Bank's receiver discharging himself

B

Bronte

Registered User
Messages
15,166
One of the main banks appointed a receiver to a property last year. This year the receiver has contacted the owner to state that have now signed a deed of discharge. So now they are no longer having anything to do with the property.

Why would the bank discharge the receiver, or could it be that the receiver has decided on this.

The receiver told the borrower that the bank was going to take another approach, what could this be?
 
The receiver can either discharge himself/herself due to specific circumstances or more usually due to an instruction from the Bank appointing him/her. It is unusual as if the Bank were intending to sell the property the receiver would usually take posession and sell under his letter of appointment. Usually the discharge would be on the basis of an offer from the lener to voluntarly sell or surrender the property or offer the bank an alternative repayment source!
 
44brendan said:
Usually the discharge would be on the basis of an offer from the lener to voluntarly sell or surrender the property or offer the bank an alternative repayment source!
Click to expand...

This has not happened, none of those, and they are being paid zero as there are no tenants in the property. It's the receiver who informed the borrower, not the bank.
 
Pretty unusual so! Receiver may have taken this option unilaterly as the Bank would be unlikely to withdraw him without some other option being on the table!
 
Hello,

Is there something either (seriously) wrong with the property physically, its location or even the title to the property, to prevent it being suitable for sale (or even possibly leased, in the absence of sale) ?

There may also be a problem with the mortgage documentation wich the Receivers solicitors have now spotted, which may prevent the Receiver from being able to be appointed, carry out certain basic duties etc.
 
No there is nothing wrong with location, property or title as far as the owner is aware. There is apparently a small issue in relation to a developement levy not being paid by the builder. But that's not going to cause any problem as it could be built into the sale price.

Here is an off the wall idea that the borrower has. The loan, and other loans were transferred by the bank to the Central bank. So legally the bank doesn't have title, and therefore they cannot legally hire the receivers. Does that sound plausable?

The borrower does not think there is anything wrong with the mortgage documentation.
 
The loan, and other loans were transferred by the bank to the Central bank.
Click to expand...
Don't understand this!! It does'nt make any sense. No loans are transferred to the Central Bank!!
 
The bank may be going to offer the property back to the borrower and come to an amicable arrangement . The borrower can suggest this to the bank anyway - nothing to lose!!!!!
 
MrEarl said:
There may also be a problem with the mortgage documentation wich the Receivers solicitors have now spotted, which may prevent the Receiver from being able to be appointed, carry out certain basic duties etc.
Click to expand...

This seems like the most likely reason. A problem with the documentation used to appoint the Receiver.

Is the borrower making any payments on their mortgage?
 
44brendan said:
Don't understand this!! It does'nt make any sense. No loans are transferred to the Central Bank!!
Click to expand...

Well I don't understand it either.

Robert, rent has not improved everywhere, outside Dublin certainly not. In any case the rent wouldn't have even paid half the cost of the monthly amount the receiver was being paid by the bank.

Burgess, nothing is being paid to the bank, and hasn't been in about a year (not sure how long, but will clarify when next I speak to the borrower). What problem with the mortgage documentation? The borrower doesn't think there is a problem.
 
Bronte said:
What problem with the mortgage documentation? The borrower doesn't think there is a problem.
Click to expand...

It could be anything.

The mortgage must give the lender the right to appoint a Receiver. Not all mortgages contain this.

Is it or was it a principal private residence? I don't think that they can appoint receivers to PPRs.

Brendan
 
Bronte said:
... What problem with the mortgage documentation? ....
Click to expand...

Get a solicitor to run their eye over:

- The mortgage documentation
- The loan documentation
- Ask for a copy of the deed of appointment, which was used by the Bank to appoint the receiver
 
The receivers solicitor confirmed to the bank that the title is a good saleable title, only issue being the developers bond, but the solicitors state that can be simple solved. It's a title analysis report.

The receiver want to hand back the keys via another company that they hired, some kind of security company.

In relation to receivers, you not only have them appointed by a bank, but they hire a security company in turn, then there is the lock changing company and estate agents (big companies) - that is put out to tender - etc etc

The security companies do things like drive by checks, all charged back of course, then they arrange insurance.
 
44brendan said:
Don't understand this!! It does'nt make any sense. No loans are transferred to the Central Bank!!
Click to expand...

I think you are a banker, does this make sense then, that the loans aren't transferred but that the bank transferred all rights title and interest to the CBI. I don't profess to understand how banks and the CBI works, nor do I understand what happened with all loans during the sorting out of the Celtic Tiger mess. Maybe the borrower is misunderstanding what is going on, but they are just trying to understand how after all this time the receiver is suddently discharging himself.
 
Hi Bronte

No loans were transferred to the Central Bank at any time.

The Central Bank has lent money to the main banks and the CB has taken the mortgage books as security. But this does not compromise the rights of the banks to take action on those mortgages.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
the CB has taken the mortgage books as security.

But this does not compromise the rights of the banks to take action on those mortgages.
Click to expand...

The second bit I understand, but if the mortgage books are held as security by the CB what does that actually mean legally?
 
Nothing really!! Forget the CB for the purposes of this query. They are not and will not be involved in any decision related to a specific loan. And just by way of information, the loan book of any bank has not been transferred over to the CB.
 
44brendan said:
Nothing really!! .
Click to expand...

Well it must mean something.

_________________

Incidentally in relation to the other company hired to cut off the water, gas and esb, they were questioned by the owner on how they, without qualifications could touch the gas or electricity, so now that the receiver is quitting, and ordered this company to put everything back working etc. But this company is now only touching the water and ignorning and denying they ever had anything to do with the gas or electricity.
 
Did you know the receiver needs to be appointed by both the Mortgagee and mortgagor ,but when you sign your mortgage deed the is a power of attorney clause that the Bank seem to think they can sign for you,but Bank are not correct as Power of attorney can only be given by a separate independent FORM that conforms with the prescribed FORM in the power of Attorney act.

.1996 power of attorney act section sec16

Effect of general power in specified form.

sec.16. Third Schedule , or in a form to the like effect expressed to be made under this Act, shall operate to confer on the donee or donees of the power acting in accordance with its terms authority to do on behalf of the donor anything which the donor can lawfully do by attorney.

The FORM:.1996 power of attorney act section 3

.................................................................




Did you also know the receiver is a agent of both the mortgagee and mortgagor and as such can be discharged by both.

This is Republic of Ireland statutes but I would it is same for most common law jurisdiction.

the following are not repealed up to 22 July 2016:

2009 land and conveyincing act sec108
(6) The receiver may be removed, and a new receiver may be appointed, by the mortgagee or the other person in writing.
(explanation: other person = mortgagor)

..............................

1881 conveying act

24.—(1.) A mortgagee entitled to appoint a receiver under the power in that behalf conferred by this Act shall not appoint a receiver until he has become entitled to exercise the power of sale conferred by this Act, but may then, by writing under his hand, appoint such person as he thinks fit to be receiver.

(2.) The receiver shall be deemed to be the agent of the mortgagor; and the mortgagor shall be solely responsible for the receiver's acts or defaults, unless the mortgage deed otherwise provides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top