# is my mortgage legal?



## shane44 (19 Nov 2015)

Can anyone put a light on this question I co own the family home with my dad I took out a mortgage and used deeds as security I'm in arrears 6 years bank hasn't threatened repossession just takes small amounts per month it turns out the bank never asked my dad for his prior written consent as a co owner for me to get a mortgage I am told the mortgage is illegal is this the case.


----------



## Sarenco (19 Nov 2015)

Well if you're joint tenants of the property, and your Dad didn't execute any mortgage documents, your bank are simply unsecured lenders.  You still owe the debt obviously but your bank won't have any valid security interest over the property.


----------



## Bronte (19 Nov 2015)

What do you mean by family home? 
What do you mean the bank 'takes' small amounts per month?
How did this mortgage come about. 
If you co own the property and you took the mortgage, it would seem to me the only thing the bank can go after is your half share.  They can't touch your dad's part if he didn't borrow or co sign for a loan on it. 
Who told you the loan was illegal?  Obviously it's not illegal to give a loan.


----------



## Sarenco (19 Nov 2015)

Bronte said:


> If you co own the property and you took the mortgage, it would seem to me the only thing the bank can go after is your half share. They can't touch your dad's part if he didn't borrow or co sign for a loan on it.



That's only true if the property is held as tenants in common.  If the OP and his Dad hold the property as joint tenants (which is a far more common form of co-ownership) then there is no distinct interest in the property that the OP could grant security over.


----------



## shane44 (19 Nov 2015)

Bronte said:


> What do you mean by family home?
> What do you mean the bank 'takes' small amounts per month?
> How did this mortgage come about.
> If you co own the property and you took the mortgage, it would seem to me the only thing the bank can go after is your half share.  They can't touch your dad's part if he didn't borrow or co sign for a loan on it.
> Who told you the loan was illegal?  Obviously it's not illegal to give a loan.


Hi my mother and father owned the house my mother passed away so my father became full owner until he put my name on deeds as joint owner I was with bos then they sold my mortgage to tanager in April 2014 for less than half of the value the mortgage due bos could of easily repossessed house and got nearly full amount that's owed but they knew there was issue's with the ownership my father passed away in June so my case is not straight forward a sc told me that it would be very hard for any bank to repossess the best thing for them would cut me a deal as it would most likely be a unsecured debt now.


----------



## shane44 (19 Nov 2015)

A sc told me its not straight forward case now that my father has passed away but it shouldn't matter as the bank made a huge mistake and if it is said by a judge that it is a unsecured debt can I ask for my deeds back from bank.


----------



## mf1 (19 Nov 2015)

It is very hard to read your posts because you don't use any punctuation. 

I suggest that you need to have someone look at your deeds and walk you through the different situations you've outlined. 

So: the house was originally owned by both your parents. 
You mother died. 
Your father gave you an interest ( all? or some?) in the property. There must have been a solicitor involved. And a Deed. Or a Transfer. 

You say you raised a mortgage. Are you sure? Is there a chance that you have an unsecured loan only?

It is most unlikely that any bank secured a mortgage on the property, without your father's consent, unless he had transferred the entire legal title to you. 

The senior counsel who gave you the advice may have had difficulty understanding your position. Unless he had access to all the information. 

I don't think the Bank will give you back your deeds.  Is there any prospect of you ever being able to repay the debt? Can you sell  and clear the debt? 
How much is the debt? How much is the house worth?

mf


----------



## shane44 (19 Nov 2015)

In the lrish statue book it saids in section 30 in regarding co ownership  subsection one/two anyone who co owns a property cannot sale lease or get a mortgage on the property without the prior written constent of the other co owner any such dealing is both void in law and equity.


----------



## shane44 (19 Nov 2015)

mf1 said:


> It is very hard to read your posts because you don't use any punctuation.
> 
> I suggest that you need to have someone look at your deeds and walk you through the different situations you've outlined.
> 
> ...


Sorry about fullstops etc but my father put me on deeds as joint full owners with himself, when I took out the mortgage I handed over the deeds to the solicitor and it turns out the bank nor the solicitor done a basic search of who owned the property it seems the bank made a huge mistake this was back in 2003 when the bank's were throwing money at people.


----------



## shane44 (19 Nov 2015)

Sarenco said:


> Well if you're joint tenants of the property, and your Dad didn't execute any mortgage documents, your bank are simply unsecured lenders.  You still owe the debt obviously but your bank won't have any valid security interest over the property.


----------



## Sarenco (19 Nov 2015)

Fully agree with mf1.  It's not really possible to provide any meaningful advice at this remove - a solicitor would really have to review all relevant documentation.


----------



## 44brendan (19 Nov 2015)

Hi Shane! This is certainly not the black or white issue that you are considering. If the deeds of the property are held by the bank, they will hold an equitable interest in the property. Also, if yourself and your dad were joint owners of the property his interest would have passed on to you following his demise. Assuming that BoS never registered a charge on the property they cannot progress for possession. However, they hold a legitimate debt in your name and they also hold the deeds of your property. They can go to Court for a Well Charging Order/Order for Sale on foot of their equitable interest or they may progress for judgment against you and register this against the property. Either way you are going to have to pay them to get your deeds back.
I have a similar  scenario in respect of a customer who deposited his deeds with our bank and we never progressed to register a charge. The client died and the executor requested the deeds back. We refused to return the deeds until the debt was paid. The matter progressed for some time with solicitors for both sides refusing to budge. It did not progress to Court as the associated costs would probably be more than the property was worth. Eventually we agreed a compromise settlement to accept 75% of the value of the property and w/o the balance.


----------



## 44brendan (19 Nov 2015)

As I mentioned in my earlier post it's not an unsecured debt. The Bank will not release your deeds unless the loan is repaid. You should approach hem anyway to request the release of the deeds as there is no harm in asking. Get your solicitor to formally write to them.


----------



## shane44 (19 Nov 2015)

shane kirwan said:


> Thanks for that if it is a unsecured debt what happens about my deeds



Hi thanks for that but the thing is bos never asked for my father's prior written consent before they have me the mortgage,  I have been in arrears since 2009 and they have since sold on my mortgage to a private equity firm for less than half of what I owe I have read in the Irish statute book that once a mortgage is given without consent of other co owner the mortgage is void in law and in equity.


----------



## Bronte (19 Nov 2015)

What did you use the money from the bank for?


----------



## shane44 (19 Nov 2015)

Doing it up, and put most into my business that has since collapsed


----------



## Sarenco (19 Nov 2015)

44brendan said:


> As I mentioned in my earlier post it's not an unsecured debt.



I wouldn't necessarily jump to that conclusion. 

Just because the bank is in possession of the title deeds doesn't necessarily mean that they are entitled to retain same.  You would really have to look at all the relevant documentation before concluding that the property owners intended to create an equitable mortgage or that the mortgage deed executed by the OP was valid in the first place.


----------



## 44brendan (20 Nov 2015)

Hi Sarenco. My point is that there is likely to be no mortgage deed as a solicitor would not have completed one in the name of 1 of the property owners. However the Bank do hold an equitable deposit which is conferred on them purely by the giving over of the title documents. The OP's difficulty now is that the bank will hold on to the deeds until the loan is repaid or alternatively they may take the long and expensive option of progressing for well charging order/order for sale on foot of their equitable deposit. In order to avoid the debt becoming statute barred they are likely to progress for judgment. There is unlikely to be any "free pass" here for the OP.


----------



## Bronte (20 Nov 2015)

shane kirwan said:


> Doing it up, and put most into my business that has since collapsed



Odd to get a mortgage to fund a business.  How much was doing it up and how much for the business.  Are you sure it wasn't a loan versus a mortgage?  You borrowed the money, you owe the money, you agreed to repay it back, they have your deeds, they're unlikely to let you have the deeds, without a mega legal costly fight that you'd probably not win, you have an asset, methinks the bank has you.  

Where are you quoting the statute from? Who told you about that?


----------



## Sarenco (20 Nov 2015)

Hi 44b

Understood but my point is that the bank may not actually be holding the title deeds as an equitable mortgage.  From what the OP has told us, there is at least some doubt as to whether one of the joint property owners consented to the deposit of the title deeds with the bank in the first place.

I certainly agree that this has nothing to do with the validity of the loan itself and the bank could ultimately proceed to seek a well charging order and an order for sale on foot of a judgment mortgage (rather than an equitable mortgage).

If I was in the OP's position, I would keep my head down and let sleeping dogs lie.


----------



## shane44 (20 Nov 2015)

Bronte said:


> Odd to get a mortgage to fund a business.  How much was doing it up and how much for the business.  Are you sure it wasn't a loan versus a mortgage?  You borrowed the money, you owe the money, you agreed to repay it back, they have your deeds, they're unlikely to let you have the deeds, without a mega legal costly fight that you'd probably not win, you have an asset, methinks the bank has you.
> 
> Where are you quoting the statute from? Who told you about that?


Hi thanks for your point of view but I don't think you understand my position so put it short and you can reply. First I was given a mortgage only in my name even though my father owned half the house.no bank or solicitor ever asked about who names were on the deeds I just handed them over as security and the bank gave me the mortgage I knew nothing regarding the legal side of been given a mortgage without prior written consent of co owner or owners. If you look up the Irish statute book and the section on co ownership part 30 I think it is you will see what I mean. No co owner who has interest in same property as the other co owner or owners can lease rent or get a mortgage without prior written consent if it happens it is void in law and equity. That is were I am the bank made a massive mistake that is why they sold my mortgage for less than half of its value to a private equity firm now it's there problem. So they will have to do a deal with me its to much hassle for them.


----------



## elcato (20 Nov 2015)

shane kirwan said:


> I just handed them over as security and the bank gave me the mortgage I knew nothing regarding the legal side of been given a mortgage without prior written consent of co owner or owners.


Funny how you seem to be trying to make sure you do now though. Too little facts are known here and you seem to come accross as someone who is purely trying to slither out of paying your debt.


----------



## shane44 (20 Nov 2015)

elcato said:


> Funny how you seem to be trying to make sure you do now though. Too little facts are known here and you seem to come accross as someone who is purely trying to slither out of paying your debt.


First of all I always pay my debts you lack experience in the law regarding land ownership maybe you should do a bit of reading in the Irish statute book regarding co ownership. Then you will understand. Any here is a saying you should know " the greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about.


----------



## shane44 (20 Nov 2015)

Section 30 in the Irish statute book on co ownership


----------



## Bronte (20 Nov 2015)

shane kirwan said:


> Section 30 in the Irish statute book on co ownership



You mention a solicitor, who hired and paid for the solicitor?

Did you sign a mortgage acceptance form?  How did you get the money physically?


----------



## shane44 (20 Nov 2015)

Bronte said:


> You mention a solicitor, who hired and paid for the solicitor?
> 
> Did you sign a mortgage acceptance form?  How did you get the money physically?


Hi I hired and paid the solicitor I signed what must of been a mortgage acceptance form I am sure, otherwise I would of not got the mortgage it was in 2003. The solicitor paid me from his clients account with a cheque after he took his fee.


----------



## Bronte (20 Nov 2015)

Well you're solicitor must have also been also acting for the bank, and would have signed a document to say he would make sure the legals were in order. Solicitors undertaking I believe.

I think that's been much tightened up now as it was no longer deemed sufficient due to so many rogue solicitors.  I wonder is this another case for their indemnity fund.

Was this a new solicitor or the family solicitor, the one who dealt with your mothers probate, and the transfer to you and your fathers probate?

Still don't see how you are getting out of paying even if they don't have a secured mortgage.  Not when you have an asset.


----------



## Delboy (20 Nov 2015)

shane kirwan said:


> First of all I always pay my debts you lack experience in the law regarding land ownership maybe you should do a bit of reading in the Irish statute book regarding co ownership. Then you will understand. Any here is a saying you should know " the greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about.


Starting to sound very Freeman-esque now.

You mentioned a few posts back how the Banks were throwing money at people in 2003. They didn't throw any at me....but then again I didn't go in to them looking for money like you did!

The Law can be read in many ways, depending on your bias...a bit like the Bible. There's only so much advice you can get here or even from your own legal team. The real test will come in Court as I'd assume the Private Equity fund won't be looking at this in the same was as you seem to be


----------



## HelpingHand (21 Nov 2015)

shane kirwan said:


> Can anyone put a light on this question I co own the family home with my dad I took out a mortgage and used deeds as security I'm in arrears 6 years bank hasn't threatened repossession just takes small amounts per month it turns out the bank never asked my dad for his prior written consent as a co owner for me to get a mortgage I am told the mortgage is illegal is this the case.



From examining section 30 of the Land and Conveyancing Reform Act 2009 it can be seen, the law in on the side of Shane Kirwan. The mortgage is void ab initio and can be proved thus. The fact of the matter is that the bank erred in law in issuing a mortgage to Shane Kirwan, when the security for the mortgage was the deeds of the family home, which, at that point in time, was in co ownership with Mr Kirwan's now deceased Father, without his Father's written consent. Mr Kirwan's Father did not unreasonably withhold his consent, on the contrary, he was never even informed by the bank that there was now a charge on his property. Therefore, the provisions of section 31 (2) (e) of the said Act, do not apply and cannot be relied on by the bank. It can be seen that the law is very clear on the matter.

So, the simple answer to the poster's question is, yes, the mortgage is void and cannot be enforced.


----------



## mf1 (21 Nov 2015)

Helping Hand

Have you read the entire posts?

This was a loan in 2003. The Act is 2009.

I think the OP is clutching at straws. He has a debt to the bank - I don't think there is any dispute about that. OP is just hoping that he can get his Deeds back because of some perceived flaw. 

It is never a good idea to entirely accept a version of events first posted here. Without exception, the first version of events is never the actual version of events by the time it has been teased out!

mf


----------



## cremeegg (21 Nov 2015)

shane kirwan said:


> If you look up the Irish statute book and the section on co ownership part 30 I think it is you will see what I mean. No co owner who has interest in same property as the other co owner or owners can lease rent or get a mortgage without prior written consent if it happens it is void in law and equity.



Surely this looks like a good reason for you to be prosecuted for fraud.


----------



## shane44 (21 Nov 2015)

T


HelpingHand said:


> From examining section 30 of the Land and Conveyancing Reform Act 2009 it can be seen, the law in on the side of Shane Kirwan. The mortgage is void ab initio and can be proved thus. The fact of the matter is that the bank erred in law in issuing a mortgage to Shane Kirwan, when the security for the mortgage was the deeds of the family home, which, at that point in time, was in co ownership with Mr Kirwan's now deceased Father, without his Father's written consent. Mr Kirwan's Father did not unreasonably withhold his consent, on the contrary, he was never even informed by the bank that there was now a charge on his property. Therefore, the provisions of section 31 (2) (e) of the said Act, do not apply and cannot be relied on by the bank. It can be seen that the law is very clear on the matter.
> 
> So, the simple answer to the poster's question is, yes, the mortgage is void and cannot be enforced.


Thank you for your post at last someone can see things and realise what I am saying. How can some posts say I conned the bank's if I gave the deeds as security what the bank and solicitor failed to do was a simple search to see who owned the property if they had there is no way I would have been given a mortgage. My then bank has since sold my mortgage to a private equity firm for less than half of its value they seem to have passed the buck with this mortgage.  Hopefully something can be sorted out soon it's nearly 7years now i would  hope a judge would see that the bank made a blunder again thank you for your insight.


----------



## cremeegg (21 Nov 2015)

shane kirwan said:


> T
> How can some posts say I conned the bank's if I gave the deeds as security



Because the deeds weren't yours to give as security. 

The law you quote is there to protect co-owners from fraud, not to allow you get a loan without having to pay it back.


----------



## Sarenco (21 Nov 2015)

HelpingHand said:


> From examining section 30 of the Land and Conveyancing Reform Act 2009 it can be seen, the law in on the side of Shane Kirwan. The mortgage is void ab initio and can be proved thus. The fact of the matter is that the bank erred in law in issuing a mortgage to Shane Kirwan, when the security for the mortgage was the deeds of the family home, which, at that point in time, was in co ownership with Mr Kirwan's now deceased Father, without his Father's written consent. Mr Kirwan's Father did not unreasonably withhold his consent, on the contrary, he was never even informed by the bank that there was now a charge on his property. Therefore, the provisions of section 31 (2) (e) of the said Act, do not apply and cannot be relied on by the bank. It can be seen that the law is very clear on the matter.
> 
> So, the simple answer to the poster's question is, yes, the mortgage is void and cannot be enforced.



That advice is simply wrong.

As mf1 points out, the Land and Conveyancing Reform Act 2009 came into force after the relevant transaction so is of no relevance.

In any event, Section 30 of that Act says nothing at all about the creation of mortgages so the relevance of this Section to mortgages created after the Act came into force is far from clear.

The bank may well have a difficulty enforcing security in this case and I would repeat my earlier advice to simply let sleeping dogs lie.


----------



## shane44 (21 Nov 2015)

cremeegg said:


> Because the deeds weren't yours to give as security.
> 
> The law you quote is there to protect co-owners from fraud, not to allow you get a loan without having to pay it back.


You miss the whole pinot but that's ok.


----------



## shane44 (21 Nov 2015)

Sarenco said:


> That advice is simply wrong.
> 
> As mf1 points out, the Land and Conveyancing Reform Act 2009 came into force after the relevant transaction so is of no relevance.
> 
> ...


Hi it is a reform act. The previous act states the same regarding co ownership.


----------



## cremeegg (21 Nov 2015)

I understand your point perfectly. The banks gave you a loan without checking that the deeds you gave them as security were yours to give.

Absolutely the bank made a mistake.

But who suffered as a result of this mistake. You didn't. You got a loan for your business.

What action should a court take to fix this mistake?

The lack of understanding here is on your part. You effectively stole the deeds from your father to get a loan from the bank. And then didn't pay back the loan.

If your father were still alive and hostile to you, you could well go to jail for what you did.


----------



## Sarenco (21 Nov 2015)

What previous Act?  Where does it say anything about mortgages?  Why do you think this section has anything to do with the validity of the loan?

Just because you don't like the advice you are receiving doesn't mean that advice is wrong.

If your father didn't consent to the creation of the mortgage then what right did you have to give the title deeds to the bank?

You could get yourself into real trouble here.


----------



## Mrs Vimes (21 Nov 2015)

shane kirwan said:


> T
> 
> Thank you for your post at last someone can see things and realise what I am saying. How can some posts say I conned the bank's if I gave the deeds as security what *the bank and solicitor failed to do was a simple search to see who owned the property if they had there is no way I would have been given a mortgage*. My then bank has since sold my mortgage to a private equity firm for less than half of its value they seem to have passed the buck with this mortgage.  Hopefully something can be sorted out soon it's nearly 7years now i would  hope a judge would see that the bank made a blunder again thank you for your insight.



I sold my mother's car to a garage. If they had even looked at the vlc and at my driver's license they would have seen that we have different first names and it wasn't my car but they messed up and gave me the money.

Now the garage want their money back but I've spent it.


----------



## shane44 (21 Nov 2015)

You really lack understanding. You have perceived I stole the deeds. If that was the case when my father gave me the deeds to put up as security to get a loan to help me out the bank would of contacted my father to ask for his written consent but they failed to do this so you really dont have a clue what your talking about. Don't post  me again your a fool.


----------



## Mrs Vimes (21 Nov 2015)

If your father gave you the deeds then he did consent to the mortgage.

Please don't call me a fool, it will get you banned and then we'd have fewer threads like this!


----------



## cremeegg (21 Nov 2015)

I cannot remember who said that

"the greatest protection of liberty is the single man in pursuit of his rights" 

but it certainly springs to mind here.

Good luck to you Shane, you may even get away with it.


----------



## shane44 (21 Nov 2015)

Mrs Vimes said:


> If your father gave you the deeds then he did consent to the mortgage.
> 
> Please don't call me a fool, it will get you banned and then we'd have fewer threads like this!


I apologise but the issue is the bank has made a huge mistake and now they have sold my mortgage to a private equity firm for less than half its value. If my father didn't want me to have the deeds he wouldn't of giving them simply and why didn't the bank contact my father to look for his consent or contact him to say there was going to be a charge on the property my father was a very kind man and just wanted the best for his kids and we were very close.


----------



## shane44 (21 Nov 2015)

cremeegg said:


> I cannot remember who said that
> 
> "the greatest protection of liberty is the single man in pursuit of his rights"
> 
> ...


I will let you know if I do.


----------



## HelpingHand (21 Nov 2015)

The bank put a charge on a property that you  co owned with your Father.
Your Father never gave his written consent to this.
The security or charge over this property is therefore defective.

Have you brothers or sisters, they could sue the bank for damages for loss of inheritance, they could well be joined by the fund that bought your mortgage from the bank.


----------



## shane44 (21 Nov 2015)

HelpingHand said:


> The bank put a charge on a property that you  co owned with your Father.
> Your Father never gave his written consent to this.
> The security or charge over this property is therefore defective.
> 
> Have you brothers or sisters, they could sue the bank for damages for loss of inheritance, they could well be joined by the fund that bought your mortgage from the bank.


Hi I have two brothers. Do you think the bank didn't repossess because they knew that they couldn't that's why they sold it on for less than half of what is due. And now the new private equity firm is just taking what I can afford every month.


----------



## HelpingHand (23 Nov 2015)

shane kirwan said:


> Hi I have two brothers. Do you think the bank didn't repossess because they knew that they couldn't that's why they sold it on for less than half of what is due. And now the new private equity firm is just taking what I can afford every month.[/QUO
> 
> 
> 
> The banks usually sell loan books that are not performing at discounts, this is quite common and usual. However, it would be a give, that the security over the mortgages are valid and enforceable. This is not the position in your case. In relation to your two brothers, both could sue the bank for damages as they have lost their share of your Father's inheritance when he died ( half the value to the house you live in would have been liable to a three way split between you and your two brothers.) This is not possible at the moment because the bank has a charge over the whole house, which was put on the house, without your Father's written consent. Bank's have large legal departments and this is their error. You, presumably, on the other hand, are not a legal professional and just filled in your standard mortgage loan application. A court would and should have no problem granting restitution to your two brothers, it might even direct the bank to vacate the charge.


----------



## mf1 (23 Nov 2015)

HelpingHand said:


> The bank put a charge on a property that you  co owned with your Father.
> Your Father never gave his written consent to this.
> The security or charge over this property is therefore defective.
> 
> Have you brothers or sisters, they could sue the bank for damages for loss of inheritance, they could well be joined by the fund that bought your mortgage from the bank.




Absolute. Nonsense. 

mf


----------



## HelpingHand (23 Nov 2015)

mf1 said:


> Absolute. Nonsense.
> 
> mf


I disagree, but you are entitled to your twopennies worth, can you please add some reasoning to your post, as such exclamations serve no one, least of all the original poster.


----------



## Gerry Canning (23 Nov 2015)

Shane,
From threads so far.
1. Bank and/or solicitor give mortgage without clear authority from joint owners.
That now means that should bank wish to enforce judgment on the deed they hold , that it would be very difficult for them.
2.It does not mean the loan/mortgage is illegal , you got a loan under flawed security , you remain liable for said loan/mortgage.
3.Should you end up in an arrears /default position the Bank will have difficulty using the deeds as saleable security.
4. I do not see {fraud} as quoted here , naivety and poor practise is not fraud?

If you end up in conflict with lender , I would expect any court to take a dim view if you tried  (not saying you are) to use illegal title as a defence.
Bottom line , you owe money, lender has poor security to squeeze you with .

Mrs Vimes ,
Naughty of you to sell car that wasn,t yours and trouser the money.
Can you get mother to sign off and sort this, because this has the whiff of fraud.


----------



## 44brendan (23 Nov 2015)

Gerry Canning said:


> That now means that should bank wish to enforce judgment on the deed they hold , that it would be very difficult for them.


just to correct you on this Gerry, judgment is a separate process and has no relevance to the validity of the mortgage. Once a judgment has been obtained it can be registered against any property that the debtor has an interest in. However, you are most likely referring to possession proceedings rather than judgment and in that instance you would be correct.
I would agree that there is no inference of fraud here. I.e. it's not similar to the anology of selling the mother's car. (which I suspect was used for the purposes of illustration only by Mrs V)



Gerry Canning said:


> Bottom line , you owe money, lender has poor security to squeeze you with .


Absolutely!! No bank will simply return the title deeds without the debt being substantially cleared!! The OP is looking for advice here but appears to only accept advice that agrees with his own conclusions!


----------



## shane44 (23 Nov 2015)

44brendan said:


> just to correct you on this Gerry, judgment is a separate process and has no relevance to the validity of the mortgage. Once a judgment has been obtained it can be registered against any property that the debtor has an interest in. However, you are most likely referring to possession proceedings rather than judgment and in that instance you would be correct.
> I would agree that there is no inference of fraud here. I.e. it's not similar to the anology of selling the mother's car. (which I suspect was used for the purposes of illustration only by Mrs V)
> 
> 
> Absolutely!! No bank will simply return the title deeds without the debt being substantially cleared!! The OP is looking for advice here but appears to only accept advice that agrees with his own conclusions!


Thank you all for replys just one point I am open to all advice given and take it on board. It's just going on to long now nearly 7years and the bank sold my mortgage in 2014 to a private equity firm and now it's a problem for them I just don't want another 7years I want it to come to an end. That is in the lap of the gods as the stress is to much.


----------



## 44brendan (23 Nov 2015)

Shane. You need to step back from this and realize that taking the stance that this is an "illegal" mortgage will get you nowhere. I have worked in the banking system for many years and have come across many similar cases but none have them have resulted in the client walking away with the deeds of the property. You do have some leverage with Tangier on foot of the security defects but you will need to deal with them and come to some kind of compromise agreement on the facility.


----------



## Sophrosyne (23 Nov 2015)

Hi Shane,

How much do you currently owe and what is the value of the property?

Is this your only property?


----------



## Bronte (23 Nov 2015)

This is the first time you've mentioned stress.  So far on here you look like you are trying to pull a fact one, hence the negative responses.  Yet you haven't given us all the details.  Your income, the 'mortgage' your outgoings, marital status, value of house and any other assets you have.   Who is living in the house.

 If you genuinely cannot afford it then the advice will be different.  

And stop thinking about who the loan has been sold onto and how much of a reduction the got, it is not relevant.


----------



## Gerry Canning (23 Nov 2015)

Brendan 44, you are correct I was getting myself confused.Indeed I think your advice is sound,
................
Shane , Looks like if you want closure you will have to make the first move.
From posters Bank has security issue and you have a poorly secured debt against you.

Contact them with a reasoned affordable long-term solution and they may just accept that.
If they don,t accept what any 3rd party would see as reasonable then its a legal long -haul.

Debts don,t disappear even with iffy security an d I gather you want closure, so good luck.


----------



## shane44 (23 Nov 2015)

44brendan said:


> Shane. You need to step back from this and realize that taking the stance that this is an "illegal" mortgage will get you nowhere. I have worked in the banking system for many years and have come across many similar cases but none have them have resulted in the client walking away with the deeds of the property. You do have some leverage with Tangier on foot of the security defects but you will need to deal with them and come to some kind of compromise agreement on the facility.


Thanks I know I still owe the money and that's fine but I just can't afford full mortgage amount and my bottom line is can they repossess and if not will they accept an amount that I can pay.


----------



## shane44 (23 Nov 2015)

Sophrosyne said:


> Hi Shane,
> 
> How much do you currently owe and what is the value of the property?
> 
> Is this your only property?


243000 I owe.value is 200000 and yes this is my only property


----------



## 44brendan (23 Nov 2015)

No they can't repossess. If I was offering advice I would say to write them a letter clearly explaining the fact that the security is in joint names and say nothing about the death of the co-owner. You may not be in a position to offer them a settlement amount for the full debt but you can offer an affordable payment. They will need income/expenditure details so I would complete a mortgage SFS and enclose this with the letter.


----------



## shane44 (23 Nov 2015)

44brendan said:


> No they can't repossess. If I was offering advice I would say to write them a letter clearly explaining the fact that the security is in joint names and say nothing about the death of the co-owner. You may not be in a position to offer them a settlement amount for the full debt but you can offer an affordable payment. They will need income/expenditure details so I would complete a mortgage SFS and enclose this with the letter.


Thanks Brendan44  my position is a mess as there is also a judgement mortgage against me from boi. That's 3years now so what might happen regarding that it is a real messy case.


----------



## Bronte (23 Nov 2015)

shane kirwan said:


> Thanks Brendan44  my position is a mess as there is also a judgement mortgage against me from boi. That's 3years now so what might happen regarding that it is a real messy case.



Shane this kind of information is really important, you have a banker, a debt expert, a solicitor etc on this thread and you give info in dribs and drabs.  Explain your total mess otherwise you're wasting your own time most of all.


----------



## shane44 (23 Nov 2015)

Bronte said:


> This is the first time you've mentioned stress.  So far on here you look like you are trying to pull a fact one, hence the negative responses.  Yet you haven't given us all the details.  Your income, the 'mortgage' your outgoings, marital status, value of house and any other assets you have.   Who is living in the house.
> 
> If you genuinely cannot afford it then the advice will be different.
> 
> And stop thinking about who the loan has been sold onto and how much of a reduction the got, it is not relevant.


Thank you I am in a real mess as there is also a judgment mortgage against me that's 3years now I owe 243000 value is 200000 I live with my young daughter and just can't afford full amount each month full amount is 980 I can afford 300.


----------



## shane44 (23 Nov 2015)

Bronte said:


> Shane this kind of information is really important, you have a banker, a debt expert, a solicitor etc on this thread and you give info in dribs and drabs.  Explain your total mess otherwise you're wasting your own time most of all.


Ok I was just a bit nervous telling this. So as you are aware of the joint co ownership issue I also have a judgment mortgage for 65000 on the property. I live with my young daughter I have no other assets I am unemployed but am going back to work as self employment soon. The amount that is due each month is 980 but can only afford realistically 200-300pm.


----------



## shane44 (23 Nov 2015)

shane kirwan said:


> Ok I was just a bit nervous telling this. So as you are aware of the joint co ownership issue I also have a judgment mortgage for 65000 on the property. I live with my young daughter I have no other assets I am unemployed but am going back to work as self employment soon. The amount that is due each month is 980 but can only afford realistically 200-300pm.


Hi also the private equity firm put my name forward for mortgage to rent scheme I was accepted by dcc, so when I went to have forms signed by a solicitor that's when the legality of joint ownership popped up and they said that they couldn't sign of the paperwork. In the meantime the equity firm contacted me in August saying they had a buyer for the house a housing association and where selling my mortgage for 188000 and started to tell me :look Shane this deal is done we have a buyer your on your last option we can get over the co ownership issue this has to be done now. It was a mad phone pressure call but now their a bit nicer to me maybe because they know it's not as easy for them as first seemed. To think they were going to try and pass on the buck to someone else once they got their money.


----------



## shane44 (23 Nov 2015)

44brendan said:


> No they can't repossess. If I was offering advice I would say to write them a letter clearly explaining the fact that the security is in joint names and say nothing about the death of the co-owner. You may not be in a position to offer them a settlement amount for the full debt but you can offer an affordable payment. They will need income/expenditure details so I would complete a mortgage SFS and enclose this with the letter.


Thanks just one thing seen as this firm is not a bank and dont plan on staying in lreland for long they said 5to7 years and I have 25 years left on mortgage and if they can't repossess what would be the options available to me or the firm. Thank you.


----------



## honest (24 Nov 2015)

shane kirwan said:


> it turns out the bank never asked my dad for his prior written consent as a co owner for me to get a mortgage





shane kirwan said:


> why didn't the bank contact my father to look for his consent or contact him to say there was going to be a charge on the property



The banks gave the o.p. a loan without checking the deeds at all. It threw money without doing its homework or due diligence.  Someone elses name was also on the deeds, who did not consent to the mortgage.  That is a pretty big"mistake" to make.

The bank made a "mistake". It reminds me of another "mistake" a bank made in the lending bubble. They approved a loan and lent money when they should not have done so. Perhaps someone in the bank wanted his / her bonus or to reach his / her targets for lending. It was not just the odd builder or engineer or tradesperson who "made a mistake" or took a shortcut during the bubble years.
Many years later, after the lending bubble burst, the bank ended up knowing its security was only worth a small fraction of what they once thought it was.  The borrower could not repay and they done a deal and the bank wrote off most of the mortgage. It was a foreign bank, their past "mistakes" or carelessness was an embarrassment to them and they just wanted to move on, with their jobs, pensions, bonuses and reputation as intact as possible.


----------



## shane44 (24 Nov 2015)

honest said:


> The banks gave the o.p. a loan without checking that the deeds without doing its homework or due diligence.  Someone elses name was also on the deeds, who did not consent to the mortgage.  That is a pretty big"mistake" to make.
> 
> The bank made a "mistake". It reminds me of another "mistake" a bank made in the lending bubble. They approved a loan and lent money when they should not have done so. Perhaps someone in the bank wanted his / her bonus or to reach his / her targets for lending. It was not just the odd builder or engineer or tradesperson who "made a mistake" or took a shortcut during the bubble years.
> Many years later, after the lending bubble burst, the bank ended up knowing its security was only worth a small fraction of what they once thought it was.  The borrower could not repay and they done a deal and the bank wrote off most of the mortgage. It was a foreign bank, their past "mistakes" or carelessness was an embarrassment to them and they just wanted to move on, with their jobs, pensions, bonuses and reputation as intact as possible.


Hi can I ask was the bank bos as that's who I was with before they sold it on.


----------



## honest (24 Nov 2015)

It was a foreign owned bank, that is all I can say,sorry. All the banks require the borrower to sign non-disclosure agreements in such cases. Anyway you are not dealing with BOS now, you are dealing with whoever they sold the loan to.


----------



## shane44 (24 Nov 2015)

honest said:


> It was a foreign owned bank, that is all I can say,sorry. All the banks require the borrower to sign non-disclosure agreements in such cases. Anyway you are not dealing with BOS now, you are dealing with whoever they sold the loan to.


Ah ok no problem I understand thanks for post


----------



## HelpingHand (24 Nov 2015)

I agree with Brendan 44, Tanager cannot repossess from you, as the security they have is defective and they know this, otherwise they would have went for the jugular by now. They are what they are, a vulture fund. They bought your mortgage at a 58% discount from BOS. They do deals as they are realists, given the discount that they bought your loan at, together with the flawed security issue, you might be able to come to some amicable arrangement.


----------



## shane44 (24 Nov 2015)

HelpingHand said:


> I agree with Brendan 44, Tanager cannot repossess from you, as the security they have is defective and they know this, otherwise they would have went for the jugular by now. They are what they are, a vulture fund. They bought your mortgage at a 58% discount from BOS. They do deals as they are realists, given the discount that they bought your loan at, together with the flawed security issue, you might be able to come to some amicable arrangement.


Thank you as you might see my conversation with Bronte I am in a real mess my mortgage amount is 980 per month but realistically I can pay 200-300 do you think this might be acceptable by tanager if they know repossession would be difficult for them.


----------



## HelpingHand (24 Nov 2015)

What is the monthly interest only amount on your mortgage ?


----------



## shane44 (24 Nov 2015)

To tell you the truth I don't have a ballpark figure but my amount due full each month is 980, my percentage is 1.5 the total amount due is 243000 in arrears of 20700 and can only realistically pay 200-300 and I have 24 years left.


----------



## shane44 (24 Nov 2015)

shane kirwan said:


> To tell you the truth I don't have a ballpark figure but my amount due full each month is 980, my percentage is 1.5 the total amount due is 243000 in arrears of 20700 and can only realistically pay 200-300 and I have 24 years left.





shane kirwan said:


> To tell you the truth I don't have a ballpark figure but my amount due full each month is 980, my percentage is 1.5 the total amount due is 243000 in arrears of 20700 and can only realistically pay 200-300 and I have 24 years left.





HelpingHand said:


> What is the monthly interest only amount on your mortgage ?


I paid 185 last month and they accepted and said if I can give them something every week. I have always ingaged with them and previously bos I think that is very important to keep them updated.


----------



## shane44 (24 Nov 2015)

shane kirwan said:


> I paid 185 last month and they accepted and said if I can give them something every week. I have always ingaged with them and previously bos I think that is very important to keep them updated.





shane kirwan said:


> To tell you the truth I don't have a ballpark figure but my amount due full each month is 980, my percentage is 1.5 the total amount due is 243000 in arrears of 20700 and can only realistically pay 200-300 and I have 24 years left.


It's funny I am talking about this and their just off the phone to me asking could I give them anything so they accepted 25euro


----------



## 44brendan (24 Nov 2015)

shane kirwan said:


> I paid 185 last month and they accepted and said if I can give them something every week. I have always ingaged with them and previously bos I think that is very important to keep them updated.


Just back on this now Shane. let me just summarise your position:

Property is in joint names. 1 owner deceased so as it was in joint names you are now the sole owner although title does not reflect this.
You current live in this property so it is your PDH. Value is c200k with total debt on the property of 243k. i.e. substantial negative equity.
Your income is restricted to SW and you have a child to support. Tangier own the loan and are putting pressure on you for payments. You can pay them c200/300pm.
You are entitled to protection under MARP as property is your PDH.
Given that scenario plus the title issue Tangier are not in a position to re-possess the property. Your preference is to remain living in the property.
Given that scenario I would advise paying Tangier c200 pm. They are fully aware of their weak position here and provided you are making an affordable payment each month they are unlikely to progress more aggressively against you. The judgment registered against the property is a further problem for them as it will likely take priority over any interest they have in the property. They will continue to accept an affordable amount and this should be your ongoing strategy.


----------



## shane44 (24 Nov 2015)

44brendan said:


> Just back on this now Shane. let me just summarise your position:
> 
> Property is in joint names. 1 owner deceased so as it was in joint names you are now the sole owner although title does not reflect this.
> You current live in this property so it is your PDH. Value is c200k with total debt on the property of 243k. i.e. substantial negative equity.
> ...


Brendan44 thank you this helps alot you have a good insight into these issues. All the posts are helpful and thank all who reply I am at cracking point regarding this and need to calm down. The people who look for info on this site expect honest replies by people who know certain fields well.this my first time to post anything like this and was abit wary. Thank you again for your help.


----------



## Leo (25 Nov 2015)

shane kirwan said:


> The people who look for info on this site expect honest replies by people who know certain fields well.this my first time to post anything like this and was abit wary. Thank you again for your help.



Think you got there in the end, but you need to be aware that this can be a contentious topic, and responses to questions can only ever be as good as the information you provide in your question and subsequent follow ups. Also, as with any internet forum, we get a very wide spread of posters, from those with extensive professional experience in the field, to those with a passing interest, and even those caught up in the topic who have little to no experience and a false understanding of the topic or underlying legislation. All though, generally post with an intention of helping you with the issue at hand.

When evaluating the weight you should put on a particular response, take a look at that poster's history on AAM, and make a judgement on their level of expertise. If they have little in the way of history, or have proven to be incorrect on similar topics in the past, then treat their responses accordingly. Where the poster is an acknowledged expert in the area, with credentials/ qualifications well established, be careful not to dismiss their advice if it does not align with what you would like to hear.

Remember, all these posters, professionals and amateurs alike are posting here of their own free will and for no reward other than the occasional sense of satisfaction of being able to help a complete stranger deal with their issues.


----------



## Bronte (26 Nov 2015)

shane kirwan said:


> Brendan44 thank you this helps alot you have a good insight into these issues. All the posts are helpful and thank all who reply I am at cracking point regarding this and need to calm down. The people who look for info on this site expect honest replies by people who know certain fields well.this my first time to post anything like this and was abit wary. Thank you again for your help.



I do agree Shane that you need to calm down and now we see the actual situation you are in it makes things a lot clearer.  One bit of advice, if that is your real full name I suggest you ask for it to be changed so the bank can not identify you. Or start a new thread with a different name if necessary. 

Now that we know the real situation, one parent family, on the dole, trying to keep a roof over your head we can see what you are at, we can also see that you have been doing your best and in those circumstances most of us have no issue with you trying your best to sort it out to your benefit.  Well done by the way on trying to start a business, that's a very brave thing to do, and it failed, but you will learn from that experience, and well done too on telling us you are going to try again to be self employed.


----------



## shane44 (26 Nov 2015)

Bronte said:


> I do agree Shane that you need to calm down and now we see the actual situation you are in it makes things a lot clearer.  One bit of advice, if that is your real full name I suggest you ask for it to be changed so the bank can not identify you. Or start a new thread with a different name if necessary.
> 
> Now that we know the real situation, one parent family, on the dole, trying to keep a roof over your head we can see what you are at, we can also see that you have been doing your best and in those circumstances most of us have no issue with you trying your best to sort it out to your benefit.  Well done by the way on trying to start a business, that's a very brave thing to do, and it failed, but you will learn from that experience, and well done too on telling us you are going to try again to be self employed.


Thank you yourself and others have given great advice and its a great help I will let you know how I get on with the bank going forwar.If i dont hear from you may you and yours have a peaceful and healthy Christmas and may your god go with you.


----------



## Bronte (26 Nov 2015)

You too Shane. 

And I like people who beat banks.  You might not think it but my ire against Irish banks has not abated.


----------



## shane44 (26 Nov 2015)

Bronte said:


> You too Shane.
> 
> And I like people who beat banks.  You might not think it but my ire against Irish banks has not abated.


I never asked how you knew that I was talking to a banker a debt expert and a solicitor in my threads. This is all new to me you see and it was helpful thanks again.


----------



## so-crates (26 Nov 2015)

shane kirwan said:


> I never asked how you knew that I was talking to a banker a debt expert and a solicitor in my threads. This is all new to me you see and it was helpful thanks again.



Hang around here a bit and you soon get to work out a few things  Some will have explicitly stated their profession for one reason or another (e.g. saying something like "From my experience dealing with xxxx in yyyy..."). Some will include their business website in their sign off, especially those who work in certain pertinent areas. Some will be regular posters on specific topics where they have - as Leo pointed out - helped a large number of people over a long period of time. It is quite amazing how much experience, education and intelligence there is freely available to consult on here. It is an invaluable resource. They may not always agree, and sometimes people get things wrong or simply do not know, but the collegiate nature of consulting a forum allows for a much broader range of views, experiences and considerations. It doesn't and can't replace professional, specific advice but it can help enormously.


----------



## Gerry Canning (26 Nov 2015)

Shane ,
Give us area of country you live in , and some poster should give you a competent debt advisor to talk to.
(be prepared to pay a few bob for that advice,don,t rely on pub type advice !)


----------



## shane44 (26 Nov 2015)

Gerry Canning said:


> Shane ,
> Give us area of country you live in , and some poster should give you a competent debt advisor to talk to.
> (be prepared to pay a few bob for that advice,don,t rely on pub type advice !)


South inner city Dublin.


----------



## Thirsty (27 Nov 2015)

Shane, the one final bit of advice I would give you is not to talk to them on the phone.  If they call you, tell them to write to you and make sure you write back & acknowledge their letter.  That way there is always a paper trail.


----------

