Bank sold house 60% of its value and pursuing owner for balance

Status
Not open for further replies.
Having been educated by posters on quite a few occasions and having in a few cases been correctly chided for my views can I request all chill out ,please.
This is an open talk shop ,not definitive judgments !
................
From reading posts it looks like mr 60% has an arguable case against Mr Bank.
If mr 60% is being hard pressed by Mr Bank it seems that for small money and minimal cost he can issue summons against Mr Bank.
It also appears that Mr Bank will be slow to press on (my view is that even if Mr Bank win there is no money in mr 60%)

So maybe my advice (gleaned from what is posted) is take mr bank to court?
 
Gerry Canning,

Love to see Bronte actually contribute something positive to the thread rather than having a go. I agree with you that Dermot's friend has nothing to lose.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Descart,

I think Bronte highlights that in the vast majority of cases Mr Bank and indeed our system is loaded to favour Mr Bank.
I am more than inclined to agree with that.

I understand your points and would not advise mr 60% to proceed if he held chaseable assets ( I assume he doesn,t) .
I think mr 60% can afford (forgive the pun!) to sue if Mr Bank keeps after him.
 
Gerry Canning,

This is one of Bronte's posts on the matter.

Bronte said:
How does it matter what the bank sold the portfolio/properties to this new company/fund. All the matters is that a borrower owes X. House achieves Y. Borrower now owes X - Y = Z.

Isn't the whole point of these large sell offs that there is good and bad. And they will go after any borrower for the maximium shortfall where that borrower has a salary or assets.
Click to expand...

I do not think this incorrect post by Bronte does anything but misinform readers of the thread that receivers can sell your property for any price they like, as it is you, the borrower, who have defaulted on the loan agreement. There is settled law on the matter, which somewhat redresses the significant imbalance. I was merely pointing out this fact and actually trying to give some constructive information to the original poster.

In fact, maybe mortgage deeds between consumers and the banks could be open to challenge under the unfair terms directive 93/13/EEC, worth investigating I think.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Descart said:
Bronte,

If you do not remember what you said in a previous post, I will refresh your memory. You asked can you link us to an Irish court case where one succeeded in taking on the receivers, this I did. You also alluded to your very own sibling and partner who managed to usurp the receiver not once, but twice. Thus proving that the little man can take on the receivers and win. I do not understand what point you are trying to make.

Again, I call on you to answer my one question to you, what would you do if you were in Dermot's friends shoes ?, with over 10,000 posts under you belt, other viewers to this forum and myself await your enlightening response.
Click to expand...

I've no idea why you are attacking me. Dermot asked for all views and indeed he thanked all of us. If he has an issue with what I posted he can come back to me and he's been on here long enough to know and expect questions from me. He said he couldn't answer and I accept that, but it does mean we do not have the full story. In particular I'd like confirmation that an exact same house in the estate is on the PPR for 40% more in the same time period.

Do you have an issue with how many posts I've done, why is this mentioned by you constantly. Did I ever hold myself out as a consumer champion. I don't appreciate your tone as I don't understand the vitriol that seems to underline it?

I wouldn't be surprised if now this post and yours are deleted so I'm probably going to regret writing it (and it won't be me that reports it, I only report trolls or spam)

I simple asked you for a court case that proves a receiver has been taken to task where the property was undersold, when you mentioned one, I took the time to investigage and low and behold you're now saying that case isn't proving that but is proving one can take on receivers. That was a very very specific case but it does not show what I asked. So I'll ask again

Do you have a court case in Ireland, recently, where a borrower was able to prove a receiver acted illegally in selling a property for much less than it was worth.

I'm sure this would be of help to Dermot should he decide to go the legal route. I realise you've listed losts of cases, settled laws and EU directives etc but an actual case would be much more helpful and I really really do not understand how you referred to the infavour Fry Foley case, as though you are in the know, and then when I bothered to read the case (no I didn't read all of it) and some analysis I see it was more to do with an issue with how an receiver was appointed than anything else. I do not hold myself out to be a legal expert either.
 
Last edited:
Descart said:
Gerry Canning,

This is one of Bronte's posts on the matter.



I do not think this incorrect post by Bronte does anything but misinform readers of the thread that receivers can sell your property for any price they like, as it is you, the borrower, who have defaulted on the loan agreement. There is settled law on the matter, which somewhat redresses the significant imbalance. I was merely pointing out this fact and actually trying to give some constructive information to the original poster.

In fact, maybe mortgage deeds between consumers and the banks could be open to challenge under the unfair terms directive 93/13/EEC, worth investigating I think.
Click to expand...

I NEVER EVER said that a receiver can sell a property for any price they like. But I would agree that one is highly likely to get a lot less for a house/home if you let a receiver sell it rather than undertaking the task onself, as in a voluntary sale, which is what I've advised on here many times. In addition when you have a receiver, you run the risk of sky high fees for everything. The most expensive auctioneer, the most costly locksmith, the dearest advertising etc.
 
Descart said:
Bronte,

If you do not remember what you said in a previous post, I will refresh your memory. You asked can you link us to an Irish court case where one succeeded in taking on the receivers, this I did. You also alluded to your very own sibling and partner who managed to usurp the receiver not once, but twice. Thus proving that the little man can take on the receivers and win. I do not understand what point you are trying to make.

Again, I call on you to answer my one question to you, what would you do if you were in Dermot's friends shoes ?, with over 10,000 posts under you belt, other viewers to this forum and myself await your enlightening response.
Click to expand...

I actually think my sibling etc acted illegally but the whole thing is such a mess and there's the land league and all sorts so I cannot fully make head nor tail of it. They have made themselves such a nuisance that locksmith, receiver, estate agent won't go near it, but still the bank won't take them and they are now corresponding direclty with the banks legal team and are on first name terms with the banks counsel !
 
Bronte,


Here to remind you, is your actual post,
Bronte said:
They are? And maybe you could link us to an actual Irish court case where one succeded in taking on the receivers? I see the rich and fully legally qualified Mr. O'Donnell with all the tricks in the book, lost his house, but it hasn't been sold yet presumably, maybe he'll be taking a new case later.
Click to expand...

Sardonic post to say the least, and also not the question you stated you posted originally in your immediate posts above, a bit of a backtrack I believe, and manipulation of the original question thrown in for good measure, but if that your game your welcome to it.

It's Dermot friend that has the problem with the receiver, if you bother to read the content of the posts. I have spoken with Dermot in conversation mode and given him advice, I don' t intend to post same on a public forum that the bank's have access to.

Bronte, your not a consumer champion, your not a legal expert, what exactly are you ?

And by the way, good job at getting the original thread off topic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Descart, you're going from hero to zero with your relentless pursuit of Bronte. This was a good post from Dermot where ordinary folk like Bronte can contribute. You should have made it clear you only want to hear from qualified individuals who have experience in this matter to reply. This is a public forum from what I gather where you don't need letters after you name to converse. Don't ruin a good topic.
 
I'm with Bronte to be honest (and also don't understand Descarte's attacks on her either).

The friend of OP borrowed money, failed to pay it back, had the securing asset taken off them and sold, and the bank is perfectly entitled to chase them for the difference as the house did not sell for enough to settle the debt.

Could the bank have got more for the house? Almost certainly, if they invested time, money and effort to get this. Was that worth their while? Not usually - they are not trying to be property investors.

While I can understand the bank selling it for a bit cheaper, to get a quick sale, I cannot think they would deliberately, drastically, underselling it to 60% of its value as the chances of getting money back from someone who has already defaulted is low. So I'd also be sceptical that's the case, and sorry it that offends OP who obviously believes this to be exactly the case. However if it is the case then o would definitely think it's worth getting legal advice.
 
Don't send me PMs Descart, if you have something to say to me, do it here in the open. Have I your permission to quote your untrue PM?

I have absolutely no idea why you have such a problem with me, I fight and debate with loads of people on here, but in general I don't think I hold grudges or have any real issues, but if you have something you want to get off your chest, do it here.
 
Descart has given some insightful and pertinent case law in relation to the duties of receivers towards the mortgagor, which a few posters have found extremely useful. Bronte on the other hand has not. I believe Descart has been banned from the site, which is sad really, as Bronte is well up to the challenge and by her own admission "fights and debates with loads of people." The AAM site will be a little less colourful and informative without her. The phrase " cutting off one's nose to spite the face " springs to mind.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I certainly hope that's not the case. Descart may have gotten a little carried away with emotions, but banning is pretty draconian. A word from the mods would have sufficed.
 
I agree.

Descart was the only one on this thread that gave at least a basis for legal argument, which although may have been too late for Dermot’s friend may have been worthwhile to AAM viewers in similar situations.

If everyone accepts what is, nothing would ever change.
 
Sophrosyne said:
Descart was the only one on this thread that gave at least a basis for legal argument.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ.

Sarenco said:
Hi Dermot

In answer to your original question, yes, a receiver has a positive duty to a borrower to take reasonable steps to obtain the best price in the market where he exercises a power of sale. The fact that the relevant loan may have been acquired by the party appointing the receiver at a discount, either as part of a bundle of loans or otherwise, is not a relevant consideration in assessing whether or not a receiver has discharged his duty to a borrower.

For commercial property or large scale residential blocks, there will often be a discount associated with a receiver sale. This is because a receiver will offer no warranties to a buyer (as to planning, etc) but I doubt this fact would have a meaningful impact on price in the context of a one off house sale.

The next question, of course, is what meaningful steps your friend can take in the circumstances? Proving that any property was sold at a discount to its fair market value is rarely straightforward. However, in my opinion, your friend would be well advised to consult with a solicitor to assess the likely success of any action for breach of duty by the reciever and the possibility of obtaining a stay on the debt recovery proceedings pending the resolution of this action.
Click to expand...

In any event, there is no justification for attacking or abusing other posters.
 
Sarenco said:
I beg to differ.



In any event, there is no justification for attacking or abusing other posters.
Click to expand...

You can beg all you like, but the fact is Sophrosyne is correct, you are not. Do you wish to qualify your remark " I beg to differ".
 
Asphyxia said:
Do you wish to qualify your remark " I beg to differ".
Click to expand...

Not really.

Sophrosyne stated that "Descart was the only one on this thread that gave at least a basis for legal argument". However, I would suggest that I had already given Dermot the same substantive advice on the question of a receiver's duty to a mortgagor.
 
You provided no case law references and advised Dermot's friend to go a see a solicitor. " Bravo." So, no, it was not the same substantive advice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top