ATO abetting abusers to make women homeless

Shoot... I must be an abuser. 3 houses together and the other half still hasn't legally owned one ever

 

Either that or my partner is **** with money and can't borrow due to crappy credit score

 

Yeah, but is the other half on the loan? If not, that's a different situation than what the OP is talking about. I have seen the other situation myself. Partner is on the loan but not on the title. Essentially they are carrying a debt but not the asset. That is a risky situation to be in and one I would not recommend. Some banks won't even allow it.

EDIT: as Terry pointed out, some banks allow a person to be on the loan (not mortgage as I incorrectly stated). I have edited my post to remove the confusion.

 

Perthguy only an owner can mortgage a property. I think you are confusing 'mortgages' with 'loans'

 

Yes true @Terry_w, you are exactly right. I have seen where two people are on the loan but only one is on the title. I think that is risky for the person on the loan but not on the title. Incidentally, us common folk refer to the loan as the "mortgage" but this is incorrect. The mortgage is a legal document registered at a titling office (in WA, Landgage).

 

I think the Amercian's started all this misuse of 'mortgage'

 

I blame sleep deprivation for my slip. Getting my parents house for sale. Huge job!

Anyway, since we are burning the midnight oil, are there any circumstances where it is ok for one partner to sign up to a loan where they don't have a beneficial interest in the property? I accidentally tried to do this with ING and the lawyers refused to execute the loan documents. I don't think it is generally a good idea. I would prefer to only be on a loan where I have a beneficial interest in a property.

 

Only to increase borrowing capacity.

 

Usually, in a marriage the spouse who is not on the title is deemed to have an interest in the property regardless - most likely due to the fact that in a separation it all gets divided anyway.

Banks are actually reasonable sensible regarding this - if a property is jointly owned by non-partners, and one owner wants to get cash out for a debt consolidation for eg, banks do not love this at all and will want to see that both owners have benefit from the loan.

 

I am no family lawyer, but don't think that merely being a spouse automatically gives the non-owner an interest in the property. There would still have to be some sort of contribution to the property and this could be either financial or non-financial.

Legal Tip 84: Caveats on property owned by Spouses Legal Tip 84: Caveats on property owned by Spouses

If the spouse, or anyone else, has an interest in the property then they could lodge a caveat to prevent further dealings - selling, mortgaging etc

 

I own everything.
If my husband left I will continue running by business and assets exactly the same. I would give him half yes he deserves that.
I'm not attached to money, I fully believe in my abilities to look after myself and my family.

Women need to have some core beliefs vital to survival.
1. We have the power to do what we want - yes we do.
2. No one can stop you. Sexist thoughts only exist in someone's head. Don't ever bring them into your reality and for Gods sake don't ever own someone else's mental illness that is only emotional pain associated with being rejected by their mother. I'm not interested in having anything to do with it and I certainly have never allowed sexist remarks to stop me. I'm so much bigger than that.

3. Men are not a financial plan. Marry a man because of wants not needs. I want him I don't need him. A want is a higher emotion than a need. I would marry a man I was connected with emotionally and spiritually and who can bring out the best in me. I would marry someone only out of LOVE, I would never marry someone because he can support me financially. I have that one covered myself.

Don't worry about the abusers who hate women, they are always going to be around, you don't need to bring them into your reality.

Have a great life. That's it!

 

Maybe the OP is talking about the “marital fault” not being considered by courts when dividing property in divorces? This no fault rule could result in domestic violence not being a factor in a settlement, which could be felt as deeply unfair by the victim.

 

I think the OP has just been burnt badly and now running around on the Internet in every single forum signing up as a member and posting this message.

Story sounds just like the post i just read in the 'Joke thread' about a hot air balloon and management.
Quite similar to how it has now become the fault of "men's secret club".

 

I agree, that it's best to have your own resources. But the crux of domestic abuse is that it starts off as trust and love and becomes something else, and by that time a person's inner and financial resources can be whittled away.

From colleagues who are maternal child and health nurses, I have discovered that abuse often starts while a women is first pregnant and continues while she is taking a break from work looking after kids, without much outside support. At this time she is very vulnerable and often reliant on her partner.

The reality is that sexist thoughts can exist not just in someone's head, but in their actions too (hence domestic violence).

I agree that victims can leave. But to everyone who feels it's fair to say 'why doesn't she leave?', I say 'why doesn't he stop?'! Point the finger at the correct party.

It sounds like you are saying that domestic abuse by a man is due to emotional pain from a man's mother rejecting him ( i.e. that it's the mother's fault, not his?). I don't think this is accurate for most abuse situations - responsibility always lies with the person committing an act of violence.

It is apparently very common for those committing violence to say things like 'she made me so angry, I lashed out' putting the blam for their actions on the victim.

 

Strange first post on a property forum.
But all the best, hope it works out for you.