Welcome to the trust deed forum jurq01.

I'll try to work through your questions in the order you have asked them:

1 - When the husband signed the trust deed he committed to paying over his surplus income and the value of his assets to repay his creditors. As a potential asset, the Trustee has registered an interest in the properties. The interest will end when the trust deed ends (which might be longer than three years if, for example, any of the properties had to be sold after the monthly payments are completed).

2 - If there is equity in any of the properties the Trustee would be looking for this to be paid over before the trust deed is ended. This doesn't have to be done by selling the properties, for example a third party could pay over the value of the equity that is there. If there is no equity the Trustee has no reason to sell a property. As the joint owner your partner has some rights in respect of all of this.

3 - This is impossible to answer with confidence because we don't have all of the facts and because we're not legal advisers. I do feel a little uneasy about the advice though based upon what I've read (though I'm sure the adviser had reasons for providing the advice of which we're not aware).
Your partner is the joint owner of these homes and therefore 50% of any equity in them is hers. Had the mortgages been paid and more equity had developed in the properties your partner would have seen her assets grow. Even if the properties had been sold later there would have been some benefit to her.
The properties, if they had to be sold, could have been sold in the usual way which almost certainly would raise a greater sale price than a repossessing lender (looking to get rid of them quite quickly). This could have meant that your partner's share of any equity was higher.
If any of the properties slip into negative equity when being sold by the mortgage lenders (because of the mortgage arrears and a low sale price for example) your partner is going to be exposed to personally having to pay the full shortfall herself.

4 - The Trustee is only entitled to be paid, by the husband, what he can afford to pay after his reasonable expenses have been deducted from his income. If the rental properties are profitable (the rent exceeds the mortgage and other associated costs) then his share of that profit might be required to be paid in. Your partners share of that surplus would be hers. If there was no surplus then the trust deed payment would be unaffected.

I'm not sure when they'll next visit the forum, but I think you should look out for the views of Mark, Kevin or Shona on this as well. It's possible they may see aspects of this differently to me and/or have more information to add.

Hi jurq01

TDA is correct, however if the properties are in the last stages of repossession then the most likely outcome is the properties will be repossessed, sold at a loss and each of the mortgage holders will pursue your Partner for the shortfall. I think it is unlikely at this stage that the Trustee will attempt to re tenant them and will almost certainly allow the repossessions to proceed.

Can I ask who advised her to stop paying the mortgage. The simplest way would be to have made an arrangement with the Trustee regarding ongoing payments.

Mark

Amy and Mark:
First of all, thank you for your speedy response; I wasn't expecting a reply so soon, especially on a Sunday!
Mark ÔÇô If I can answer your question, the mortgage payments were stopped because of legal advice. My partner's solicitor told her to stop the payments. We are both slightly concerned by this because the only outcome we can see is massive debt at the end of it all if the properties remain unsold for an extended period. There are 5 properties involved and the associated costs of all 5 repossessions will be great (we believe).
The trustees have previously told my partner that they will require £53,000 to discharge their interest in all 5 properties so their perception is that there is significant equity in them combined.
As with complicated cases like this, answers to questions invariably spawn more questions so if I may ask of you a couple more:

1. If the trustees perceive that there is significant equity in the properties, why would they allow them to be repossessed without putting up some kind of resistance to this happening, knowing (or suspecting) that they will very probably receive significantly less than their perceived value when they are eventually sold?

2. Is there a minimum limit of perceived equity that the trustees just wouldn't bother ÔÇÿchasing'? I suspect this is a bit of a daft question, different trustees will have different views I believe but my partner asked me to pose the question!

One again thank you for your help.

Hi jurq01.

I'd imagine there is little that the Trustee can do to stop the repossessions. If the mortgages aren't paid the mortgage lenders will inevitably seek repossession eventually, as they're entitled to do.

There has been some talk on this forum before about very small amounts of equity that may not be chased. As I remember it this has related to situations where the costs involved in any sale render the whole exercise pointless (because of the very small amount of equity).