My wife and I are doing some planning, and one of the options that has been suggested to us is to put the family home in a family trust. There seems to be no problem having a mortgage on the house when we do so, which is confusing me. Since one of the advantages of a trust (as it's been explained to us) is protection from creditors, why would a bank lend us money when they can't collect the security if we default?

  • Some info about it here. Basically, some lenders will invoke the "repayment on sale" clause and some won't. – Peter K. Nov 10 '17 at 1:06
  • That's my question. Why would a bank not ask for their money back when the property securing the mortgage can no longer be sold in case of default? – Rupert Morrish Nov 10 '17 at 1:33
  • 1
    @RupertMorrish Why would you say the house can no longer be sold in case of default? The right to foreclose on the home wouldn't change until/unless the mortgage is paid off. – David Schwartz Nov 12 '17 at 12:48

The asset protection part of a trust is to protect your assets from creditors who have no security in your personal assets

However a Mortgage from your bank on a house owned by a trust, is still secured to that Asset, so there is asset protection available here.

If you default on the mortgage payments then the bank can still take your family home.

  • Can you give us some explanation of how the bank could reposses a house owned by someone else, or obtain the lien in the first place? – DJClayworth Aug 2 at 1:26
  • @DJClayworth If they couldn't, they wouldn't put the mortgage in place. It would just be a regular unsecured loan [which may be what needs to happen, but the bank won't be tricked into taking security on a non-securable asset]. – Grade 'Eh' Bacon Aug 2 at 15:25
  • Exactly. This answer seems to be describing a situation which can't happen. Or have I missed something? – DJClayworth Aug 3 at 1:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .