't even know was attached to our house.

Thanks for your help.  It seems the only option is for him to cough up the money to pay off the debt which unfortunately I don't think is going to happen.


----------



## onq

I'm sorry complicated, but at the start of this you stated:

_"I would like to buy out my ex-husband's half of the house which is jointly owned."_

I assumed this meant you had the money to buy him out and would be offering him half the price of the house.

Without getting into the whole negative equity amount, if you can afford to buy ime out and the money you pay him is more than the judgement, surely he can agree to discharge the debt as part of any deal?

Effectively, this means that your offer to him clears the judgement mortgage and you get the house unencumbered by the judgement mortgage.

Am I missing something here - is the judgement mortgage for MORE than hanlf the proce of the house?

Again, not looking for details, just ball parks - in this case, "yes" or "no".



ONQ.


----------



## complicated

Apologies, when I said 'buy him out' what I really meant was for the bank to sign his half of the house over to my name and for me to take on the full remaining mortgage repayments and obviously taking his name off the title deeds.  To this the bank has told me the judgements would have to be settled before they transfer the equity.

I don't think I could afford to 'buy him out'.  At the moment the house is worth €250k but the mortgage remaining is €300k i.e. €50k negative equity plus there's the judgement mortgage attached of €30k.

ONQ - Is your suggestion saying that I should pay him €125k plus an extra €30k to clear the judgement?

How would I finance that?


----------



## j26

looking2011 said:


> Hi complicated.
> I am just wondering how the judgement was put on the house without your knowledge?


 
A letter may have been intercepted by the ex-husband or ignored by the OP. Notification of the judgment mortgage would have gone out from the Land Registry to all joint owners.

Basically the judgment mortgage is registered as a mortgage on the property. If the husband gives you his share, you take it subject to the judgment mortgage. Equally, if it were to be sold, the buyer takes it subject to the judgment mortgage. The upshot is that anyone buying or lending on that property will insist on that judgment being released.

There is no question of there being a free way for you to take the property without the judgment. As is, the judgment creditor could seek an order from the court charging the property and then go for an order for possession and sale.

The only long term hope is relying on the Statute of Limitations (12 years).


----------



## fizzelina

j26 said:


> The only long term hope is relying on the Statute of Limitations (12 years).


 
I'm curious about what does this mean exactly? After 12 years does a judgement on a home lapse?


----------



## alaskaonline

complicated said:


> Apologies, when I said 'buy him out' what I really meant was for the bank to sign his half of the house over to my name and for me to take on the full remaining mortgage repayments and obviously taking his name off the title deeds.



This is were I am puzzled....I presume you're officially seperated? and there is some official agreement in place signed off by solicitors? This agreement would cover things like the house share and yes, one ex-spouse can buy out the other one at any time if it's feasible. The separation agreement usually covers this part so I am surprised that you are surprised that regardless of his debt you think you could just sign the joint house over to your name without giving him any money for his share of the house  please correct me if I got all this very wrong....


----------



## Time

fizzelina said:


> I'm curious about what does this mean exactly? After 12 years does a judgement on a home lapse?


It sure does.


----------



## dewdrop

I wonder what is the procedure to have a Judgment Mortgage cancelled by relying on the Statute of Limitations..I think if the debt was due to theRevenue the period is 30 years.


----------



## Time

They just fall off after 12 years. They become unenforceable.


----------



## Card

they can be renewed prior to the end of the 12 years I thought?


----------



## Time

Nope as the original judgement is only enforceable for 12 years, when the JM expires the judgement to which it relates will be unenforceable. No enforceable judgement means no JM.

You get 12 years to enforce the judgement. If you don't get your money back in those 12 years then tough the matter is dead as far as the law is concerned.


----------



## complicated

_'This is were I am puzzled....I presume you're officially seperated?'_

We are not yet officially separated, we are only starting the process but need to sort out what we're doing with the house before we can get the separation agreement drawn up.

_'A letter may have been intercepted by the ex-husband or ignored by the OP. Notification of the judgment mortgage would have gone out from the Land Registry to all joint owners.'
_
Two letters were issued from the Land Registry, one addressed to me and the other addressed to him, however he intercepted my letter so I never saw it and knew nothing about it recently until the mortgage bank notified me. 

_'You get 12 years to enforce the judgement. If you don't get your money back in those 12 years then tough the matter is dead as far as the law is concerned. '_

What are the chances of the bank not coming to enforce the judgement within 12 years or possession or sale of the house? Does this happen often?  Does that mean if they don't come within 12 yrs that it will just go away?  

If the debts are not paid off in the meantime I presume interest will build up on them and they could be a lot more in the long run??


----------



## Time

> What are the chances of the bank not coming to enforce the judgement  within 12 years or possession or sale of the house? Does this happen  often?  Does that mean if they don't come within 12 yrs that it will  just go away?


They get 12 years that is it. I know of a few cases that went very quiet after a judgement was gotten. One case is now in the 11th year so they only have 1 year to go and the whole debt is gone. Note if they started enforcing the judgement in say year 4 they still have only 8 years to play with.


----------



## dewdrop

I would have thought that certain steps must be taken to have the entry regarding the Judgmennt Mortgage cancelled say in the Land Registry.


----------



## Time

It would be removed as part of the conveyancing process. Once it is dead that would be a formality.


----------



## Bronte

Time said:


> It would be removed as part of the conveyancing process. Once it is dead that would be a formality.


 
I thought Time that it was more than a formality if the bank doesn't want to play ball.


----------



## Vanilla

Once it is statute barred, the registered owner can then apply to have it removed from the folio on giving an affidavit to the PRAI stating that they have not acknowledged the debt or paid in the interim and it is statute barred etc


----------



## Bronte

complicated said:


> Unfortunately the house is in negative equity so even if it was sold we would not have enough to pay back either the mortgage bank or the judgement.
> 
> .


 
In that situation the bank will not seek to enforce the judgment order as there is no point.  How they enforce the judgment mortgage is they go for a well charging order (an order for the sale).  Legal eagles can clarify the legal terms if I'm incorrect.


----------



## onq

complicated said:


> ONQ - Is your suggestion saying that I should pay him €125k plus an extra €30k to clear the judgement?
> How would I finance that?



That is exactly what I was getting at.
I didn't understand your problem and thanks for clarifying.

ONQ.


----------



## complicated

Bronte said:


> In that situation the bank will not seek to enforce the judgment order as there is no point. How they enforce the judgment mortgage is they go for a well charging order (an order for the sale). Legal eagles can clarify the legal terms if I'm incorrect.


 
Is enforcing the judgement not the same thing as a 'well charging order' i.e. forcing sale of the house?  If they enforce a 'well charging order' thus forcing the sale of the house then surely the mortgage bank are entitled to first rights on the proceeds of the sale which won't even pay the full amount outstanding on the mortgage and the bank that holds the judgement (i.e. a different bank to which we have our mortgage) won't get anything as there won't be anything left for them to take seeing it's in negative equity?

Unfortunately I don't have €125k in my back pocket to pay for his half of the house plus the judgement amount of €30k. I was just hoping to sign over his half and take on the full mortgage repayments from here on in.  Anyway why should I be paying for his debts that had nothing to do with me??  Plus he has no intention of paying them off in the short term so I presume the interest will build up over the years so if I do want to sell the house down the line the judgement amount will be a lot more than €30k which is what it stands at?


----------



## alaskaonline

complicated said:


> Anyway why should I be paying for his debts that had nothing to do with me??  Plus he has no intention of paying them off in the short term so I presume the interest will build up over the years so if I do want to sell the house down the line the judgement amount will be a lot more than €30k which is what it stands at?


 If a seperation agreement is in place, it doesn't matter how much dept he accumulates after you both sign the legal document. As for the debt in general - that is unfortunately the down side of a marriage resulting in a divorce. Everything you own or owe is both your responsibilities. If he would be in plus instead of minus, you would have a fair share too. It's just a bummer that he is in minus.

You could remortgage to buy his share of the house by the way, it would probably increase the years you need to pay it all off - something to discuss with the bank and a solicitor. Either way the Judgment order doesn't help...I feel for you!


----------



## CashAdv

How do you know if you have a JM?


----------



## Bronte

complicated said:


> Is enforcing the judgement not the same thing as a 'well charging order' i.e. forcing sale of the house? If they enforce a 'well charging order' thus forcing the sale of the house then surely the mortgage bank are entitled to first rights on the proceeds of the sale which won't even pay the full amount outstanding on the mortgage and the bank that holds the judgement (i.e. a different bank to which we have our mortgage) won't get anything as there won't be anything left for them to take seeing it's in negative equity?


 
The two court orders are separate.  Poster Time did an excellent thread on AAM about it you should look up.  In simple terms the judgment order means that the bank has put the unsecured debts onto the house/property.  So they become like a mortgage hence the name judgment mortgage.  But the bank cannnot force the owner to sell the house until the bank gets another court order called a well charging order.  In your case and others they won't do this as they are 'waiting' for property prices to go up !  Or they are waiting until there is more than negative equity in the house.  There is no point is forcing the sale of a house, and going to the costs of a well charging order if a) property is in negative equity b) property would only pay the original mortgage and nothing else c) it would look bad for the bank (eviction of family of 10 etc) and d) banks have left off certain 'important' people in the past by 'forgiving' them their debt that would be CJ Haughey and G FitzGerald in my time that I can remember.


----------



## Bronte

alaskaonline said:


> If a seperation agreement is in place, it doesn't matter how much dept he accumulates after you both sign the legal document. As for the debt in general - that is unfortunately the down side of a marriage resulting in a divorce.


  If the house is jointly owned and there is equity in it the bank can only go after his 'half' of the equity, not the full equity of the property, unless both spouses signed the documents to take out the debt.  

Marriage does not mean you take on each others debts or profits.  But if you sign on the dotted line to jointly take out loans or sign a mortgage etc then you both are agreeing to the debt.  Take the example of a businessman taking out a loan for his business, and he gives a personal guarantee, then the bank can take 'his' share of say the home in the event of default but they cannnot automatically take the wife's share, but most banks would have the partner/wife sign the business loan too so that they would get all the equity in the event of default.  Take the case of a man taking out a loan to buy a home for the family, wife is not working and has no income or savings.  Bank agrees to give him a mortgage but they will in all cases make sure that the spouse/wife signs the agreement.  This is due to the Family Home Protection Act as before this men/spouses could run up debts and wives/spouses would not know about it and literally they could lose their home but now they have to sign that they agree and acknowledge the debt.


----------



## alaskaonline

Bronte said:


> If the house is jointly owned and there is equity in it the bank can only go after his 'half' of the equity, not the full equity of the property, unless both spouses signed the documents to take out the debt.


 agree



> Marriage does not mean you take on each others debts or profits.


 depends on the circumstances.

There are different outcomes to different circumstances i.e. mortgage is looked differently than for example CC debt. We have a case in the family where wife accumulated a huge debt on her CC (he never signed up for a CC and the CC is not linked to a joint account, it's solely in her name). However now at the separation proceedings she argues that she bought stuff for the family on this CC and therefore expects him to take 50% of this debt. If OP's husband accumulated debt in a similar way, she might has to pay some of it off too cause this is what happened in our family case, unfortunately. Certainly not fair....


----------



## Bronte

askonline the separation/divorce is a whole other issue.  In essence the parties are negotiation who has to pay what.  Nothing to do with the credit card/bank etc.  

But your story is important to point out to other married people that they should be jointly taking the financial decisions in case they ever split up .  They shouldn't assume that one day the won't both have to pay for the sins of the other.  

In your particular story if one spouse ran up household debt on 'their' credit card I would find it reasonable that the other spouse pays up too.


----------



## alaskaonline

Bronte said:


> if one spouse ran up household debt on 'their' credit card I would find it reasonable that the other spouse pays up too.


I didn't say that  (the ex claims she used the CC for family expenses which wasn't the case but it's her word against his...)

Anyway OP mentioned her husbands debt and didn't clarify how/ what the debt exactly is. If it's a CC case here too then OP has another worry to add to her mortgage problem


----------



## complicated

[/QUOTE]Anyway OP mentioned her husbands debt and didn't clarify how/ what the debt exactly is. If it's a CC case here too then OP has another worry to add to her mortgage problem [/QUOTE]

As far as I know the debt is for a term loan with a bank.  I think it was originally made up of a few different debts one of which was a CC debt but he merged all of these into a term loan which he hasn't paid back.

Does this mean that if he used his CC to buy some of our household items then I'm liable for those even though they have since been merged into a term loan?


----------



## Time

Nope. It is a moralistic view taken by some people which has no basis in law. 

I remember a solicitor acting for a bank during an instalment hearing application suggest to a debtor that his wife should be paying towards his debt with a particular bank. The judge sat up and put the solicitor in her place by saying that his court was no place for her moral judgements.


----------



## alaskaonline

You don't know that for sure Timer. OP needs to consult with her solicitor. Not every person is as lucky as the one described in your example. It can go both ways and not always in the favor of the person who had nothing to do with the debt of their then married partner.


----------



## Bronte

alaskaonline said:


> Not every person is as lucky as the one described in your example. It can go both ways and not always in the favor of the person who had nothing to do with the debt of their then married partner.


 
I don't get this point.  You don't have to pay debts you didn't incur and didn't sign up for.  No judge can change that.  

As you've mentioned a marriage settlement that is a completely different matter.


----------



## alaskaonline

> As you've mentioned a marriage settlement that is a completely different matter.


 I thought this is what OP is trying to do? Find a settlement with her husband who she separates/ separated from? The JM is part of that....?


----------



## complicated

alaskaonline said:


> I thought this is what OP is trying to do? Find a settlement with her husband who she separates/ separated from? The JM is part of that....?


 
Yes I am trying to find a settlement with my husband without me having to pay off the JM which the mortgage bank have told me will have to be settled before I can transfer the house over to my name.

He is happy for me take over his half of the house but can't afford to pay off the JM. 

So just want to know if there was someway around it?


----------



## Time

Not really. Nothing can be transferred unless the JM is either paid or removed.


----------



## Artemis

Considering, the 12 year rule, does that this mean that in an impossible buy to let mortgage is it best to hand back the keys sooner as it will likely lead to a court appearance /judgement mortgage against the family home sooner which may never be enforceable on a property that is in negative equity.

Also, if a persons only asset is a family home in negative equity with 30 years to run on the mortgage, will the bank bother to apply a judgement mortgage? 

I know technically they could bankrupt you, but if you have a negative net worth, is there any point in this?

Perhaps this why the bank are slow to reposes, they a limiting their window of recourse and the the later they apply for a judgement, the greater the chance they have of a growth in the property market. 

Can anybody tell me if you have a limited disposable income, no assets and a property in negative equity, which is a family home for your children, how will the bank get their pound of flesh?

Sorry for the rambling and lots of questions, but I think this is really important as many people think bankruptcy is inevitable in dealing with impossible debt.


----------



## nuac

Enforceability of judgement mortgages against joint owners is a fraught area.

Take legal advice.

Ask your solicitor to consider the Mahon v Lawlor judgement


----------



## Time

> Also, if a persons only asset is a family home in negative equity with 30 years to run on the mortgage, will the bank bother to apply a judgement mortgage?


The banks will register a JM as a matter of course. 
The 12 year window starts when they get the original judgement. So waiting for 5 years to register the JM will not buy them another 12 years.


> Can anybody tell me if you have a limited disposable income, no assets and a property in negative equity, which is a family home for your children, how will the bank get their pound of flesh?


They will eek it out at some small amount of say €5 a week by getting an instalment order. They can use the dagger of prison to force compliance. 

Banks only bankrupt people who have assets. They must pay all the costs of the Official Receiver. They are hardly going to bother if they can't get anything back.

Banks prefer to use local measures such as instalment orders to get something back however small.


----------



## Bronte

OP had another solution in this case, she could have made instalment orders to pay back the 30K and when that was discharged she could take over the mortgage (with the banks consent)


----------



## Artemis

Time and Bronte, thanks for your comments.

Am I following the line of thought that if the bank are owed 500K, even if a instalment order is applied fork, then 12 years, say at 500K per month, after 12 years, the balance of the debt dies also. What ever has been paid has been paid. Or can they still take your family home or apply a judgement mortgage on the equity in the home at this point, or apply for another instalment order. If so there is a middle ground between bankruptcy and slavery for life. 

The context in which I ask this is I am 500K in negative equity on a bad property investment, 100K in negative equity on my home. Rather than go bankrupt, I would rather commit to paying a monthly amount for the next 12 years on the investments and pay my house off over the next 30 years. However, if I will never get out of debt of face losing my home in the later years of my life I would rather take the pain now.


----------



## Time

Once the 12 years are up all enforcement stops. They can't get another instalment order.
The balance of the debt doesn't die per say but it cannot be enforced further.


----------



## Artemis

Ok so if I win the lotto in 15 years, the debt still exists but the bank cant touch it?

Also, on our death would our children have to pay it from any inheritance we left them, eg. family home/our estate?

Also, does anybody know how a foreign property is repossessed? Part of the money we borrowed was used for a property in Spain?


----------



## Time

Artemis said:


> Ok so if I win the lotto in 15 years, the debt still exists but the bank cant touch it?


Nope. 


Artemis said:


> Also, on our death would our children have to pay it from any inheritance we left them, eg. family home/our estate?


Nope.


Artemis said:


> Also, does anybody know how a foreign property is repossessed? Part of the money we borrowed was used for a property in Spain?


They would have to go through the Spanish legal system like they would in Ireland.


----------



## Bronte

Artemis said:


> Ok so if I win the lotto in 15 years, the debt still exists but the bank cant touch it?
> 
> Also, on our death would our children have to pay it from any inheritance we left them, eg. family home/our estate?
> 
> Also, does anybody know how a foreign property is repossessed? Part of the money we borrowed was used for a property in Spain?


 
It's very difficult to follow your line of questions, can you post up the actual details on a new thread and you will get better advice. You seem to be planning on defaulting or are not able to pay etc so to get the best advice please post more info.

____________________________

_Edit: I see now you have posted on another thread, better to stick with that one rather than posting bits of your financial situation on two threads as it makes it very difficult to follow properly.  _


----------

