We’re rewarding the question askers & reputations are being recalculated! Read more.
15

The law applicable to immovables is the law of the situs (lex rei sitae), i.e. the law of the country where the immovable property is located. This is important because this law changed after the annexation. Therefore, the mortgage may not exist anymore as a security. The lex rei sitae in regard to immovables is usually not subject to a choice of law ...


10

The outcome would come down to a case by case basis resolution. For example, the American Revolution was not held to invalidate private debts owed to British debtors (indeed, the U.S. Constitution was designed with constitutional protection for foreign creditors), but I am relatively confident that ISIS does not allow creditors from Syria or Iraq to ...


9

If I said that I wasn't paying, my SSI could be cut If you are telling SSI that you are paying rent so they give you more money, and you aren't paying rent, that's fraud. If you're filling out the form honestly, then your only obligation is to your parents. They are free to charge you or not charge you. Unless your name is on the mortgage, you have no ...


8

I assume that the loan was legal, in light of rule changes pertaining to non-borrowing spouses. If so, there is really no recourse other than to repay the loan. This article explains the current options / restrictions in an understandable manner, but of course it is too late to do anything about it. If there was actually fraud or coercion in the loan, or if ...


3

The mortgage is not relevant in the way you think it is What matters is who owns the property. The owner(s) of the property must agree with the tenant (or, more likely here, boarder) on the terms. The owner(s) need to agree between themselves how to split the income although for tax purposes it would generally be assessed in proportion to the owner’s shares....


3

Could you insure yourself either given the fact that- you bought the property on mortgage? A mortgage does not generally have the legal effect of insurance. You owe the debt to the lender, which is a strict liability obligation, without regard to the value of the collateral. So, if the collateral is devalued, you still owe the debt, whether or not the ...


3

According to https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/blog/stamp-duty-for-first-time-buyers-your-questions-answered: To be classified as a first-time buyer you must never have owned a residential property in the UK or abroad. This includes freeholds and interests in leaseholds. Being a guarantor on a mortgage is not "owning a property", having your name on ...


3

Between your mother and you the bank does not care where the payments come from. If they do not get them, they can sue you, or your mother or (most likely) both of you and they will chase whichever of you has the most money and ultimately repossess the house to satisfy the debt. What matters between you is the contract or deed that you signed with your ...


3

Some portions of your inquiry are confusing, as in "I insisted that we were going to continue to send money to the mortgage company if we don’t understand what the fees are for". It is unclear why you would continue to send money without understanding the reason for fees, especially since you purportedly sent "the complete payoff" already. What is an ...


3

I can't help with the relationship issues: here are the legal issues. She legally owns 5% of the house and you own 95% I presume that the loan agreement is a contract between you, her and the lender so removing her name from the loan is at the discretion of the lender, not you or her. I would be very surprised if the lender would allow this without totally ...


2

It is likely that you could sue, both for a refund of the fee charged and for the economic harm caused by not getting the credit. At face value, this is a case of negligence or professional malpractice, with significant damages, not unlike a lawsuit against an accountant who failed to include an obvious deduction or checked the wrong box somewhere causing ...


2

A little looking around, for example, here, seem to indicate that the mortgage products currently on offer in the U.K. are primarily and in principle, at least, a matter of banking custom and practice (i.e. primarily economic decisions made by banks rather than a system mandated by regulators), rather than being mandated in all cases (and porting is not ...


2

There is no reason in principle you should not sign a contract saying that, for example, every year you will pay them £x, and in return another 2% of the house becomes yours. You will, however, absolutely need to consult a solicitor, as something unusual like this is full of potential traps. Two I can think of immediately; The value of the house may rise (...


2

It appears from the SSA website that a different benefit amount applies to people who live on their own or contribute to the household versus folks who get free or subsidized housing. From https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/text-general-ussi.htm Live alone or pay your share of food and housing costs (Jan. 2019): $771 (individual) Live in the household of ...


1

The word "or" means "or", not "and", that is, if there is a condition "A, B or C" then the condition is satisfied if any one of A, B or C is true (selected, done). If the requirement is that there should be at least two of these conditions satisfied, the contract would have to say "any two of...", and if all of the conditions had to be satisfied, the ...


1

The 50/50 split will be relevant but probably not a deciding factor if a divorce court ends up dividing your assets. If you want the division of your property to be subject to an agreement you made before your nuptials, you'll need a proper prenuptial agreement, which will almost certainly require that each of you hire an attorney to negotiate it. Assuming ...


1

The equity of redemption is the right to pay off the mortgage balance. The value of the equity of redemption to the person obligated on the mortgage, a.k.a. the equity in the property, is the value of the property less the amount of the mortgage.


1

Estate law in Canada is a provincial matter so we really need to know what province this is happening in. If you are in Ontario, the law is the same as in New Jersey, USA and Levitz v. Hillel Lodge Long Term Care Foundation is the persuasive precedent. The (rebuttable) presumption is that there is no will i.e. the deceased died intestate. To overcome the ...


1

With respect to assets with a beneficiary designation, you contact the company involved and ask what paperwork they need to make a distribution happen. Usually, it is a death certificate and a company specific form that establishes the domicile of the decedent and the identity of the claimant. Often these forms need a "guaranteed signature" which is a bank ...


1

The program is between the government and the lender, with respect to you: the government doesn't impose any conditions in you, it puts conditions on the lender, so that the government will guarantee the loan. (Here are the regulations). The lender has to make sure that you intend to do various things, and meet certain conditions. If you lie about satisfying ...


1

Overview In the United States, there is a division between loans with real property collateral (called "mortgages" in most of the country, "deeds of trust" in much of the Western United States, and something else entirely in Louisiana and Puerto Rico if you are using the technical terminology), and loans with collateral that is not real property (sometimes ...


1

It does not appear that the lender is at fault, though you would need to verify that. The lender charges a processing fee, but this is a program administered by the state, and the fund are exhausted. That could explain the limbo status of the application. There is a manual of sorts here. I am assuming that the lender did submit the paperwork: if not, that's ...


1

Yes, there are many, many ways of doing this. To find the best way for you you will need to hire a lawyer and an accountant.


1

As she lives in the apartment, she has certain rights. In particular, she cannot be evicted without due process. The joint investment confirms she's more than a squatter. It's unlikely that the paint would cause joint ownership, as painting is considered maintenance. Furniture is fully separate from the apartment. Certainly not illegal. It's not even ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible