Final Settlement with Abbeygreenspun.com : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread
Just about to settle with DLA/ Abbey, which is encouraging. A footnote to the letter says the following:
"Acceptance of payment in whole or part by one or more debtors will not release the liability of any remaining co-debtor(s). Our client retains the right at all times to take action against such co-debtors. Acceptance of the agreed sum in full and final settlement of the debt due to our client is in respect of such sums due to the bank after realisation of any security held by the bank, whether heritable or collateral, at the time of acceptance or at any time over the duration of the mortgage, unless specifically agreed otherwise by the bank in writing."
Does anybody know what this means? Does it mean that if I were married, then my wife would still be liable, or something entirely different?
Any help greatly appreciated.
-- Chris Andrew (email@example.com), June 28, 2003
Thats exactly what it means, both of you are liable for the debt, if one makes an arrangement with the bank/build soc, then they can persue the other for the remainder of the debt. Be very careful as to what you sign or agree to, hmm thats if you dont want your ex battering down your door if a few years time saying that you stitched them up !!!
-- John (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 28, 2003.
Thanks for that. As I don't have a wife/ partner, that should be ok.
-- Chris Andrew (email@example.com), June 29, 2003.
Chris, you may not have an ex partner, but did your parents guarantee the mortgage ? if so they can become liable for your debts.
-- John (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 29, 2003.
No, just me. Well suggested, though.
-- Chris Andrew (email@example.com), June 30, 2003.
Be very careful with this one: get them to remove the word "heritable" from this agreement. It means that if you are in line to inherit anything from a relative, the bank may exercise a claim on it at some future date unless "specifically agreed otherwise". Not good.
-- Too scared to say (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 30, 2003.
I don't think it's actually as scary as that; it's just saying that (a) if it was a joint mortgage then you paying up doesn't stop them chasing the other party/parties to the mortgage, and (b) the amount they are accepting in f&f relates to the debt as calculated *after* the repossession and sale of your ex-property - in other words, you can't now say "well you say you'll accept 5k, and you sold my house for 50k, so you owe me 45k" (or whatever). The "heritable or collateral" doesn't mean they can chase you any further, it just means they are accepting whatever you have agreed to pay in f&f. If it was a straightforward repo and shortfall, the security they held was your house, which was collateral (ie - they had it in their hands). In some situations the bank might have accepted something (probably property) that you were going to inherit (heritable) at a future date as security against a loan - you would have 'signed away your rights' to the property. Again, the bit of legalese you quote would just mean in that case that you can't come back and demand your rights to the property back from them; full and final means neither party can later pursue the other. in short, the bank is simply protecting its own interests (surprise surprise), but it is not in any way sinister. Well done for getting rid of the parasites.
-- Melody (email@example.com), July 03, 2003.