FTB but my BF is not: Buy 2ndH hse wt parent guaran & then remortge -avoid stampduty.

Is it a problem for you if your parents are left on the mortgage as guarantors?

Also, are you likely to get approval even with them as guarantors? From what I recall (and this was before things tightened up) having guarantors did not increase the amount you could borrow by much.

I think you are misjudging the banks. They are not primarily concerned with security, they want to be virtually certain that you have the capacity to meet your repayments. last thing they want is another property to offload in lieu of actual loan repayments.
 
truthseeker said:
I dont think this is correct. I do think this kind of thing used to go on but that the loophole has been closed.

I would imagine that from the banks point of view they would want to see both names on the title if both names are on the mortgage. What you are effectively proposing is that someone takes out a mortgage on a property they dont have any legal title to - how would a bank allow that? What would happen if the person just stopped paying? The bank couldnt repossess the property as the person doesnt legally have any title to it? So how would the bank have any security on the loan in that case?
Click to expand...

From the bank's point of view it's preferable to have him on the mortgage cos it decreases the likelihood of default. You're right, he doesn't have legal title. But I do. In the event of him defaulting, it's the same as me defaulting which means the bank can enforce their security notwithstanding the fact that my boyfriend has no title. The security attaches to the property, not the people. You're right though, it does appear that banks have tightened up on this.
 
Just to give some info as someone who has applied for a mortgage recently and who was hoping to get away without paying SD.

I have owned a house for 10yrs in my name only. a Few years ago, I got married and my wife never owned a property.

We looked into the possibility of getting our new mortgage in her name only, thus avoiding SD. The bank would not allow the application to be in her name only. Something to do with chasing debt if we ever separated?

So it had to be a joint application, and immediately that showed up my name in the process, and SD was applicable.
 
I got a mortgage with my now ex girlfriend. I was on the mortgage, but not the deeds of the house. I paid no stamp duty because of this. This was in 2008 however, so may have changed since.
 
Have you looked at the cost of "Remortgaging" (Solicitors fees etc) against the cost of stamp duty?
 
TwoWheels said:
Have you looked at the cost of "Remortgaging" (Solicitors fees etc) against the cost of stamp duty?
Click to expand...

Solicitors fees would be 700 - 800 plus Vat plus outlay, so maybe €1,200 all in. Maybe a little more.

Stamp Duty would be around €16,000.
 
Have you also looked into any tax that might have to be paid by your BF if you re-mortgage with him? I'm not sure about it but I don't think you can just give someone half your house (unless you are married).

Open to correction!
 
AOR said:
There's no legal transfer taking place. The property remains in my sole name. We'd just be taking a mortgage out together.
Click to expand...

As above. There wouldn't be any transfer and therefore no tax implications.
 
Okay - that's the crux of the issue. You want to put your BF on the mortgage but not the title. Why would he want to do that?

I certainly wouldn't want to be jointly liable for a mortgage on a house that I had no legal title over.

Just hving read back over the thread, here's my tuppence worth.

Buy the house on your own (if you can get mortgage with parents guarantee). Do everything with your own money. Think of it as your house only. If your BF wants to move in, he pays rent - not half the mortgage. If you get married in future, THEN re-mortgage the property, both going on both the deeds and the mortgage. Otherwise, you might be tying yourself up in a situation that one, or both of you, may regret in the future.
 
moneyhoney said:
Okay - that's the crux of the issue. You want to put your BF on the mortgage but not the title. Why would he want to do that?

I certainly wouldn't want to be jointly liable for a mortgage on a house that I had no legal title over.

Just hving read back over the thread, here's my tuppence worth.

Buy the house on your own (if you can get mortgage with parents guarantee). Do everything with your own money. Think of it as your house only. If your BF wants to move in, he pays rent - not half the mortgage. If you get married in future, THEN re-mortgage the property, both going on both the deeds and the mortgage. Otherwise, you might be tying yourself up in a situation that one, or both of you, may regret in the future.
Click to expand...

The whole point was to minimise my parents' involvement. Anyway, I think we've exhausted the topic. Can someone close the thread?!
 
Towards the top right of the page, is a "thread tools" button.
You should have an option to close the thread under that.
 
Berni said:
Towards the top right of the page, is a "thread tools" button.
You should have an option to close the thread under that.
Click to expand...

Just gives options to print, subscribe and email page. No lock option though.
 
What the banks do and who's name is on deeds, mortgage or any other documentation is somewhat irrelevant.

The Revenue rules are that if your bf has a beneficial interest in the property; regardless of what banks say/do, who's name(s) are on deeds, mortgage, paperwork etc; there is a stamp duty liability. It will be impossible for you to argue that someone who is in a relationship with you and is living in the house and contributing to the mortgage doesnt have a beneficial interest. Revenue wised up to these tricks a long time ago.
 
csirl said:
What the banks do and who's name is on deeds, mortgage or any other documentation is somewhat irrelevant.

The Revenue rules are that if your bf has a beneficial interest in the property; regardless of what banks say/do, who's name(s) are on deeds, mortgage, paperwork etc; there is a stamp duty liability. It will be impossible for you to argue that someone who is in a relationship with you and is living in the house and contributing to the mortgage doesnt have a beneficial interest. Revenue wised up to these tricks a long time ago.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. The Revenue rules that you cite apply where there is a contribution to the purchase monies. My boyfriend would not be contributing to the purchase monies. Ultimately, yes he would take up a beneficial interest in the property. However, this would be some time after the initial purchase of the property. Revenue themselves say that the only circumstances in which there would be a clawback of the relief would be "if rent is obtained from the letting of the house other than under rent a room provisions."

By your argument, an FTB who purchases in his or her own name, then marries their partner and puts their new spouse on title and on mortgage, should lose their FTB relief. That's nonsense.
 
AOR said:
Incorrect. The Revenue rules that you cite apply where there is a contribution to the purchase monies. My boyfriend would not be contributing to the purchase monies. Ultimately, yes he would take up a beneficial interest in the property. However, this would be some time after the initial purchase of the property. Revenue themselves say that the only circumstances in which there would be a clawback of the relief would be "if rent is obtained from the letting of the house other than under rent a room provisions."

By your argument, an FTB who purchases in his or her own name, then marries their partner and puts their new spouse on title and on mortgage, should lose their FTB relief. That's nonsense.
Click to expand...

Paying towards the mortgage is counted as contributing to the purchase monies as your monthly repayments are paying the capital cost of the house over the duration of the mortgage. If two people are cohabiting, they are both regarded as jointly paying the household costs, including the mortgage.

Rent-a-room scheme also requires separate dedicated sleeping quarters for the individual renting which means cohabiting couples are ineligible.

All I'm saying to you is to be careful about the advice you receive. I assure you that Revenue has come across this situation on many occasions and is experienced at telling the difference between cohabiting and genuine rental situations.
 
The original post is about buying first with parents as guarantors ( a really bad idea in my book - poor parents) and then later re-mortgaging with bf to discharge the original mortgage but without bf going on title so he would not be a purchaser - just a person with a shed load of debt on a property he did not own.

I think the general concensus is that a bank would be disinclined to lend to someon who is not on the title. And if he goes on the title, it does not affect the OP's original status as a FTB but there will be stamp duty implications for bf. Unless they are married.

I have to say it all sounds way too complicated.

mf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top