Similarly the length of the bankruptcy period will not be a significant factor for the Bankrupt in whether he can stay in his house, since as stated above, that depends on whether he has the capacity in bankruptcy to pay his mortgage and the 3 main benefits of the reduction will not significantly benefit the Bankrupt to make an unsustainable mortgage sustainable.
I see. It does seem however, that the Court can do so, with reference to recent amendments to Section 85 of the Bankruptcy Act, specifically insertions to subsection 3 of the Act. Unless I am reading it wrong?
Just to clarify, my line of questioning here is an attempt to explore possible outcomes regarding a family home, where voluntary sale or repossession has failed to occur post adjudication and with regard to the following extract:
If it's in positive equity, the OA will be obliged to sell the house where he might otherwise have given the spouse more time to get the money together to buy out her interest.
In the above scenario (which may not be uncommon), the debtor has been discharged from bankruptcy, however the family home will now be re-vested by the Official Assignee to the debtor, along with the outstanding mortgage?
This is not correct. Bankrupts need to understand that they won't emerge from bankruptcy after 3 years with a home in negative equity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?