Is there a lawyer in the house (aka, what's up with my brother-in-law?)

[Polystoner]

Okay, so my wife's sister and her husband are buying their first house together (been married 3 years). He's not putting her name on the mortgage, but she claims he is putting her name on the deed. What's up with that? What kind of dastardly plan is he hatching?

Background info that may or may not be pertinent:

1. Brother in law runs a dealership (Japanese manufacturer) for a family who owns a string of dealerships. So his income varies from about $75-$125 per year. Since he is an auto salesman, by definition, = kind of a pr!ck. When he tells me stories about his customers, I always feel sorry for the customer, they seem to have legitimate beefs. However, he does make money for this family, he is the only non-family member to run a dealership.

2. Sister in law is your typical pretty girl. Very sweet, knows men well. Relies on the "kindness" of men for much of her life. Her first real job, she saved up enough for a boob-job. Stewardess with a boob job, need I say more? Her single biggest requirement for her future husband: "If he really wants me, he will buy me a 2-carat engagement ring." About 7-8 years younger than husband (she late thirties, he mid-forties).

3. Sister-in-law now owns one of those skin care/facial type of deals. Spa or something where she does skin care and makeup and nails for rich ladies and "certain kind" of men.

4. Brother-in-law grew up poor. Like no father, mom gotta work as a bar girl to support son and her own mother. Son starts off washing cars at the dealership and climbs all the way up to general manager. Shrewd, suspicious, hard working but a bit self-centered. Not much respect for his mother either. Sees her about 3-4 times a year.

Any ideas?

 

[the Doctor]

i think your sister got a good deal...if her name is on the deed then she is due a cut of any money made from the sale of the house...and with her name not on the morgage should mean she is not responsable for any payments to be made on the morgage!!

 

[P1X4R]

yikes! sounds like a lot of drama there! lol

well for my situation i bought my first home without my wife on the title. she had to sign a quit claim deed on it. the reason we did this was so we could close escrow on time because she couldn't be at the signing. l believe california law has changed since then. we've since sold that house and she made sure to have her name on our current home. man, i better not ever get divorced or i'll be screwed!

 

[Polystoner]

i think your sister got a good deal...if her name is on the deed then she is due a cut of any money made from the sale of the house...and with her name not on the morgage should mean she is not responsable for any payments to be made on the morgage!!

That's what I thought too. But then I thought, is there some kind of hidden, nefarious upside to this plan? I mean, further down the road is this somekind of leverage he will have over her? Legally, or something I mean.

 

[the Doctor]

That's what I thought too. But then I thought, is there some kind of hidden, nefarious upside to this plan? I mean, further down the road is this somekind of leverage he will have over her? Legally, or something I mean.

the family lawyer should explain the position to her,theyshould be unbiased with there advice to both parties.

 

[mfoga]

Where is Pam when we need her? She was lawyer.

Seriously, I think she is covered by being on the deed. I have had a few friends who have done the same thing due to one or the other having bad credit stuff like that.

 

[creecher]

I don't know what the laws are there, but to me it sounds good. If there does happen to be a divorce, if no kids are involved, it's a 50/50 split. Her name is on the deed, so it's 50/50. Does it really matter who pays for it? What's his is hers, and what's hers is his, isn't it?

Still, the only problem would be if they divorced before the house was paid off. They'd just have to work out what 50/50 is. 50/50 isn't always necessarily half each. It's usually total incomes, assets, debts, what each had before the marriage, it gets complicated. A nightmare at any time, just worse when kids are involved. Then what's fair gets blurred. Arguments are futile, as the courts work to a formula, not who has the best lawyer.

 

[Bannister]

Where is Pam when we need her? She was lawyer.

 

[tylerd]

i always thought that the name(s) that appeared on the mortgage, are the same that appear on the deed. sounds fishy to me.

 

[creecher]

Some financial institutions may try to pressure people to have both names on the mortgage. That's just to have more people to pressure should either or both of you fall on bad times. Both names are not needed. Whomevers name is on the mortgage just has the responsibility to make the payments.

The deed is the proof that both parties own the house.

Relationships are all different. In the case of a separation, the mortgage still has to be paid. The name on the mortgage has to make the payments regardless. Some divorces are quick, others slow, some agreeable, others can be quite nasty. If it happened to be long and nasty, the brother-in-law would still have to pay. If he couldn't afford to, the financial institution has the right to sell it to recover the outstanding debt on the property. As an example if you had $10000 left to pay and couldn't get a loan, the bank, let's say, could sell the house for fifteen thousand and give you the remaining $5000. Not good eh? If you owed heaps they may still sell it and burden you with the difference still owing. Not good either. It's better for both parties to work together, but that's not usually the case, as divorce is emotionally devastating for at least one of the parties in most cases.

 

[wofford29]

As a former Mortgage Consultant I can honestly say that there is absolutely 100% nothing wrong with this act.

As a car salesman or dealership owner he's probably a commission employee or writes off a lot of expenses which usually requires a reduced doc loan which you have to have well above average credit to acquire. Especially with the crack down in lending guidelines do the the current state of the market. A lot of times if you do a joint application and one persons credit doesn't meet the standard required they must be dropped from the application. However they can still be on the deed. Which means that she has no financial ties to the house which is great for her credit if something were to ever happen. If he makes a late payment it doesn't effect her credit. This is actually a very common and innocent move that I would say I did on around 80% of loan applications. Around 99.9% of the time it was out of neccissity to obtain the type of financing they were after.

If she has average credit, and low income, compared to his, it would actually prevent certain types of financing or it would increase the interest rate on the mortgage. Legally as long as she is on the deed, he can do nothing with the house without her say so. They'll do what is called a quick claim deed at the closing table. The closing attorney will explain everything while they are signing papers. If they were to divorce, she would still have to agree to refinance and get her name off the deed. I've dealt with these situations on a weekly basis and often times had deals fall through due to the refusal of the other party to refinance and sign off the deed. There should be no worries about this, if she's going on the deed, this is legit and nothing evil can be behind it.

 

[darth dypshyt]

It's the Deed you want your name on. The mortgage is just the loan for the property. Basically, until you pay off that mortgage, it's the banks property anyway ..The deed states who will have or has ownership of said property.

 

[tylerd]

As a former Mortgage Consultant I can honestly say that there is absolutely 100% nothing wrong with this act.

As a car salesman or dealership owner he's probably a commission employee or writes off a lot of expenses which usually requires a reduced doc loan which you have to have well above average credit to acquire. Especially with the crack down in lending guidelines do the the current state of the market. A lot of times if you do a joint application and one persons credit doesn't meet the standard required they must be dropped from the application. However they can still be on the deed. Which means that she has no financial ties to the house which is great for her credit if something were to ever happen. If he makes a late payment it doesn't effect her credit. This is actually a very common and innocent move that I would say I did on around 80% of loan applications. Around 99.9% of the time it was out of neccissity to obtain the type of financing they were after.

If she has average credit, and low income, compared to his, it would actually prevent certain types of financing or it would increase the interest rate on the mortgage. Legally as long as she is on the deed, he can do nothing with the house without her say so. They'll do what is called a quick claim deed at the closing table. The closing attorney will explain everything while they are signing papers. If they were to divorce, she would still have to agree to refinance and get her name off the deed. I've dealt with these situations on a weekly basis and often times had deals fall through due to the refusal of the other party to refinance and sign off the deed. There should be no worries about this, if she's going on the deed, this is legit and nothing evil can be behind it.

sounds like we've heard from someone that definitely knows the specifics of how it works. and i have learned something new.

 

[Anzik]

It doesn't matter if her name is on the deed or not, the house becomes a marital asset. Legally you become one entity so each own 100% of everything. So you collectors, beware if you get divorced. She owns half of your collection and may demand it sold or be paid half the dollar value.

 

[Polystoner]

sounds like we've heard from someone that definitely knows the specifics of how it works. and i have learned something new.

Yeah, wofford29 wins best answer of the thread award. Many thanks, wofford29!

Sounds more like a practical matter, than something evil. :emperor Puts my mind at ease.

Thanks to everyone else as well, I think I will just sit this one out then, and let my sister-in-law deal with it. If she trusts the guy, who am I to say?

 

[BadMoon]

Where is Pam when we need her? She was lawyer.

Seriously, I think she is covered by being on the deed. I have had a few friends who have done the same thing due to one or the other having bad credit stuff like that.

Good olde Pam! LOL!

We should bring that old thread back to life. It was a hell of a good read.

 

[RoboDad]

It doesn't matter if her name is on the deed or not, the house becomes a marital asset. Legally you become one entity so each own 100% of everything. So you collectors, beware if you get divorced. She owns half of your collection and may demand it sold or be paid half the dollar value.

As I understand it, that law actually varies from state to state. In some states all property becomes community property (unless a prenup agreement is signed stating otherwise), but in some states, even property purchased during the marriage is not necessarily co-owned.

I know that in Oregon, my mother didn't need to do anything to to keep the deed to a house she bought in her name only, even when it had been purchased after marrying my stepfather. But, when they moved to another state and she bought a house, they had to file paperwork with the state to prevent the house from becoming community property.