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.
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.
That is exactly what I was getting at.
I didn't understand your problem and thanks for clarifying.
ONQ.
C
complicated
Guest
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 489
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!
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.
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 489
agree
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....
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.
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 489
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
C
complicated
Guest
[/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?
[/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?
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.
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 489
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.
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 489
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....?
C
complicated
Guest
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.