When can a lender apply for a summary judgment?

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
54,687
According to today's Irish Times

Danske Bank most active in taking Irish debtors to court



Danske seven times more likely than pillar banks to sue Irish borrowers
Click to expand...

I presume that this does not apply to family homes?

When does a lender apply for summary judgment?

If it's secured, why don't they just appoint a receiver?
 
I believe a summary judgment is the first step, it 'proves' the amount is owed. (Currently the situation with O'Reilly)

Receivers can not be appointed in all cases, I think it depends on your mortgage documentation.
 
They can only get summary judgement where no defence is lodged.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
According to today's Irish Times



I presume that this does not apply to family homes?

When does a lender apply for summary judgment?

If it's secured, why don't they just appoint a receiver?
Click to expand...

There will be some strategy, I imagine, about choosing what legal route to take to secure payment or possession.

It may be something to do with (some of ) the incumbents in the Courts who won't readily make repossession orders. If Danske issue Summary proceedings ( where the debt is certain and there is no Defence) then, if the Defendants do not enter an Appearance, they are deemed not to be contesting the case and the Bank can automatically apply to the Central Office for Judgment. A Judgment Mortgage can follow.

mf
 
Just to clarify - what does it mean - there is no Defence?

A Defence is a reason why money is not due. Mostly, the money is due and there is no Defence. There is personal distress, upset and circumstances but they are not Defences.

mf
 
I understand that 'no defence' means there is no appearance by/representation for the defendant in court; it doesn't mean the defendant has no (good) defence strategy/ reason for not paying the debt. Unfortunately, because of prohibitive costs in the Irish and other legal systems or out of embarrassment, people tend not to 'defend' such cases if they are 'broke'
 

No appearance is not no defence. Having a legitimate defence would be very difficult to prove in the case of a mortgage. People are going into court nowadays without any legal teams so there will be no cost.

Can you give an example of a legitimate defence to a bank's claim that one owes them money in a mortgage situation.
 
Irregularities involving the FHPA 1976. One spouse not giving permission.
 
How would that make a difference? Happened to a close friend. X ran up debts and forged her signature.
 
The Fhpa requirements are covered in advance of drawdown, there can be no defence with that example.
 
The only reason why a secured lender would progress for a summary judgement is where the security is insufficient to cover the outstanding debt. Where land/buildings are held as security the mortgage documentation gives the lender the rights to seek reposession of the property in Court, or where this documentation includes the right to appoint a fixed asset receiver they can appoint a receiver to take posession of the property.
Any debtor who is sued in Court is entitled to present a defense. If a judgement is uncontested it will be automatically granted. However if a defense is entered the case must go a a hearing. There are many reasons as to why a party could enter a defense. Such as incorrect loan documentation, fraud, mistake, errors, compulsion to sign documentation and even apparently frivolous rationale as to why the debt is not legitimate. Legal representation in Court is not mandatory but usually recommended.
Danske have become more agressive recently due to the time pressure of winding up its non core book. There are opportunities here for some borrowers to cut deals with the Bank, as Danske is anxious to close cases as quickly as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register