Broadband Tech > General Questions > contract to take over feiends house

reply to I Wish3

Re: contract to take over feiends house

reply to ErRoR
You won't need a lawyer, However you will need to contact the institution through which the payments are currently to be made. Since the property is technically theirs until payoff. You will most likely have to go through the same or a similar qualifications process they had to when originally signing up for the home (i.e. Credit check, collateral check, etc). My grandparents and parents have done this on a few homes, and numerous vehicles in my 33 years, and this is the way it works in the state of Indiana, No attorneys required. I would however get a written contract from your friend stating what you have each done and what you will do to take your means to an end, both parties sign, and viola, Legal and Binding in most states. But seriously let the financial institution handle the payments end, they can get pretty shite'ey when people start drafting agreements behind their backs on their property and/or collateral.
--
Would you like your ISP to govern how much you can use the web in a month? Well it might happen if we don't do something NOW! »www.ipetitions.com/petition/PMDBI/

reply to jayco437
If you are on the receiving end, then you better have a lawyer also. And btw, the lawyer is infallible, since the judge tends to believe them, then someone going Pro-se. That is because the lawyer prepares for the fight, unlike the average citizen.

reply to ErRoR
I would talk to a lawyer and the mortgage company. Odds are that you won't need the lawyer to protect you from your friends. I would get the lawyer to protect you and your friends from the mortgage company and their fine print.

You need a lawyer to protect you from both. In the real world, as someone above mentioned, friends don't stay friends for long when conducting these types of transactions.

I hear it all the time.

reply to Goober

reply to Greg_Z

reply to Snowy
Ohio has the same thing. I've had family buy items the way the OP wants to do. I've had family and friends sell cars the same way. They want to get out of the loan and buy a new car but didn't want to send the car back or take a trade in. They found someone to buy it. Went to the bank and to a lawyer and BOOM! the payments were now the other persons problem.

reply to JoelC707
Economy of words... Your response out of how many to that point showed an inclination that legal terms not part of the conversation, assumption of mortgage, ability to assign, transfer of title, etc. to begin with would have bearing on this personal airing. The concepts are pretty simple but the facts regarding any agreement having potential substance and 'financial legality'-"we've agreed..." are based on the property theory of the state they are in.

I am just pointing out the differences between common law, of which you are commenting, and the actual legal authority whose prevailing interests have yet to be recognized in light of the fact that it is given that they already have a verbal contract.

So what was wrong with my suggestion? Many people have already suggested he contact the bank to see if the mortgage is even assumable in it's current state. That should be the first thing done. Considering he doesn't think his credit is good enough it might prove fruitless in this instance but otherwise be valid for someone else.

The only other thing I suggested was the current owner become a landlord. While it won't have any protections if he goes through a real estate company to do it, it is most certainly possible. As far as the bank and everyone else is concerned, the owner is still living there. The owner gets what they want, a chance to recover financially. The friend gets what he wants, the friends house, because once everything is over he can just "give" the house to him since the house will be wholly owned by the friend. But this is where the lawyer comes in. There needs to be some kind of written binding agreement between them because I can see this getting ugly if the owner decides to not turn the house over once it is paid off (essentially using the friend to pay off his house for him).

The only thing I see wrong with your suggestion is that most lending institutions are weary of having more than one responsible party for chattel such as a house (with the exception of co-signers and married couples), and will go so far as to forbid it in the loan or mortgage agreement.

Again a lawyer is not necessary to see if this clause applies or not. If you really need to know call them and find out.
--
Would you like your ISP to govern how much you can use the web in a month? Well it might happen if we don't do something NOW! »www.ipetitions.com/petition/PMDBI/

reply to ErRoR

reply to ctceo
Good point. This kinda goes along with La Luna 's point below. When a person decided to put their house up for rent, assuming they don't do it through the same place that has their mortgage, how is that handled? Do they have to get the mortgage rewritten? The owner is still the only one listed on the mortgage and they are still the sole responsible party for making the monthly payments, even if the house isn't rented.

The majority holder, the bank in this cases, is the actual owner of said property until you pay it off. They hold the title, and you have borrowed the money from them to buy the property. The house is the primary collateral. In the case of a mortgage the house is usually your property with a lien from the lending institution on the title until the mortgage is paid off.

Mortgages tend to be a bit muddier when it comes to taking over payments. If it's happening on the initial loan, it is usually the full property of the institution, and you are technically "renting to buy" from them.
--
Would you like your ISP to govern how much you can use the web in a month? Well it might happen if we don't do something NOW! »www.ipetitions.com/petition/PMDBI/

Isn't that what he said in the last sentence of the first paragraph?

reply to ErRoR
[OT] the best way to screw a friendship is to involve money.