In-laws in a mortgage mess

You will need to enlist the help of your TD with the bank, and you must make a good case for the bank to make the transfer over as it is affecting your father in law health, also it would make more sense for the bank refused to entertain a Deed of Transfer of the mortgage over to young member of the family that are working and has the years ahead of them to pay the mortgage. You father in law retirement and pension fund is for him and his wife to retire on, as they will be not working anymore.

Has your father in law bank said that they will not make the transfer over to the son?

sexitoni said:

They have already filled in all the forms about their monthly outgoings etc so the bank can dictate to my mother in law how often she's allowed get her hair done.

Click to expand...

I can understand your anger, and indeed it is a fine mess but it is not the banks fault. Your father in law knew what he was doing. The anger is misdirected. Why is it the father in law is worried about this, his wife is, you and wife are and yet it's you trying to get advice.

Is the son feckless, because that's the picture you're painting. And sorry to be blunt but people really need to figure out what their family members are and only then can you deal with this properly. If he is feckless then there is no point in trying to come to an arrangment with him. Instead the father in law should concentrate now not on what he has lost but on what he can sort out going forward. Otherwise this will just eat the whole family up.

I don't think it's the bank's fault at all, despite this set up originally being the suggestion of, and signed off by, a bank employee. The only anger is the 'computer says no' attitude of the bank to two people who want to pay their debts but need more time to do so.

The son and his wife are the subject of the ire, for causing this mess but in the world of 2006 he would have got a mortgage fine - sure he had been approved at the time. The life insurance was the problem. Like many others he didn't predict 2009 was going to be as it was. He would still like to buy his home, he's facing being turfed out as it is.

Everyone is trying to help. The best advice my FinL has had is to flog both houses and downsize. Asking the good brains of askaboutmoney is all I feel able to do.

Kev I'll investigate all that, very interesting - appreciate the idea

It's an awful mess to be in. The ideal solution is for the mortgage to be transferred to the son but I can't see the bank doing that.

I wonder about the initial difficulty that caused this, there is no reason why the original mortgage should not have gone ahead in the son and wife's name, her inability to get mortgage protection would not have caused the loan to be refused, a waiver could have been signed, UB were always willing to accept waivers.

Hi Toni

From UB's point of view, they have an 8 year mortgage to a borrower who has a principal private residence which is mortgage-free, a lump sum coming to them, and a good pension.

You are wondering if they would transfer this mortgage to a borrower who appears to be feckless and who has a much lower income.

They won't do that. And they should not be criticised for not doing it.

I don't think you should waste your time looking to UB for a solution. Look to your FIL's lump-sum and his son's income.

The son can apply for a mortgage in his own name and buy the property from your father in law. That would be the best arrangement. AIB is the most active lender at the moment.

Brendan

Can we have ALL the figures please.

On both properties.

The 'son's' house is worth 200K. If one were to repay the mortgage now it would be apparently 4K a month you mentioned (so 4 X 12 X 8 = 384,000). We need to know the dad's salary/pension/lump sum etc

If the son left the house how much rent is achievable. Is the son paying anything, when did he last pay anything? Will he leave the house without a fight?

Just a side point about the pension lump sum.

As far as I know a creditor cannot take pension assets. The F in L might be well advised not to take the lump sum element of his pension when he retires.