# Income of 80K debts of 17 million minimum, court makes no instalment order



## Bronte (4 Feb 2011)

Everyone be very careful before you reply on this. This is about how our legal system works, and how people can work with that legal system. No personal comments in relation to the person involved. One person is near being banned already for a reply. 

_____________________________________________

Riddle me this. 

I have a lot of debt, an income of 80K, but my spending expenses are 120K. I owe 17 million to my bankers.

I need to pay 27K for my children's private education, do you think it reasonable if the judge would allow this 27K a year to be not counted by the bank or do you think the judge will say I have to pay the 27K towards the 17 million debt. Do you think the judge will ask how am I spending 120K if my income is 80K. I am prepared to pay 100 Euro a week, what do you think will happen in court.


----------



## gearoid (4 Feb 2011)

*Debts of 17m*

Why not write a book about your experiences? I'm a hard working man... Salt of the earth... Ordinary car... all that sort of self-serving guff...


----------



## Bronte (4 Feb 2011)

The question really is can one go into court with debts, prove one's outgoings are for (any) amount and ergo the court will make no instalment order.

I do not mean the outgoings are not real, they are real, does the court look to the 'reasonableness' of your expenditure.  Or does a court look to your status in society, your standard of living and the level of reasonableness goes up.

Surely if you have creditor's bringing you to court then all your income, wherever sourced should be available?

Example, can you say your family food bill is 500 because you shop in Harrods.  Whereas it would cost 200 in Aldi.

Can you say you need to spend 5K on horseriding for the kids as part of your expenditure.

Can you say you receive rent from a property in France that goes to pay the mortgage of that property, would the court not direct that the rent be paid to the creditors and the property be sold and any profit be sold.

Can you go to court with no income to pay creditors but have money to pay lawyers 

Please no comments on any individual.  Just want to know what on earth is going on in the courts.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (4 Feb 2011)

Hi Bronte

It's a curious decision but I reckon the logic is as follows: 

The guy owes €17m to whichever bank brought him to court. He owes far more than that to other lenders. 

He has an income of €80,000. The judge could tell him to live on €20,000 which is roughly what he would get on social welfare. 

Even if he paid the entire €60k off the €17m it would make no dent in it. The judge probably reckons the priority is to pay the mortgage on his home.

Now, if the judge had told him to sell his home, I would agree with that decision. That is assuming that he lives in a big house with a lot of positive equity.  But if he has that, then the bank will register a judgement against it.


----------



## JoeB (4 Feb 2011)

absolutely disgusting.

Two tier society alright.

Makes me want to emigrate, and never pay any tax again in this country. I think Ireland is a dump. I'd almost prefer to live in a dictatorship than in this country. 

This encourages tax evasion or avoidance, whichever is the illegal one. .. as who wants to pay tax to a government that allows this to happen? (I understand about the independence of the judicary, but we must pass mandatory laws removing power from judges if they act like this).

(For example... if a person owes more than ten times the difference between the social welfare paments they'd receive if on no income and qualified for the dole, and what they actually earn,  then the judge must order that all income over the social welfare entitlement must be paid to the creditors, and this is mandatory) 



The judge should be sacked.


5K on horseriding... no way... disgusting.
shopping in Harrods, disgusting.


Is this 17million that taxpayers now have to pay?


I would say that we should riot on the streets for this... but that would likely attract a ban., so I won't.


I am absolutely disgusted by this... absolutely shocked and horrified. This is the worst thing I've ever heard. .. and I have now completely lost faith in our government and the judicary... total jokers.


This has destroyed my day... if not my entire life here in Ireland.


----------



## DB74 (4 Feb 2011)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Even if he paid the entire €60k off the €17m it would make no dent in it. The judge probably reckons the priority is to pay the mortgage on his home.


 

That's hardly the issue though Brendan

Either he should be obliged to start paying it off or he shouldn't. Who do you think is going to have to pay in the end?

Discretionery spending like €27K on Private School fees is not something that anyone could regard as a necessary living expense.

Anyway I don't want to get banned so I'm not saying any more on the subject


----------



## redbhoy (4 Feb 2011)

Im no lawyer but could this case be used as precedent for 'lower class' people with debts that need restructuring???


----------



## feltox (4 Feb 2011)

DB74 said:


> That's hardly the issue though Brendan
> 
> Either he should be obliged to start paying it off or he shouldn't. Who do you think is going to have to pay in the end?
> 
> ...


 
agree with the above. 

At that level of debt 27k is unjustified amount to be paying.

anyone have breakdown of in general what makes up 80k income and 120k expenses


----------



## JoeB (4 Feb 2011)

The guy should be declared bankrupt immediately. It's clear that he is bankrupt. All his assets should be sold or transferred to his creditors. His wife and children should be protected, but not at 'silver spoon' levels.. at basic social welfare levels. Anything else is a kick in the face to the general population.

Search google for 'Income of 80K debts of 17 million minimum' ... the first few results relate to this issue.


RedBhoy. I don't think precedent works like that. Even if it did a new judge can still set a new precedent... we will see poor people on the street eventually, if not already. It beggars belief that that story is true. Perhaps there is more to it, b ut it doesn't appear so,.. it appears as if the judge just got this completely wrong.


----------



## Time (4 Feb 2011)

It is up to his creditors to declare him bankrupt.


----------



## chook (4 Feb 2011)

Beggars belief. Should be allowed no more than social welfare rates, one basic car, modest house. All other earnings to go to repay the debt. Time to get back to earth.
Outrageous!


----------



## Bronte (7 Feb 2011)

Was there any more details on this case in the weekend papers.


----------



## Kate10 (7 Feb 2011)

I think the courts routinely show a similar attitude to people with a lower income and smaller debts.  A district court judge in the west recently awarded an installment order of €10 per month in favour of a bank that had sought €400 per month for.  At the end of the day our debt laws are not intended to create slaves.  People make mistakes, sometimes enormous ones, does that mean that they should work for the rest of their lives without hope of improving their living standards to pay back a debt that they can never afford to pay? 

I think the context is important too.  I would feel differently if the debtor owed the debt to another private citizen who was suffering a drop in standard of living so that the debtor could sustain his.  In this case the €27k for the kids school wouldn't even cover two week's interest.  For all we know the children may have a year or two of school left, after which no doubt that money will have to go towards the debt. I am sure the children of any person whose affairs are reported so publicly are having a hard enough time without dragging them out of school and away from their friends.  Personally I am glad that our judges show some degree of mercy and understanding.


----------



## JoeB (7 Feb 2011)

Kate10 said:


> ...Personally I am glad that our judges show some degree of mercy and understanding.



yes, but what of the children of the shareholders of the banks? 

I can see both sides... the banks want their money, but the people cannot pay.

In this case the man can pay something.. so the nil installment order doesn't make sense. The guy offered 100 (per week, month?)... why wasn't this ordered?

While I feel the banks should have loaned more sensibly, I feel they should also be entitled to money that they're owed, from people who can afford it. This guy appears to be able to afford it.

I wouldn't have a problem if the banks debts weren't guaranteed by the state. If deposits are guaranteed that shouldn't allow the banks to act riskily, lose money, and then come crawling to the taxpayer for help.


----------



## Time (7 Feb 2011)

> A district court judge in the west recently awarded an installment  order of €10 per month in favour of a bank that had sought €400 per  month for.


€10 a month? I know many judges who would refuse to even grant an order in those circumstances.


----------



## delgirl (7 Feb 2011)

Read about this one in the Sunday Indo, I also wouldn't like to see the children taken out of school because their father made some poor choices.

However, if the children are at a fee paying primary school, they should be transferred to a state school for their secondary education. That's what we had to do with our son and it didn't phase him at all. He's in a great non-denominational school, has great friends and is doing well.

He should be declared bankrupt by his creditors and his outgoings should be reviewed in terms of necessities and luxuries.

According to the sunday paper, the house belongs to his wife, what a surprise!

Law and justice are two very different things.


----------



## Time (7 Feb 2011)

> He should be declared bankrupt by his creditors and his outgoings should be reviewed in terms of necessities and luxuries.


That costs more money for his creditors and they are likely never to see a penny under bankruptcy.


----------



## Bronte (7 Feb 2011)

Kate10 said:


> I would feel differently if the debtor owed the debt to another private citizen who was suffering a drop in standard of living so that the debtor could sustain his. In this case the €27k for the kids school wouldn't even cover two week's interest..


 
For the life of me I cannot understand this thinking.  This debtor owes us all big time.  It doesn't matter if the 27K is not even 2 weeks interest.  Who cares.  It's your taxes Kate and evereyone else that is going to be paying out the 17 million and if 27K of school fees (discretionary, wealthy living expenses) reduces that 17 million than that is the way it should be.  All those tax cuts and child benefit cuts are ok so this debtor can live in the style to which he's become accustomed?  

The arrogance of the debtor is breathtaking and so is the judges atttitude to the debtor.  So cross about this I cannot even write in case I go overboard.


----------



## Time (7 Feb 2011)

That particular judge has form for controversial rulings.


----------



## Kate10 (7 Feb 2011)

I think my point is that I think the context of each situation has to be considered when making the decision.  I assume that that is what the judge did in this case.  Yes the bank shareholders suffered huge losses (as my own family member did having worked for a bank for thirty eight years, retired seven years ago but left most of his savings in bank shares) but the scale of the losses we are talking about can't begin to be addressed by taking an extra €27k from the small group of big borrowers most of whom lost more than anyone else.


----------



## Kate10 (7 Feb 2011)

I understand your frustration Bronte but as with all things its a question of degree.  I don't know all the ins and outs of that case.  Obviously an income and expenditure account was prepared.  Perhaps this family sacrificed other things that would normally be allowable in order to ensure that the 27k was available for school fees.  80k is not a lot of money for a family.  27k is a huge proportion to go on school fees.  Perhaps this was their priority above all else.


----------



## DB74 (7 Feb 2011)

The only allowable expenses should be basic living expenses.

Discretionery spending of > €2,000 per month is not basic, no matter how you want to look at it

Also €80K is a lot of money for any family (> €6,500 per month), especially one which doesn't pay its bills.

There are families in this country living on < €1,000 per month


----------



## onq (7 Feb 2011)

Kate10 said:


> I think the context is important too.  I would feel differently if the debtor owed the debt to another private citizen who was suffering a drop in standard of living so that the debtor could sustain his.  In this case the €27k for the kids school wouldn't even cover two week's interest.  For all we know the children may have a year or two of school left, after which no doubt that money will have to go towards the debt. I am sure the children of any person whose affairs are reported so publicly are having a hard enough time without dragging them out of school and away from their friends.  Personally I am glad that our judges show some degree of mercy and understanding.



I concur with this - the children should not be made to suffer for the sins of their parents - within limits.

I think a good education is something all children deserve and disrupting a level of schooling with established friendship and support circles is not something I would advocate.

Edication apart, there are savings to be made elsewhere in his lifestyle.

A family of three can survive - eating a balanced diet with good portions - on a weekly shop of €90.
The main weekly shop can be much lower, but I'm allowing for the odd treat, mid week bread and milk and a McDonald's once a month.
You buy the bargains offered and adjust your menu to suit.

Given the problems this man faces, he is lucky if his family are able to keep  one car on the road - that doesn't mean a separate one for the nanny, the wife and all the kids - or that the car is a new one.
He doesn't get to keep the club memberships, the foreign holidays, the "wine with every meal" lifestyle and he starts getting shanks mare out of the stable or cycling occasionally.

Ironically this could be the making of him and will cement of strangle his marriage. If it is a good marriage, not founded on gold-digging or status but on a real relationship, it will survive this and the kids will be all the stronger for seeing their parents coping through this.
It may also extend - not shorten - his life as he stops the over-eating and daily drinking that so many of us identify with "high living" but which usually only results in gout or liver failure.

Finally it may prompt him to become an entrepreneur, since the only way he will clear his debts is through engaging in a profitable enterprise and becoming a business success.
This is not so far-fetched as you might think - there are a lot of medium and long term positive issues to consider when dealing with individuals like this.

I was working with a guy in the 'Nineties and as we were crossing Baggot Street in Dublin he pointed out a chap across the road.

"That guy used to be worth millions - hasn't a penny now. He's going to see a bank about a loan I'll bet."
"Why would they want to meet him?" I asked.
"Because if he made millions once he can do so again - its the nature of the beast, and he'll be successful again sooner or later and bring employment to a lot of people."

So don't write such people off - they have an ability to make money [as well as lose it] that often exceeds the ability of the Man on the 46A bus - they may in fact be the core of our resurgent economy.

ONQ.


----------



## onq (7 Feb 2011)

DB74 said:


> The only allowable expenses should be basic living expenses.
> 
> Discretionery spending of > €2,000 per month is not basic, no matter how you want to look at it
> 
> ...



A family needs around €1200-1500 to live in Dublin a month depending on circumstances - that's no frills living.
Few families on €24,000 a year would describe themselves as having discretionary income.
People should try it themselves before commenting.

ONQ.


----------



## onq (7 Feb 2011)

Kate10 said:


> I understand your frustration Bronte but as with all things its a question of degree.  I don't know all the ins and outs of that case.  Obviously an income and expenditure account was prepared.  Perhaps this family sacrificed other things that would normally be allowable in order to ensure that the 27k was available for school fees.  80k is not a lot of money for a family.  27k is a huge proportion to go on school fees.  Perhaps this was their priority above all else.



The average industrial wage is €35,000 I believe.
The suggestion that more than twice this is "not a lot of money for a family" is difficult to understand.

I don't know what age the kids are, but over 18 they're adults.
Fees of €27,000 suggest three kids are going to Blackrock College or similar
The person in question could send them to Monkstown CBC for about half that figure.
This is the kind of decision-making reality that he and his kids are going to have to face, even with some good will being shown to the family.

That's always assuming these figures are credible in the first place.
I'd be asking to see the accounts before I'd make a judgement on a case like this.

The sensitivity of the person in question and the well being of his wife and family has to be balanced against the sensitivity of the electorate, who are being asked to carry the can for the excesses of - what I hope is - a minority.

ONQ.


----------



## DB74 (7 Feb 2011)

onq said:


> A family needs around €1200-1500 to live in Dublin a month depending on circumstances - that's no frills living.
> Few families on €24,000 a year would describe themselves as having discretionary income.
> *People should try it themselves before commenting*.
> 
> ONQ.


 
What is your point here exactly and who is the comment in bold aimed at (my bold)


----------



## onq (7 Feb 2011)

chook said:


> Beggars belief. Should be allowed no more than social welfare rates, one basic car, modest house. All other earnings to go to repay the debt. Time to get back to earth.
> Outrageous!



I don't agree that his kids should suffer.
If they are in primary a decision needs to be made on the secondary transition.
Such decisions are made regularly - only a few of my peers came with me to my secondary school - and shouldn't promote crocodile tears.

If they are in secondary already they should be let complete their secondary education.
Children are the future - anyone who doesn't see that and treat them accordingly should question their own motivations.

There is a big difference between fiscal correctness and begrudgery.
Equally there is a big difference between treating the next generation appropriately and writing a bankrupt a blank cheque.
I would be very concerned that the school fees figure should be checked for accuracy - my other posts to this thread also refer.

I would be even more concerned the money allocated is monitored to ensure that it actually gets used for the children's education and not diverted into a golf club membership on the grounds that "Daddy needs to maintain his business contacts".

ONQ.


----------



## DB74 (7 Feb 2011)

onq said:


> If they are in secondary already they should be let complete their secondary education.


 
Their education doesn't need to be continued in a private fee-paying school

You seem to be implying that their education will suffer because of it


----------



## DaveB99 (7 Feb 2011)

onq said:


> The average industrial wage is €35,000 I believe.
> The suggestion that more than twice this is "not a lot of money for a family" is difficult to understand.
> 
> I don't know what age the kids are, but over 18 they're adults.
> ...



Blackrock's fees are just over 6,000 for day pupils. 9,000 suggests St Columbas day school or some such. Fees for Monkstown are 4,500 these days.


----------



## Bronte (7 Feb 2011)

I think I'm living in some kind of parallel universe.  Don't know what is more crazy.  80K being considered not a lot for a family to live on, or a person going to court with debts thinking that it's ok to privately educate their children while Irish taxes are being raised to pay back his debtors so his kids get private education, or a judge thinking this is all perfectly reasonable, maybe the judge doesn't know there are free schools in the Irish republic, or the view that kids being taken out of private education will suffer.  If my view is begrudgegy than I'd rather be called a begruder than subscribe to the view that this scenario in any way shape or form is normal or right thinking.  Truly truly corrupt is what it is.  Whatever happened to people being ashamed of their debts and doing everything to repay them instead of proudly boasting of one's excess during the boom and continuing to live the high life and even complaining that one is actually not being paid enough.  Suave and sophisticated and personable gets you a long way it seems.


----------



## Guest105 (7 Feb 2011)

Bronte said:


> I think I'm living in some kind of parallel universe. Don't know what is more crazy. 80K being considered not a lot for a family to live on, or a person going to court with debts thinking that it's ok to privately educate their children while Irish taxes are being raised to pay back his debtors so his kids get private education, or a judge thinking this is all perfectly reasonable, maybe the judge doesn't know there are free schools in the Irish republic, or the view that kids being taken out of private education will suffer. If my view is begrudgegy than I'd rather be called a begruder than subscribe to the view that this scenario in any way shape or form is normal or right thinking. Truly truly corrupt is what it is. Whatever happened to people being ashamed of their debts and doing everything to repay them instead of proudly boasting of one's excess during the boom and continuing to live the high life and even complaining that one is actually not being paid enough. Suave and sophisticated and personable gets you a long way it seems.


 

Well said Bronte, I can't believe what I am reading, 
the  sense of entitlement of this person to provide expensive education for his kids at the expense of the long suffereing tax payers is enough to make me feel ill.  if I lost my job in the morning I would still be responsible for my kid's education and pay the bills out of a measly few hundred in social welfare every week and no body would give two damns if I had to take my kids out of private education either. Is this thread for real, please tell me it is a joke


----------



## onq (8 Feb 2011)

DB74 said:


> Their education doesn't need to be continued in a private fee-paying school


If you had kids in secondary you might better realise the upheaval that a forced changing of schools would be to their education.
That is - as opposed to kids who get expelled from school for not working or for behaving badly.


> You seem to be implying that their education will suffer because of it


Their education will suffer because of the sea change in friendships, networking, environment a whole slew of things.
It would suffer just as much if they were going from saw Blackrock to St. Columbas.

ONQ.


----------



## onq (8 Feb 2011)

DB74 said:


> What is your point here exactly and who is the comment in bold aimed at (my bold)



The comment wasn't aimed at you, but it is a rebuttal to the things you posted.
My point is that there are far too many well-off people who pontificate on what others should be able to live on, in their view.
Judging from some of the comments on AAM, these people have never had to want for anything a day in their lives and seem to think that others can live on fresh air.

Your €1,000 a month comment in a case in point - if you know a family living on that kind of money you can bet it isn't in Dublin,.
The cost of living, heating, transport went through the roof some considerable time agoand shows no sign of coming down.

The family you know presumably cycle everywhere, do they?

ONQ.


----------



## onq (8 Feb 2011)

Bronte said:


> I think I'm living in some kind of parallel universe.  Don't know what is more crazy.  80K being considered not a lot for a family to live on, or a person going to court with debts thinking that it's ok to privately educate their children while Irish taxes are being raised to pay back his debtors so his kids get private education, or a judge thinking this is all perfectly reasonable, maybe the judge doesn't know there are free schools in the Irish republic, or the view that kids being taken out of private education will suffer.  If my view is begrudgegy than I'd rather be called a begruder than subscribe to the view that this scenario in any way shape or form is normal or right thinking.  Truly truly corrupt is what it is.  Whatever happened to people being ashamed of their debts and doing everything to repay them instead of proudly boasting of one's excess during the boom and continuing to live the high life and even complaining that one is actually not being paid enough.  Suave and sophisticated and personable gets you a long way it seems.



Bronte,

We see eye to eye on a lot of things, and in general I support your indignant position, but where there are kids involved this changes things IMO. Yes, you appear to be begrudging the kids their education. That having been said, I see where you are coming from. I'm saying that I can see why a Court might see its way to taking the cost of their education into consideration.

The rest of your comments ..."proudly boasting"..."Suave and sophisticated"... well, they really DO smack of begrudgery and are not worthy of a level headed poster like yourself. I'll put it down to your being so upset over this.

I also don't buy into this whole "ashamed of their debts" baggage you mentioned - what use will feeling guilty be?
Its bad enough to owe people money and not be able to pay them back without becoming suicidal through worry and shame!
Is them being "ashamed" something that will get them out of debt or is it something you think they should suffer to make you feel better somehow?
If you're going to start invoking morals into dealing with this mess - where do you stop? When we're all living in rags without even a shred of self-respect?
Because make no mistake that's the slippery slope you're on - which is why I tend to leave the law to the legal eagles

Personally I know several people in this guy's position, professionals who dabbled in property and failed to see the signs. The big cars are gone, the lifestyle is now non-existent. The one thing those I know seem to be focussed on is their kids education. I agree with you about everything else, but I would not begrudge them that.

I fleshed out my attitude to this in my other previous posts. I know of several kids who had to change schools. Earlier is better _inter alia_. Much harder to do without repercussions when they get older. And no, I would have no problem stopping the riding lessons and getting them to do part-time work to help pay for their education during the school year with some full time work during the holidays.

I worked full time both at home and abroad during my teens when I could get work to do just that. It teaches you self-reliance, independence, the value of money and it makes you appreciate others who have to work for a living all their lives in lower paid employment.

====================

Finally and for the record I don't buy into any of this guilt-ridden hair shirt cutback nonsense.
This whole scene suits someone's agenda and its being promoted by vested interests if you ask me.
No country has even saved or cut its way out of recession - prudent savings yes, swinging savings no.
We urgently need to develop an economic strategy that is less capital intensive and more labour intensive.

And find ourselves some banks who will lend!!!

ONQ.


----------



## Bronte (8 Feb 2011)

Ong where is my begrudgery exactly?  I do not begrudge anyone sending their kids to whatever they think the best schools cost.  But one has to cut one's cloth to suit one's measure.  If you owe Ireland inc than you shouldn't be sending your kids to private school. 

Do you actually really think it's ok for a man to transfer his house/assets to his wife, claim poverty, whinge in court that he is not getting a salary from the state (ie you and me and I think he's looking for a salary of 200k) despite living rent free (and lord knows what else depending on what was tranferred to the spouse) on an income of 80K while spending apparently 120K  leaving you paying off his 17 million apart from the other 200 million which is up in limbo and you and others cannot afford anymore to send your kids to private education but he can.  That 27K should be used to pay down some of his debt and it does not matter one whit that it is nothing comparted to 17 million.  It is another 27K that you and I don't have to pay.  Meanwhile  in another jurisdiction he is building up a property empire and it is perfectly legitimate for him to take the rents from those properties to pay them off and ultimately own them completely but not pay his debts.  The whole thing is rotten and I'm not angry I'm livid.  Certainly I do not consider that it's begrudgery but if you can point out the error of my ways please do.  

There are people in Ireland who have had to pull their kids out of private education because they cannot afford it, and probably because they are the kind of people who pay their debts.  I don't see anyone putting their hands in their pockets to pay for their kids education as you are suggesting we continue to do for this man.      

My comments about a person being suave and sophisticated are based on my observations and on interviews he himself gave.  Private education gives a great gloss but it's hard as nails.  As I don't want to get AAM into trouble those are the only words I can write.  In fact I've to report my own post for the mods to check.


----------



## DB74 (8 Feb 2011)

Bronte said:


> Ong where is my begrudgery exactly? I do not begrudge anyone sending their kids to whatever they think the best schools cost. But one has to cut one's cloth to suit one's measure. If you owe Ireland inc than you shouldn't be sending your kids to private school.
> 
> Do you actually really think it's ok for a man to transfer his house/assets to his wife, claim poverty, whinge in court that he is not getting a salary from the state (ie you and me and I think he's looking for a salary of 200k) despite living rent free (and lord knows what else depending on what was tranferred to the spouse) on an income of 80K while spending apparently 120K leaving you paying off his 17 million apart from the other 200 million which is up in limbo and you and others cannot afford anymore to send your kids to private education but he can. That 27K should be used to pay down some of his debt and it does not matter one whit that it is nothing comparted to 17 million. It is another 27K that you and I don't have to pay. Meanwhile in another jurisdiction he is building up a property empire and it is perfectly legitimate for him to take the rents from those properties to pay them off and ultimately own them completely but not pay his debts. The whole thing is rotten and I'm not angry I'm livid. Certainly I do not consider that it's begrudgery but if you can point out the error of my ways please do.
> 
> ...


 
Well said Bronte


----------



## DB74 (8 Feb 2011)

onq said:


> My point is that there are far too many well-off people who pontificate on what others should be able to live on, in their view.
> Judging from some of the comments on AAM, these people have never had to want for anything a day in their lives and seem to think that others can live on fresh air.


 
On the contrary. It is people who scrape by with sacrifices who know what others can live on, not those who have everything.




onq said:


> Your €1,000 a month comment in a case in point - if you know a family living on that kind of money you can bet it isn't in Dublin.


 

The family in question don't live in Dublin AFAIK. They live in Wicklow.




onq said:


> The family you know presumably cycle everywhere, do they?


 
No. They walk everywhere or use public transport where necessary. They can't afford bikes.


----------



## suemoo1 (8 Feb 2011)

Bronte said:


> I think I'm living in some kind of parallel universe.  Don't know what is more crazy.  80K being considered not a lot for a family to live on, or a person going to court with debts thinking that it's ok to privately educate their children while Irish taxes are being raised to pay back his debtors so his kids get private education, or a judge thinking this is all perfectly reasonable, maybe the judge doesn't know there are free schools in the Irish republic, or the view that kids being taken out of private education will suffer.  If my view is begrudgegy than I'd rather be called a begruder than subscribe to the view that this scenario in any way shape or form is normal or right thinking.  Truly truly corrupt is what it is.  Whatever happened to people being ashamed of their debts and doing everything to repay them instead of proudly boasting of one's excess during the boom and continuing to live the high life and even complaining that one is actually not being paid enough.  Suave and sophisticated and personable gets you a long way it seems.



++++1 ! amazing this country..


----------



## csirl (8 Feb 2011)

suemoo1 said:


> ++++1 ! amazing this country..


 
+2.

Dont forget we're talking about 80k take home pay here, not 80k before taxes. 


Commenting in general, not about this particular case - the private fees thing reminds me of something a friend told me about the 80s recession:


Friend of mine who was privately educated during the 80s recession told me years ago that a lot of wealthy risk takers invest in their children's education as a way of avoiding a drop in lifestyle if they gamble away everything. They send their kids to the best schools, pay for expensive grinds etc. and essentially buy their kids way into one of Ireland's well paid closed shop professions e.g. medicine, law etc. Ultimately, the kids will end up in lucrative very well paid jobs and are well able to fund their parents expensive lifestyles and keep them in comfort for the rest of their lives. This friend said that many of her former classmates parents got into difficulties in the '80s, but they didnt care because of the above. She said this included a number of former classmates who's parents were tax cheats -Ansbacher etc. Essentially, these people used taxpayers money to set their children up thus guaranteeing themselves and future generations of their families a wealthy comfortable life.


----------



## DoctorEvil (8 Feb 2011)

I am not sure I understand this correctly.

This person earns 80k a year yet has expences of 120k a year.

Who is paying for the extra 40k??? Surely the bank that he owes 17m are hardly extending his credit as well???


----------



## DB74 (8 Feb 2011)

DoctorEvil said:


> I am not sure I understand this correctly.
> 
> This person earns 80k a year yet has expences of 120k a year.
> 
> Who is paying for the extra 40k??? Surely the bank that he owes 17m are hardly extending his credit as well???


 

There has been no explanation (or even an attempted explanation) of where the shortfall comes from


----------



## Bronte (8 Feb 2011)

One would assume the shortfall comes from the spouse.

Not just this case but I also assume in general if you're going into court on an instalment order you 'prove' you are spending more than you are earning.

What is hard to fathom out is why the figures were not gone though and 'discretionary' spending discounted.

Can the bank appeal the decision of the district court judgement?


----------



## Bronte (8 Feb 2011)

csirl;1135409 
Friend of mine who was privately educated during the 80s recession told me years ago that a lot of wealthy risk takers invest in their children's education as a way of avoiding a drop in lifestyle if they gamble away everything. [/QUOTE said:
			
		

> I was very lucky to have gone to a fee paying school for a while around the period you mentioned.  I did not notice what you say to be true.  But it was true that a higher percentage of the people in the school came from wealthy backgrounds and as a percentage they had a better chance of making it to university and hence to get good jobs.  I remember someone coming from Trinity once and they said we had a better chance of not dropping out of university because boarding school kids are better adapted at living away from home.  Those children who are adults now and I've met them seem to have in general done well in life but via jobs not via their parents.  There was of course some who relied  on their parents but I have not found it to be the case that the children paid for the parents.  Also a lot of parents made sacrifices to send their kids to certain schools.  I have a sibling who is doing so.


----------



## Time (8 Feb 2011)

> Can the bank appeal the decision of the district court judgement?


Nope. They can make another application, but that is doomed to failure as it will be before the same judge. If the bank do this they would be going down the road of harassment and abuse of process, i.e. making what would be seen as a vexatious application.


----------



## Kate10 (8 Feb 2011)

I think people need to be careful not to make assumptions that serve to back up opinions that are pre-formed.

A statement of means was prepared in this case and it was examined by the judge.  I think that the courts will prioritise debts - ie you pay for a roof over your head, food, heat etc and after that you pay for other debts.  I have no idea what was in this man's statement of means, but I have some faith that the judge examined the statement carefully before reaching his decision.  

When I said that 80k was not a lot for a family to live on I assumed that it was pre-tax (leaving an after tax income of €4200 per month) and assumed like most that there are mortgage payments to make.  A house that cost €650k during the boom (worth prob €350k now) would cost €3k per month in mortgage payments.  Food bill, heating costs, maybe a car loan, general education costs (even apart from school fees), and you are already under the water.

None of us can judge the decision the judge made in this or any other case without examining the statement of means which we are not in a position to do.

All you can debate is whether or not a debtor in these circumstances should be permitted to pay school fees from his income.

I agree with onq on that issue and I think that it should be permitted in limited circumstances.


----------



## DB74 (8 Feb 2011)

Kate10 said:


> *I think people need to be careful not to make assumptions that serve to back up opinions that are pre-formed.*
> 
> A statement of means was prepared in this case and it was examined by the judge. I think that the courts will prioritise debts - ie you pay for a roof over your head, food, heat etc and after that you pay for other debts. I have no idea what was in this man's statement of means, but I have some faith that the judge examined the statement carefully before reaching his decision.
> 
> ...


 
What types of expenditure would you consider inappropriate?

Do you find it credible that someone could have necessary expenses of €10K per month?

And if the house is in his wife's name then why would the mortgage payments be allowed as forming part of the husband's expenditure?


----------



## Kate10 (8 Feb 2011)

Fair enough DB74.

But my core point is still the same.  The only item specifically reported (or at least referred to here) is school fees.  I don't know what the other expenditure is.  Nor do you.  I don't know if €80k is before or after tax income.  

What I do know is that Peter Kelly and other High Court judges made it clear that no debtor will be permitted to live a lavish or luxury lifestyle while leaving debts unpaid.  

I doubt very much if the judge in this case did that.  This person's financial situation can be re-visited if there are any changes to it and an installment order made at that time.  

As to your questions, excluding debt I think €10k per month expenditure would generate a very lavish lifestyle.  But I don't believe that the 10k is excluding debt.  I would imagine a large proportion of it is taken up with debt of one form or another.  

Where the family home is not owned by the debtor then no mortgage payment for the family home would be included, but other mortgage payments or debts could and would be.  E.g. if someone owned an investment property which was mortgaged, the mortgage holder of that property has a fixed charge and is therefore entitled to all income from that asset in priority to any other creditor.  Assume that the mortgage payment on a portfolio of investment properties is €15k per month, and the rental income from same is €10k per month.  The debtor cannot make up the shortfall but the mortgage holder does not want to call in the loan.  Result?  A yearly "income" for the debtor of €120k with yearly "expenditure" of €180k and a shortfall of €60k.  In reality none of this money flows through the debtor's hands - the rent goes directly to the mortgage holder.  In those circumstances the judge cannot make an installment order in relation to this income because this income is charged to the mortgage holder and therefore not available.


----------



## Bronte (8 Feb 2011)

Kate10 said:


> What I do know is that Peter Kelly and other High Court judges made it clear that no debtor will be permitted to live a lavish or luxury lifestyle while leaving debts unpaid.
> 
> .


 
Well it's now clear that a judges definitiion of lavish or luxury is far different to what most people think it is.  

Indeed some people live on less than the school fees of 27K a  year. And some people on less than 27K a year no doubt get instalment orders against them every week in Irish courts.  

The person on 80K also has a family home owned by the spouse and presumable no mortgage, he referred to the fact in print that other people were stupid if they didn't transfer property to their spouse in anticipation of going bust.  Pr


----------



## Bronte (8 Feb 2011)

Time said:


> Nope. They can make another application, but that is doomed to failure as it will be before the same judge. If the bank do this they would be going down the road of harassment and abuse of process, i.e. making what would be seen as a vexatious application.


 
Judges don't like that.  What else can they do.  Seek a judgement mortgage on the UK property?  And then ultimately a well charging order?


----------



## Time (8 Feb 2011)

> Indeed some people live on less than the school fees of 27K a  year. And  some people on less than 27K a year no doubt get instalment orders  against them every week in Irish courts.


Indeed, and such people will be hounded to the ends of the earth by the banks.


----------



## Time (8 Feb 2011)

Bronte said:


> Judges don't like that.  What else can they do.  Seek a judgement mortgage on the UK property?  And then ultimately a well charging order?


They would have problems slapping an Irish JM on a UK property. That is if any UK property is in his name of course.


----------



## JoeB (8 Feb 2011)

Kate said:
			
		

> This person's financial situation can be re-visited if there are any changes to it and an installment order made at that time.







Time said:


> Nope. They can make another application, but that is doomed to failure as it will be before the same judge. If the bank do this they would be going down the road of harassment and abuse of process, i.e. making what would be seen as a vexatious application.



So it seems that the bank cannot do anything... except walk away with 17 million owing to them. If this is true then the bank has been very hard done by... but of course the bank were silly themselves to give such a large loan with no security. Perhaps the bank can go back to court if the debtor situation changes... but how would the bank be aware of such changes in circumstances?


----------



## Time (8 Feb 2011)

> Perhaps the bank can go back to court if the debtor situation changes...


They most certainly can. 


> but how would the bank be aware of such changes in circumstances?


This is the thing. Judges always tell banks they can reapply if circumstances of the debtor change. I don't know how they find out.


----------

