Shop around

mf1 said:
So in this case, spouse consents to the mortgage.
Click to expand...
So the original poster's husband may have signed a letter of consent to her being the sole mortgage holder on the family PPR rather than actually waiving any rights? Or maybe a letter indemnifying the lender for certain circumstances (e.g. such as the ignorance defence that you mention above)?
 
Non owning spouse will consent ( formal letter followed by Family Law Declaration) to the creation of a mortgage on the family home. Probably confirm also that received independent legal advice. All to show a court if necessary that he knew what he was doing.

mf
 
So not a "waiver" as such? Thanks for that clarification of the legalities so mf1.
 
gotsomenow said:
Thanks for the replies, I have edited my original post, because my idea was to pass on some useful advice and not sell or put down companies.
Click to expand...

Even though you have edited your original post, the first mentioned Broker, alleged to be unhelpful in your case, is still easily identifiable from subsequent posts, including one from you.
 
The penny has dropped for me with the last few posts.

The husband having consented to the home being mortgaged has not necessarily waived his entitlement to partial ownership.

I wonder is that how the original poster sees it, and which of the two (consent or waiver) did the original broker assume was being requested.
 
Even though you have edited your original post, the first mentioned Broker, alleged to be unhelpful in your case, is still easily identifiable from subsequent posts, including one from you.
Click to expand...
Good point ip - I have edited subsequent posts accordingly
 
I wasn't going to respond, but I might aswell seen as you are still in doubt.

My husband has signed a waiver to state he has no interest in the house. It is entirely nothing to do with him. My mortgage, my responsibility etc. Sounds bad, but also mine if we ever split up. (incorrect, but this what I was told first of all)
 
Last edited:
gotsomenow said:
It is entirely nothing to do with him. My mortgage, my responsibility etc. Sounds bad, but also mine if we ever split up.
Click to expand...
As far as I know this is simply not correct. If it is the family home then he does have certain statutory rights under the regardless of any waiver or letter of consent that he has signed. For example if you split up you cannot unilaterally sell the house without his permission. I suspect that either you misunderstood your solicitor's advice on the matter or they mis-advised you.
 
Is signing this waiver or whatever you want to call it not pretty much the same as a pre-nuptial agreement which as far as I know, have no legal basis in Irish law as you can't just sign away your legal rights. I could be totally wrong though! I know the IP doesn't want to share too many details but it is an interesting case. I am sure there are alot of couples out there now who would like to know exactly where they stand...
 

Agree you there clubman, its for this reason that lenders are very reluctant to proceed with a mortgage on a PPR for a married couple in sole name only.
 
Going all the way back to the original post - it may well be that the original broker approached came up against the same confusion as many posters here about what the whole issue was and/or (correctly) balked at the attempt to erode the statutory rights of one spouse under the FHPA by sigining such a letter. The second broker approached may have acted on different information or a different understanding of the issue. It has taken us here two pages of posts to get to this level of understanding of the issue and I for one (along with others it seems) strongly believe that the alleged waiver letter is useless. Unless of course it's actually a letter of consent for the benefit of the lender as mentioned earlier allowing the other spouse to put the family home in their sole name?
 
Clubman, I would like nothing more if what you were saying was correct, but according to the broker/the lender/the solicitor, my husband has no rights because of this waiver that was requested by the lender.

Posting here is actually making me nervous, so I will leave the post behind and when I have the mortgage drawn and dusted I will come back and explain all. I know how popular these forums are and I wouldn't like anybody to question my mortgage approval at this time.

Thanks
 
Understand the desire to step back for a while. I think all (no exception) of the alternative comments in this thread have come from a point of view that expresses concern that all may not be what it seems. People keep pressing this because there is a chance you may be entering into an arrangement that is not on as sound a footing as you thought.

If I was in your shoes, I would be getting a 2nd legal opinion. Without intruding into your personal details, you could publish the content (without names etc) of your husband's waiver, and the legal eagles that have been gathering over this thread could offer specific opinion that might help put the matter to bed.

Of course, whatever the advice that may follow here, a formal 2nd legal opinion may be advised, considering the health warning that rightly goes with using any information you read on this forum.
 
gotsomenow said:
Clubman, I would like nothing more if what you were saying was correct, but according to the broker/the lender/the solicitor, my husband has no rights because of this waiver that was requested by the lender.
Click to expand...
I am not a broker/lender/lawyer but I am 99% sure that this is incorrect. Don't forget that your broker/lender are not objective participants in this and, given that they have a vested interest in selling you something (services and loans), they should not be depended on for independent, objective advice. Your solicitor should be more reliable in this context but if s/he has actually told you that such a waiver dispenses with all of your husband's rights in regard to the family home then I am pretty sure that s/he is wrong. On the other hand maybe you misunderstood what s/he said?

Regardless of whatever your husband has signed he still has statutory rights under the FHPA which means that you cannot do as you like with the property unless you also get his permission. Apart from this whether or not he has a legitimate claim to some beneficial interest in the property would presumably be up to yourselves and/or the courts to decide (e.g. in a separation/divorce situation if it arose). Don't forget that marriage is ultimately a legal contract which brings with it fundamental rights and obligations that cannot be abrogated by waivers or pre-nuptial contracts etc.
If having such a waiver in place is important to you then you really should deal with it now. However my understanding is that there is simply no legal way that your husband's statutory rights under the FHPA can be abrogated so I suspect that it's all a moot point.
 
ClubMan said:
Regardless of whatever your husband has signed he still has statutory rights under the FHPA which means that you cannot do as you like with the property unless you also get his permission.
Click to expand...

This is correct . What did he waive that has any legal standing one wonders ????
 
Have just seen this thread today, I can still see who the original broker is from one of ClubMans replies. The search facility is disabled, but I recall a certain broker who posts here previously stating that the Family Home Protection Act 1976 prevents married couples from buying in one name only and I had pointed out at the time that this was incorrect. I believe the broker then stated that this was the banks preference which may very well be correct.
 
My initial view was that you were providing advice in relation to shopping around. Which is excellent advice as some brokers maybe restricted in relation to the number of lenders they deal with, the rates they can obtain and the financial experience of the person your seeking advice from (As this can vary dramatically from broker to broker)

Secondly a deed of waiver is generally used for couples who are separating/divorced..... where one party wishes to sell/remortgage the property and the other party has agreed to waive his/her right of the property in exchange for a remuneration. (Depending on the situation) This is a legal document and is normally signed by both parties in the presence of a solicitor.

I do not agree with naming the brokerage as this generally achieves nothing but has contributed to a lot of nip picking on this particular post.

Anyway....as we do not know the full detials. And you have sought legal and financial advice I wish you the best of luck...
 
Just to update you all - gotsomenow PM'd me in confidence with further details of the situation. Obviously I will not divulge these here or elsewhere but even after obtaining more detailed information I am still pretty sure that any waiver has no bearing on the husband's statutory rights. As far as I can see getsomenow does not want the husband to waive his rights and would be just as happy if he has not done so in spite of whatever letter was signed, but rather they just followed the course of action recommended to them in order to purchase the property. I still suspect that someone, possibly even the solicitor, is giving incorrect information/advice on this matter if they are claiming that the husband has waived any rights in regard to the property by signing the relevant letter. I suppose the precise wording of the letter might help clarify matters but I don't know if getsomenow is willing to post same?
 
I've got a feeling this applies to a tenant purchase.

In cases where a married couple were tenants of a property and have since separated it will be necessary for the party who has left the property to surrender his/her interest in the Tenancy and for the remaining tenant to sign a new Tenancy Agreement. It will also be necessary to submit a Legal Separation Agreement/Deed of Waiver in accordance with Family Home Legislation.


This extract taken from a document available at South Dublin County Council
 
The Husband is still in situ as Husband with no separation or divorce involved.

Thats what has me confuzzled but we'll wait till the OP has the money and the gaff and hope she clarifies.

Any individual in a marriage can buy a second house any time but the Family Home Protection Act 1976 was enacted to stop the scandal where (in 1976) the husband was the sole name the mortage and e the deeds on the PPR and he was the sole income too normally .

He could sell the house from "out under" the wife and kids and she had no rights at all. In modern times it protects the spouse not just the wife .

If its possible to have such a waiver a married couple could possibly get the income down enough to qualify for social housing income levels by losing one of them off the mortgage and deeds until the place was bought . and then restoring them to their rightful place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register