Absent an agreement between the now-deceased person & the heirs, typically not.
This sounds like a real mess. It sounds like two joint tenants own a piece of property in common with one having the mortgage in his name. The other joint tenant has a piece of property that has a home equity loan about to go into default. In one state the joint tenant with the home equity in default would lose that piece of property. It would not affect the piece of property he or she owned with a different person.
As long as there is notice of the life estate in the public land records the bank would need the life tenant's signature on the mortgage and note in order to wipe out the life estate. If the life tenant didn't sign the original mortgage and note then the bank has a problem. If it forecloses, it would acquire possession of the property SUBJECT TO the life estate.
If the fee owner applies for a mortgage the life tenant must consent in writing so the property can be taken by foreclosure free of the life estate if there us a default.If the fee owner applies for a mortgage the life tenant must consent in writing so the property can be taken by foreclosure free of the life estate if there us a default.If the fee owner applies for a mortgage the life tenant must consent in writing so the property can be taken by foreclosure free of the life estate if there us a default.If the fee owner applies for a mortgage the life tenant must consent in writing so the property can be taken by foreclosure free of the life estate if there us a default.
Yes. As long as the lender will accept it. If the borrower defaults and the lender should later need to foreclose on the mortgage, it will acquire only the tenant's proportionate interest in the property and not the interest of the other co-owner(s) who didn't execute the mortgage.
Yes, but you would need the written consent of the life tenant.
No. Only the fee owners can mortgage the property and they can only do so with the written consent of the life tenant.
The correct term is "subordination". This is an agreement signed by a tenant and landlord of commercial property which is a recognition on the part of the tenant that the lease is subordinate to any mortgage which the landlord has or may in the future place on the property. Lenders sometimes want this so that the tenant recognizes that the lease does not have priority over a mortgage granted by the lender. The non disturbance agreement generally signed by the lender and/or landlord which indicates that so long as the tenant is not in default of the lease, the possession of the tenant will not be "disturbed" or in other words, the tenant will be allowed to remain in the premises even if the landlord should be in default of the mortgage.
If property is not yet paid off, the living tenant must keep up with the mortgage payments or forfeit the dwelling to the next of kin.
Yes. If the lender agrees. Only a half interest could be included in the mortgage.However, an experienced lender would want all the owners to sign the mortgage in case there is a default. If only one owner signed the mortgage, the lender could only foreclose on that person's half interest. It would become a tenant in common with the co-owner. That half interest would be difficult to sell. In some states, if the mortgagor died their interest in the property would disappear and the surviving joint tenant would own the property free of the bank's mortgage.
A leasehold mortgage is an encumbrance on a tenant's interest in a lease conveyed to a lender as collateral for a loan to the tenant.
The tenant is the owner, fee simple, for his/her lifetime and pays taxes and insurance as anyone would on land they own. Instead of having an heir, a life estate has a 'remainder' (one who remains) and that person takes ownership after the demise of the life tenant because the deed/title was in the remainder's name all along. Yes?Who pays the mortgage is another question.No...the owner is the person who will receive it upon the death of the life estate. That is the person who would receive payment from the insurance company if it were, for example, destroyed in a fire while the tenant with the LED was living there. The person with the LED can't mortgage the property; can't sell the property; can't receive payment if the property is destroyed, so the owner would be responsible for paying the insurance and taxes. The LED holder is responsible only for utilities. In fact, the owner is responsible to pay upkeep as weel, because it benefits their future.
i would like too know the answer to this question too except im in California do the laws change