to think you're not a 'home owner' if you are still paying a mortgage on it

[pipsqueak25]

prepared to be flamed but over heard a conversation of a loud guy the other day and it really irritated me. the jest being ' got my mortgage last year, £260,000, in my name so she can't get the house [knob], now i can do what i fucking well like with it, gonna knock out the interior and do open up stuff, blah,blah' eh?? so he's splitting with his dp/dh and possibly going to knock half the house down that he does nor own because he's paying a mortgage and the bank owns most of the house ? er, knob, you aren't a home owner until you've paid in full for it !
mainly i felt sorry for the ex, but glad she was going to be rid of him!

[Man10]

Well you are definitely a part home owner. So you may as well shorten that to homeowner

No, assuming we are not talking about shared ownership, you own the
whole property.

It's especially important to understand this from an investment point of view. Owning 500K of property with a 250K mortgage is not the same thing as owning a 250K property with no mortgage.

Even if you have a 100% (or more) mortgage secured on it. If property prices go up 50%, your net worth will increase by 50% of the whole property value. If it goes down 50%, it decreases by that amount. The size of your mortgage has no effect on these net worth changes.

[MagicMoments22]

The fact that the mortgage company would need to get a court order to repossess your home is a big clue.

I wonder if to some people having debt equates to them feeling like they don't own an item. I can understand that but it doesn't change the legal basis.

[pinkunicornsarefluffy]

If your name is on the deeds then you legally own the house. The bank will have a security charge against it meaning that you can't sell without repaying them but they don't own the house.

[Lweji]

I always assumed that you are a home owner even if you have a mortgage. The house is given as collateral for the loan, and is "repossessed" if payments are not kept.
It is in your name on the Land Registry, not the bank's.

[LaContessaDiPlump]

I own a bit of my house, I suppose. If I had to choose a particular section then I'd take the loo, kitchen and room with the washing machine in it

So I guess I am a homeowner but I see where you're coming from op.

[MrsMeeseeks]

YANBU. Miss a mortgage payment and you'll soon find out who really owns your house!

[NarkyMcDinkyChops]

This isn't a matter of interpretation or opinion, people. It's not something you can agree or disagree with.

[Lweji]

OK, as a home owner with a mortgage, I can change the mortgage provider as I please.
As a tenant, I can't change my landlord.

Does that settle it?

[MagicMoments22]

MrsMeeseeks that goes for any debt - they will start chasing their money - but they can not automatically come and turf you own as you have homeowner rights!

[MagicMoments22]

*out not own

[amispartacus]

but they can not automatically come and turf you own as you have homeowner rights

To a degree - but if you have an asset like a house, then there are ways they can get money from your house..

CCJs and charging orders...

www.stepchange.org/debt-info/debt-collection/charging-orders-and-my-home.aspx

[ProfessionalPirate]

YANBU. Miss a mortgage payment and you'll soon find out who really owns your house!
Yes, and it would still be you. The bank can force a sale to recover the debt (although you'd have to miss more than one mortgage repayment for it to get to that stage).
The proceeds of that sale would go to you (as you are the owner) minus the value of the debt plus expenses.

I'm shocked at the level of ignorance on this thread.

[Eolian]

You can say "The way I see it, it's rented until it's paid off" as much as you like. That's not how the law sees it. Therefore legally he is the home-owner, however big his mortgage is, and however much of a twat he may be. Any other interpretation is merely a subjective opinion about house-owning, it's not fact.

[MagicMoments22]

amisparticus I agree with the money side but that is not in dispute the OWNERSHIP is - they still wouldn't own your property and wouldn't even with a court ordr - all it does is say the court can force the house to be sold. The person on the title legally owns the property.

its the same if there was a trust. The trustees can own the property legally but the beneficial ownership ie the monetary division should the property be sold is different. You still own the property but if you sell with a legal charge attached the money is not all yours.

[cestlavielife]

when the govt says they want a nation of home owners they mean they want a nation of people with mortgages on their homes. they want people to be in debt on homes. in common parlance, home ownership versus owning bank is the same - and legally yes it is your home tho you have a loan secured on it.

[PlumsGalore]

I paid my mortgage off last year, but I considered myself a home owner before.

The only difference now is I don't have to think about it on these hair splitting threads. I AM a homeowner, every last brick.

[Chewbecca]

It really isn't a matter of opinion, it is correct to say you are the home owner, regardless of whether there is a mortgage on the property or not. You legally own the house. A mortgage is a loan secured on your property but that doesn't change ownership of the property.

[gillybeanz]

I think it's a good way to look at your home, it's not yours but the banks.
Too many people don't understand, get complacent and don't think they'll get repossessed.
I've seen the look of horror on peoples faces as it dawned on them that they were losing their homes.
Lots of people are repossessed who thought they owned their own homes, although technically they did own.
You only get anything back if the sale covers all the costs. Lots of people still end up owing on the mortgage even though the bank have repossessed.
The mortgage is the loan and irrespective of what the house sells for, they want their money.

[NarkyMcDinkyChops]

I think it's a good way to look at your home, it's not yours but the banks

How can it be a good way to look at it, when it is untrue in every sense?

[limitedperiodonly]

OP are you the kind of person who says everyone who has to work to pay the mortgage or rent is working class?

[murmuration]

I've seen those forms that split it - they say "Homeowner (paying off mortgage)" and "Homeowner (own outright)". But both are homeowners. They're usually somewhere that wants to sell you something about mortgages (or, I suppose, if you checked own outright, there is some other kind of loan they'd try to get you to sign up for?).

[nocake]

You're misunderstanding the legalities of borrowing money. Borrowing to buy something doesn't mean the lender owns whatever you've bought. In the case of a secured loan they have the option to take possession of the item if you break the terms of the loan. Until that point you own the item and can do what you like with it (subject to any restrictions in the terms of the loan).

[Kennington]

Ok poor wording, but I don't know legalese.
I part own the house: bank has 400, I have twice that.
I may not be renting but I don't own the whole property.
I also have to work to pay the mortgage.

[steff13]

Yes I agree: I am renting from the bank

That makes the bank my landlord, then? Sweet! My dishwasher just broke; I was going to call a plumber this morning but instead I'll call my mortgage company and get them to do it.