Response to Final Settlement with Abbey

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.

[ Previous | Next ]