Need advice

[djsmith72]

Living with my boyfriend for 8 years now, we have a house that is now only in his name. Was in both, but we had some financial troubles and let my credit go bad to save his where he made the most money, we refinanced and now the house is in his name. Found out he has been cheating, what are my rights if i move out, what am I entitled to, he is in the military and I am his bebeficiary, we filed for common law under the military several years ago.

[dinkyface]

When you say 'in his name' are you referring to who signed mortgage or who is on title?

[djsmith72]

when we first built the house, bothe the mortgage and I believe the title, we remorgaged and now only his name is on the mortgage, I NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT THE title, it must be still in both our names

[dadtotheend]

Folks here commonly differentiate b/w who is on title and who is on the mortgage. I have yet to see a bank give a mortgage to a person who is not on title, otherwise they have no recourse. Conversely I have yet to see a person who is on title not be named on the mortgage. In my experience they go hand in hand.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there are a lot of misconceptions out there as to the mortgage and the title being mutually exclusive.

[djsmith72]

when we remortgaged, we did so with a different financial institution, he only signed the new mortgage papers, I don`t think any new papers regarding the title were brought forward, as wouldn`t those papers have to come from the city where they were registered with in the first place. Both names were on the title, I don`t believe I signed anything to take my name off of the title.

[frankpengpeng]

The house title and the mortgage are 2 things. If your name is on the title of the house, he cannot sell it unless you sign it.

[Mess]

Originally Posted by dadtotheend

Folks here commonly differentiate b/w who is on title and who is on the mortgage. I have yet to see a bank give a mortgage to a person who is not on title, otherwise they have no recourse. Conversely I have yet to see a person who is on title not be named on the mortgage. In my experience they go hand in hand.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there are a lot of misconceptions out there as to the mortgage and the title being mutually exclusive.

But you know what title insurance is, right? And what it insures against?

[blinkandimgone]

Originally Posted by dadtotheend

Folks here commonly differentiate b/w who is on title and who is on the mortgage. I have yet to see a bank give a mortgage to a person who is not on title, otherwise they have no recourse. Conversely I have yet to see a person who is on title not be named on the mortgage. In my experience they go hand in hand.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there are a lot of misconceptions out there as to the mortgage and the title being mutually exclusive.

I am listed on the title of our home, not listed on the mortgage. It changes nothing either way whether I'm listed on one or the other or both or none as we are legally married. We made sure my name was on the title because when we bought the house we were common law and we both wanted to make sure my name was on it so the kids and I were protected should we decide to split.

[dadtotheend]

Originally Posted by Mess

But you know what title insurance is, right? And what it insures against?

Yes, but title insurance does not protect a bank in the event of a default on the mortgage. It is for identity fraud and errors that may have been made on transfer of title I believe.

[dadtotheend]

Originally Posted by blinkandimgone

I am listed on the title of our home, not listed on the mortgage. It changes nothing either way whether I'm listed on one or the other or both or none as we are legally married. We made sure my name was on the title because when we bought the house we were common law and we both wanted to make sure my name was on it so the kids and I were protected should we decide to split.

You did that for family law purposes. I am speaking from the lender's perspective as to protecting their interests in the event of a default. I would think that they would only be willing to give a mortgage if all parties on title were listed in the mortgage charge, so they could go after all of them in the event of a default.

I suppose a lender might be willing to advance a mortgage if the loan amount was well and truly covered by the mortgagee's % interest in the property e.g. if the property is worth $400K and is held jointly with a spouse, the bank might only be willing to lend a % of one spouse's $200K interest in the property if that spouse was the only one listed on the mortgage. If they lent more than $200K, the bank would only be able to go after one spouse's 50% interest if they had to foreclose. Why would a bank do that?