Divorce but husband stays on mortage

[Lis667]

Has anyone ever divorced husband but kept him on the mortage? I can afford to pay my mortage on my own. If I pay my husband what he is entitled to but keep him on the mortage so I don’t have to on paper “buy him out”. We have a 2 year old and if I can help it I want to stay in the house instead of sell it.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean? If you have the money to pay him what he is entitled to from the house then you can buy him out and take on the mortgage in your sole name. There would be no need to keep him on the mortgage as the figures would be the same?

Would that leave him with a claim on the house in future?

Him being on the mortgage will affect his ability to get a mortgage further down the line.

has he agreed to this?

You need to take him off the mortgage because it will affect his ability to buy his own home

Is he happy to agree to stay on the mortgage? His issue is likely to be that he won’t be able to take out another mortgage whilst he remains on the joint one, unless he has a very high earning capacity

When I started divorced (7 years ago) I was told that this kind of arrangement is very uncommon now, and unlikely to be ordered if it leads to your STBX being unable to buy another property.

What payment would he be entitled to if he’s being kept on the mortgage and still has claim to the home? And how will he buy his own home?

@Mrsttcno1 Even if OP can materially afford the monthly mortgage repayment, she might not pass affordability checks with lenders?

This is what happened to me so Ex ended up (amicably) staying on the mortgage for 3 years until I was earning enough to pass affordability (and found a lender that accepted UC top up and unofficial maintenance as income) and then I paid him an ageed amount and got my own mortgage.

OP if you keep your ex on the mortgage he will have a claim on the equity of the house in future. I knew my ex wouldn't do this but I've read threads before where other posters thought the same about their exes only to find out otherwise down the line.

No I know that, my point is that if OP can pay ex what he is owed WITHOUT having to actually buy him out then the amount left on the mortgage wouldn’t change, so it’s more likely that she would pass affordability checks as the loan value wouldn’t be increasing, it does depend on OP’s income & the remaining mortgage though.

It’s not as simple as an ex being amicable and allowing it now though. If he stays on her mortgage then his lending power is reduced so he may struggle to buy his own home, and on top of that the changes to stamp duty means he’s be paying a significant amount to buy himself a new property as it would be classed as his second home. The financial implications go far beyond him being nice and allowing it to stay as it.

Does he want to?

This (your EW) remaining on the mortgage can be part of the consent order, but IMO it isn’t a good idea.

On the consent order you would have to agree to “use your best endeavours” to release him from the mortgage.

It keeps you tied (rather than having a clean break).

If you want to remortgage he would have to approve / agree.

It reduces his lending ability (he probably won’t be able to purchase another home as he would be tied into this one).

If you have a 2 YO & want to stay in the house - you are requesting a ‘Mesher Order’ which judges don’t like to award now. It gives you a stay of execution but only pushed the problem down the line. You wouldn’t get a Mesher order for 16 years (until the youngest is 18).

Your husband would be very strongly advised not to agree to this if he sought legal advice. The reason is because he is unlikely to be able to get his own mortgage whilst being named on yours. Also, it would be an especially bad deal for him to agree an outcome with you where he is stuck on the mortgage but has no interest in the FMH as you will to all intents and purposes get all the benefits of a Mesher Order without the downside that you one day have to buy him out of his share at current market values at the point of payment.

Courts won't say no entirely to these requests but they won't order this arrangement to last for 16 years either. A good rule of thumb is often that he should be off the mortgage or the house should be sold when the fixed interest period ends (if there is one) or, if that is more than 4 years away, then probably that you need to be in a position to have him removed from the mortgage within 4 years or otherwise sell. A condition of a delay to being removed from the mortgage may also come with an expectation that he gets a share of the equity when the property sells too, even if he otherwise gets bought out now, as compensation for not being able to use his mortgage capacity.

If you attempt to force him to stay on the mortgage without his consent there are also steps he could theoretically take to make life difficult for you. For example, you would almost certainly have to pay the whole mortgage and he could refuse to get another fixed rate deal when the current one expires (because such a deal with EPCs would be contrary to you making your best efforts to remove him from the mortgage).

My DH did this with his exw, only because his adult children still stayed in the house though. The exw wouldn't have passed the affordability test as per PP said. There were specific clauses in the separation agreement in regards to her keeping up with payments and one missed payment would result in the house being put up for sale. He agreed to not make any claim on the house equity while he was still on the mortgage and when the term was up the house was transferred to her name only.

This is fine if it's agreed and I guess given the ages the likelihood is that the mortgage was nearly paid off in his case? I think what makes the OP's case different (although we cannot be sure) is that the parties are much younger, the mortgage is probably much larger and both parents are going to want to buy suitable homes for their DD. This makes an outcome where one parent is stuck on the mortgage of the other a lot less appropriate than in your DH's case.

I should have added the details that it was only until the fixed rate was up so 3 years only. Yes it obviously makes a difference to the OP with her circumstances but the question was, has anyone done this, not has anyone done this but with my specific circumstances.

What does he earn op?
how long would you be wanting him to stay on for?
how much equity is in the house?
what is his share that you refer to ? Are there other assets?

can he buy a property while still on the mortgage here ?