The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Personal Finances / Buying or Selling a Home
|Subject: Re: Refi Woes Continue....||Date: 9/1/2012 5:26 PM|
|Author: JAFO31||Number: 124072 of 127680|
Donna405: "JAFO, if the lender included the wife's income in the scheme of things, then they would require the property be in both names, and the mortgage signed by both."
What do you mean by the mortgage?
The Note or the Mortgage/Deed of Trust?
If the wife's income is included in the loan, then I understand why we she needs to execute the Note. The Note is the promise to pay the loan.
The Mortgage/Deed of Trust provides the lien on real property (generally speaking) and in gneral provides the if the Note is not paid, then you may foreclose upon the real estate. If the wife did not own the property, why (i.e., for what legal reason) would her signature need to be on the Mortgage/Deed of Trust?
It appears ridiculous to, completely unnecessary, and additional fee on the borrower, to make the husband transfer an interest in the real property in order to have a legal reason to force the wife to sign the Mortgaeg/Deed of Trust.
IOW, what can the lender do after this deed transfer that the lender could not have done before the transfer, assuming that both H&W executed the Note, H owned the property, and H executed and acknowledged the Mortgage/Deed of Trust?
Furthermore, even if this was a community property state, the wife could execute the Mortgage/Deed of Trust as to her community proeprty interest without the need for a deed.
Yes, I am a lawyer, BUT THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE; it is only general information. NO CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IS INTENDED TO BE CREATED, NOR IS ANY SUCH RELATIONSHIP SO CREATED. FOR SPECIFIC LEGAL ADVICE YOU SHOULD TALK TO A LAWYER IN YOUR AREA.
|Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|