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? 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. 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? Aug 2 '19 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]. Aug 2 '19 at 15:25
  • Exactly. This answer seems to be describing a situation which can't happen. Or have I missed something? Aug 3 '19 at 1:08

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.