No payment in three years - granted a one year stay on order for possession

https://www.independent.ie/irish-ne...possession-of-south-dublin-home-37479280.html

A couple, who owe €336,000 arrears on a double mortgage totalling €670,000, have been granted a stay of almost a year on the re-possession of a Dublin property, still the home of one of them.

Ms Kendlin told Judge Jacqueline Linnane that she was undergoing a hospital treatment that was envisaged to last for a year and she had asked for a 12-months stay on the re-possession order.

Mad stuff.

Brendan

If they haven't paid since 2015 and will not for another year that's 5 years if no payments. Article also says bank is unlikely to get costs, yet the man has a good job. Would the bank not go after him?

If she's undergoing extensive long term treatment I can see why the order was made. It's already been years and a huge amount that is never going to be paid back, so what is the difference now in real terms?

Issue is complicated with couple being separated and joint owner not living there.

It's not that complicated.

They paid nothing in 3 years. That should be an automatic order for possession with, at most, a three month stay.

Brendan

If the court grants a stay of a year should the state not be liable for the costs of providing the accomodation for the year.
It's pretty nice of the court to give away somebody elses property for a year.

Whatever way you look at this situation there are complications:-
1. Ill Health.
2. Separation.
3. Nil repayments in 3 years.
4. Court procedure.
5. Law of the Land.

1. Who decides what stage/degree of illness? What's the Prognosis?
2. Are divorce proceedings started? How long is couple separated?
3. What amount of money or amount of payments is "acceptable"?
4. Court Procedure = Law unto itself.
5. Law of the Land - do we have legal eagles on the side of (a) mortgagee and (b) the lending institution?

. . . and somebody said "It's not that complicated." Another suggested the state should pay the mortgage for the year. Great! Let the innocent Irish taxpayers pay up, once again.

Hi Leper

You are introducing complications which are simply not relevant.

She has paid nothing in 3 years. She lives in a big house free of charge. Everything else is irrelevant.

She should have been put out in a short time. As Qwerty pointed out, if the state wants to house her in a big house free of charge, that is up to the state. They should not force a lender to do so.

Brendan

I can't understand how they won't be chased for costs if at least one has a good job - why is this? We often hear of people being chased for money afterwards so why not in this case.?

Also they should have been out of that house long go. It's unbelievable. No wonder mortgage rates are high.

Leper said:

Another suggested the state should pay the mortgage for the year. Great! Let the innocent Irish taxpayers pay up, once again.

Click to expand...

You misunderstood my point
If the state says that the people can live there rent free for a year should it not be the state that pays the bill, rather than the bank and its customers. And I don't think the taxpayers should be paying. I think the courts should say you haven't paid in 3 years, you have a month to get out.

I totally agree she should have been kicked out a few years ago BUT I was simply pointing out that there was a complication involved that isn't involved in other cases, sadly this isn't the worst case we've seen, not even close.