Can a court order someone to sign up to remortgage a property against their wishes.

[sneezecakesmum]

Non married couple with a 16 yo DD living with mother. They have split up and the financial division on the house is going through the court. The mortgage on the property ends in october this year but the bank will grant a 6 month extension after which the (ex) couple will have to remortgage. My BIL doesn't want to do this obviously and be tied financially to his ExP. There is enough equity in the property for each to buy a 2 bed property and DD can live with whoever she chooses.

The question is the one above. Can the court (final hearing oct-nov time) force BIL to sign up to remortgage to give DD til she is 18 to live in the property and finishes college? I can't imagine this being the case - forced to enter a contract against your will?

£55K outstanding on the mortgage as Ex P cashed in the endowment and spent it on (mostly) holidays! (without BIL!)

[cestlavielife]

what do you mean the mortgage ends? the mortgage term? was it endowment?

surely best to just sell up?

so they have six months to sell from october .

[nocake]

Can you clarify... is it the end of the mortgage term or are they on a fixed rate mortgage and are coming to the end of the fixed period?

If they're coming to the end of the fixed period then there's no need to remortgage. They can just let the mortgage drop onto the bank's standard variable rate. There's no need to sign any forms and it won't tie them in to another fixed period.

If it's the term of the mortgage that's ending then they will need to get a new one because the bank will want the £55k that's outstanding. However, there's no reason why they have to be tied into a fixed period. The best solution would be to speak to the bank about extending their mortgage for a few months.

[Collaborate]

Sneezy - if the proceedings involve not just TOLATA but also the Children Act Schedule 1 then the court has the power to order him to settle property on her. Never come across this particular situation before, but theoretically the court could order him to raise funds on the security of the property if it can be shown that that's possible. I'd imagine it's unlikely though, although the court could settle on the mother more than half of the proceeds of sale (to revert to your brother) if she can use it to meet the housing needs of the child and there's no other way of the child being reasonably housed. From what I recall of your other threads then your brother thinks she can house the child on her half alone.

[sneezecakesmum]

cestlav - Sorry, it is a fixed term mortgage, originally an endowment, but exP cashed it in and spent it all, saying they would downsize when the mortgage term ends. ExP is refusing to sell which is why BIL has taken her to court.

no cake - the bank has already agreed to extend for 6 months on the same terms as now (interest only) but they (BIL and ExP) must take out a new mortgage after that and agree to pay some of the capital off. Not something BIL wants to do.

colly - yes TOLATA and Schedule 1 involved. His solicitor says in his witness statement there is enough capital to rehouse both parties (+ small mortgage) in 2 bed properties and DD lives with either. He will ask the building soc. tomorrow what it would entail to raise funds against the property but his buisiness is now winding down and he wants to leave the area, but not able to secure a job yet to allow him to do this.

We have looked and there are loads of 2 bed apartments with shared ownership well within her price range so we will print a few off and show the barrister on the day. Thanks

[sneezecakesmum]

PS ExP is saying BIL must house DD until she is 21 as she intends going to university. He's prepared to pay maintenance but surely student loans are for accommodation? Though my DD commuted from home to uni!

[Kladdkaka]

How has she managed to cash in the endowment part of the mortgage? I used to work in this field. You can't cash in an endowment tied to a mortgage without the bank's permission. Neither can you cash it in without both policyholders agreeing to it. Something is right there.