DH huge mortgage shortfall - bank want to know about MY earnings to pay it back?

[quickMoneyQuestion]

Long story short - before he even met me, DH bought a house with someone else (not an ex!). He hasn't lived there for years and the other person has been paying the mortgage as they have been living there.

About 2 years ago that person starting having problems, we tried to help pay the mortgage but we can't really afford it now and nor can they.

So - they are selling. There is negative equity of about £50k and it looks like DH and the other party will have to go bankrupt as it is an impossible amount to pay off.

Before we get to that stage however, the sale is going through and the bank want to know how DH is intending to pay off the arrears. To the extent that they have asked him about MY income and salary. Well, I don't want to give this information, and nor do I want a penny of my income going to pay off these arrears - we have discussed it and would rather him go bankrupt.

My question is - am I legally liable for any of this? Do they have a legal right to ask about MY money and to expect me to pay some of it towards the arrears? None of this mess is to do with me at all and I already deeply resent the situation DH has put me in without having to pay any of MY money towards the mess!

You could also check equifax and experian too' sometimes they show different data.

What on earth could you find out about it ssd? It's obviously not commonly known look at the poor advice on this thread. Anyway the OP had the right idea, that she wasn't liable in the first place.

Do you know every legally eventuality marriage might get you into? You're a legal marvel, any firm would pay a bloody fortune for someone who knows about insolvency, family law, criminal law - everything!

I wouldn't worry about your credit file. Linking to someone else doesn't really affect it and even so, it matters not a jot unless you want to take out credit right now. You have enough on your plate OP, don't worry about it.

Does dh have a car? It is classed as an asset. I am not an insolvency expert but I believe they look at the value and allow a car of reasonable value 1k is usually fine if you need it to get to work, anything over 3k and you would usually be expected to trade down.

If literally ALL financials are seperate then you may be able to apply to seperate yourselves on credit reports etc. Not sure if it's possible when you live together but worth a shot. Definitely get advice.

ssd We weren't in this position when we were married (see lines 2-3 of my opening post) but thanks for the comment.

I'm sure the bank are asking about you because if you have a good income it might mean that he would be able to pay off the arrears, if you don'tearn then he has an obligation to maintain you so would have less disposable income - they are just lloking for teh full picture. If he can't afford to pay it off then there is no requirement for you to comply and you can just tell them to get lost. You have no resonsibility for his debts in the circumstances you are in, you could get half an hours free legal advice from most solicitors and they; would be able to confirm this. I think legal responsibility by a spouse for the other's debts ( usually husband for wife) was removed by the Married Womens Property Act 1882

"after years of political lobbying, the Married Women’s Property Act addressed the grievances presented by English women. The Act altered the common law doctrine of coverture to include the wife’s right to own, buy and sell her separate property. Wives' legal identities were also restored, as the courts were forced to recognize a husband and a wife as two separate legal entities, in the same manner as if the wife was a feme sole. Married women’s legal rights included the right to sue and be sued. Any damages a wife might pay would be her own responsibility, instead of that of her husband. Married women were then also liable for their own debts, and any outside trade they owned was subject to bankruptcy laws. Further, married women were able to hold stock in their own names." - Wikipedia

It is by no means certain that if a profit had been made on the sale of this house half would go to the OP - it depends a lot on the circumstances. I do wish that people who know nothing about these matters would not post hypothetical worrying answers.

You have no liability for his debt - unless there has been money transferred by him to you to avoid his creditors - no problem in this case.

Does the joint owner of the property have other assets - could his bankruptcy pay off the debt?

I would put a tenant into the property in the interim. If the rent pays the mortgage and a part of the arrears the bank are less likely to push for a sale.

Don't worry about the car OP

www.stepchange.org/Debtinformationandadvice/Debtsolutions/Bankruptcy/Bankruptcyandmycar.aspx

Info on cars (people often forget a car is an asset).

I do agree with cleo I would've put a tenant in without the banks knowledge. But too late now as I believe from the OP it's under offer?

www.stepchange.org/Debtinformationandadvice/Debtsolutions/Insolvency.aspx

Op please please ignore most of the advice on this page. I used to work in insolvency many moons ago and I think you or your husband should seek independent advice. Try Step change above, if not find a local insolvency practitioner and see how much it would cost for personal insolvency advice,

There is some very dodgy advice on this thread. OP you need to speak to the CAB at the very least.

The bank might not be entitled to enforce the debt against you but your income and assets are certainly relevant if your DH goes bankrupt. Bankruptcy does not simply involve walking away. The fees are about £800 (that's without any support from an advisor). Once the bankruptcy is in place the trustee will examine your DH's financial situation which is intrinsically linked to yours through marriage. This means for example that they take full details of your financial situation when determining how much of his income to take each month. This could potentially mean that as a couple you are living on your income only for a period of time (normally three years). His car will be taken and sold, his other assets will be sold (potentially replaced by basic versions if they are essentials), any life insurance policies will be sold or transferred to the trustee. You don't own property together but if you did then this would be subject to a charge so that the money he owes can be paid back when the joint property was sold.

You really need to take advice now since in many situations there will be a better alternative to bankruptcy. You may well be better off borrowing the money (or you officially loaning it to him for example). Take advice.

Not just dodgy advice, but really shit advice on here.

OP - you're never going to be liable for his debt. Ever.

If you own a property with him his share in it can be a target for his creditors, but not your share in it. That's as much as it could affect you.

at the posters who think otherwise.

The bank might not be entitled to enforce the debt against you but your income and assets are certainly relevant if your DH goes bankrupt. Bankruptcy does not simply involve walking away. The fees are about £800 (that's without any support from an advisor). Once the bankruptcy is in place the trustee will examine your DH's financial situation which is intrinsically linked to yours through marriage. .

Yes and no. The non-bankrupt spouse is never expected to repay the debts or cover more than 50% of joint essential living expenses.

If OP's DH is paying back a large debt for years or making payments into a bankruptcy for between 1 and 3 years (only if he has surplus income to afford this) then it is true that she might be the only one of them with spare income for 'fun things' during that time, but that is going to happen now whatever path her DH goes down.

This means for example that they take full details of your financial situation when determining how much of his income to take each month

Just plain wrong. OP can decline to reveal her finances to the OR and in that situation the OR is allowed to assume she has enough income to meet 50% of basic household living expenses. That is all.

To those talking about the car or OP loaning the money- the debt will be £50k. I doubt the OPs DH is worried about keeping his car and the OP is hardly going to have it lying round! There is no point trying to pay off that sort of money. The bankruptcy will calculate how much her H contributes for the period of the bankruptcy but considering the amount of debt it's highly likely to be the best option (based on the limited information)

It isn't plain wrong. The bankrupt individual is required to provide details of spousal/partner's income. Of course some people will always refuse to do what they are required to do in which case assumptions will be made but the default position is that people will comply.

But this is a prime example of why this sort of thing should not be done by taking advice from people on the internet. Even those who do know what they are talking about can be misinterpreted when summarising a very complex area of law in a couple of lines.

I think Fids advice makes sense- she's saying they will ask for OPs details to work out a budget for DH which will form the basis of how much of the bankruptcy he pays back. But she won't be expected to pay the debt

OP marriage does not make a person liable for their spouse's individual debts. Their debt can adversely impact on the non-debtors credit rating if there are any joint accounts or debts and the fact that they share a common address. However, this can be (legally) dealt with and if necessary a note of correction added to your credit rating file.

You need specialist debt advice now long before bankruptcy looms so that you are both in control and prepared if or when it happens. I recommend you speak to Stepchange a neutral and confidential charity offering free advice and support.

It isn't plain wrong. The bankrupt individual is required to provide details of spousal/partner's income. Of course some people will always refuse to do what they are required to do in which case assumptions will be made but the default position is that people will comply.

Think about it red - what legal basis is there for the Insolvency Service to 'require' anything of someone not party to the bankruptcy or debts?

It's only advantageous for a spouse to disclose income if they earn too little to meet the %50 living costs, so why do it unless you have v low income?

The bankrupt individual is required to provide details of spousal/partner's income.

He's not bankrupt now. This request isn't part of his bankruptcy.

Get legal advice.

But as far as I can see the bank are chancing their arm here to get information that is useful to them, but is, in fact, your private data.

DH owns a rental property and his bank asked for my financial info and I was very clear that unless they were prepared to deal with me as a client they were not having access to my data.

Going bankrupt is a different matter. But his bank doesn't suddenly gain a right to your data just because their client is selling a house in negative equity.

The debt will lie with him. Not with you.

I've always been led to believe that regardless of whether you had any link or not to the property cause you are married you are jointly response able for his debt. I remember 2 cases when I worked at a high street bank. 1 being husband went bankrupt and the wife thought she would be ok but could never get a single thing on credit again, it was awful as they had to be evicted from they property so they could go on the council list as soon as they applied for a rented house the credit search come back and they was declined. Second one still makes me want to cry a husband had all single products when he passed away the bank turned to the wife and started sending out threatening letters asking for the money back she used to come in everyday crying. Please call step change regarding this, you need proper advice. Hope all ends well for you,

quickMoney - you need proper legal advice here.

Be very very careful. You may be being persuaded to in effect take on joint and several liability for your husbands debts.

I do not agree with others. You are not part of the original contract and just because you are married does not means you agreed to take on DHs debts. They may be trying to show that DH has been secretly siphoning money to you (which clearly hasnt been happenning from what you say) that they could argue should have been used to pay his debts. If they can show that then perhaps they may be able to say that you have a liability in terms of money that you have that they should have had.

The bank will look for any means to get their money back and they know they will not get it back if the house is sold so they are trying to persuade DH to give them info about you. You have no obligation to the bank. You are not a party to the mortgage contract.

Your DH should declare bankruptcy now. Don't wait. Once that process starts the bankruptcy court takes over. Creditors have to wait.

In similar circumstances my Uncle went bankrupt 3 times with failing businesses but his wife did not.

I've always been led to believe that regardless of whether you had any link or not to the property cause you are married you are jointly response able for his debt.

No!

Hopefully OP is off on the phone to Stepchange or CAB by now

I agree she won't required to pay the debt, that's what I said. But the practical impact, given that they are married is that they may well end up living off her salary alone since her DH will have no disposable income. She is also likely to end up being the one replacing any assets seized. She won't therefore (unless she refuses to share with her DH ) be untouched by this which is what other posters were suggesting by saying its nothing to do with her.

I don't know how many people refuse to provide the spouse's or partner's financial information. I'm sure you have more practical experience here than I do fidel.

My posts were not intended to give detailed financial/bankruptcy advice they were intended to give a basic outline to urge the OP to take proper advice.