My question is my response to the judge shooting himself in the foot. Have court rules been breached by the judge accepting insufficient evidence? If the evidence is insufficient does the defendant have the right to appeal for the evidence to be re-submitted?

thank you for this info. In the meantime your PC application is being given chance to progress... The judge also has the chance to accept the familiarise with the Chamber Rules. If its the first time hes come across it then fair play to his reaction but he's got to accept it... finally... I assume the judge will refuse the affadavit and request a suitable one on your appeal? Can you do this in writing or do you have to wait for the next hearing to make an appeal?

This doesn't address the situation where a deed is used for bilateral assent... as is the case of every mortgage sale agreement I have looked at.... or in fact anywhere i have seen a deed used for the transfer of interest or any disposition of land (apart from a mortgage deed). I do hope the lender is not planning to use a book intended for Dummies as evidence...

Apple I would certainly value your opinions on this topic. One of our primary assertions is that a deed is a specialty contract and requires the signatures of all assenting parties - though this will not always make sense i.e. to express a unilateral intent (if such an intent is really possible if it affects another...). My present understanding is that a mortgage is made by agreement to benefit two parties which makes it, without doubt, a 'specialty' contract.

I struggled right up until the very moment it all made sense. Worthwhile to persevere.

I have just revisited the definition of full title guarantee. Borrowers have disposed of the whole interest. http://www.practicalconveyancing.co.uk/content/view/9559/1242 "Where a seller transfers the property with full title guarantee, the following covenants for title are implied: That the seller has the right to dispose of the property in the manner purported; That the seller will at his own cost do all that he reasonably can to give the transferee the title he purports to give; That the seller is disposing of his whole interest in the property, where that interest is registered, and of the whole lease, where the interest is leasehold (clearly this implied covenant may need to be amended on a sale or lease of part)";

Despite my questions, a unilateral deed to express a unilateral intent makes sense and in this form it does not appear to be a contract. However my views differ from bhalls when considering the nature of a mortgage deed. It witnesses an exchange - an agreement - a legal interest for a financial consideration - that was defined by prior mortgage agreement. The deed is being executed under contractual arrangement. I also perceive a structural relationship between the deeds in the mortgage sale agreement. A primary deed has been signed by all assenting parties. Observance of law in clear view. Close attention appears to have been paid to compliance with both LPMA1989 1 and 2. However the agreement also contains sub-deeds, some bilateral and some unilateral. Unilateral ones are signed only by the grantor but of course is within the scope of the compliant agreement.

Apple, This is not a discussion on mortgage sale agreements but of deeds so I believe its in scope. The mortgage sale agreeement contains both bilateral and unilateral deeds. Please can you share your opinion on this to further assist my understanding of the requirements of a deed. Do you agree with bhall that if a deed expresses only unilateral intent then it does not need to to be executed by the beneficiary... What happened to its specialty contract status in this instance? I can see problems with this as it opens up the possibility of abuse where a party may be included in a deed against their will or knowledge... However the mortgage sale agreement does include some unilateral deeds.

It is absurd to suggest there is no obligation on the lender at the time the deed is signed. There is an unwritten charging clause in my deed that is nonetheless real: "I grant you the charge on the condition that you loan me the 'money'. The nature of the deed (bilateral) is characterised by the nature of the agreement if not by the lenders sleight of hand... i.e. it is not a unilateral intention as in the case of a seller granting an SPV attorney in a deed derived from a deed that has already been executed and delivered by all parties. I notice that the lender/SPV mortgage sale agreement deed meets the requirements of both LPMPA1989 section 1 and 2 quite nicely. Is it a deed? Is it a contract? Is it both? Well they have certainly gone to great lengths to meet both sets of requirements...

Same applies to the deed if the advance has not been made when the deed is signed.

The mortgage is made by agreement. The agreement is a precondition of the deed and a condition of the deed. Come on Ben... Do you really believe granting a mortgage is a unilateral intent of the borrower? Is he just kinda hoping the lender will be kind enough to stump up the loan advance at some point? The lender's obligation is in plain sight.

There you go.

Well it all depends if you follow the bhall's flawed logic that a mortgage deed does not oblige a lender to do anything i.e. it is a unilateral intent not a bilateral agreement. bhalls assertion is that a lender has no obligation witnessed by the deed so it is a unilateral intent even though this contradicts to the very reason for it's existence. He didn't appear to address my point that borrowers dont just execute deeds for fun, and has steered clear of the "signed" (for borrowers) vs "executed and delivered" (for trustees and the like) discussion. And apparently lender's obligations can just be taken out if they aren't fulfilled anyway. Its not a void deed when this happens... I've been trying to remain open minded to all views on here this is stretching things a little too far...

...and, as you have stated elsewhere, even if it does, the obligations may just be removed if the lender hasn't signed and the obligations weren't fulfilled.... ok im happy with that now... thank you....

A mortgage deed is a bilateral agreement with obligations on lender and borrower. To suggest anything else is effectively legal masturbation.

Thank you for your time addressing this line of inquiry. I am satisfied that the deed is granted on condition of an obligation from the lender.

When is the deed signed? Before or after the advance is secured in escrow? Is a mortgage deed conditional on there being an advance? consideration?

You are twisting words you are not posting ideas on the system "we" have or that "we want to" have. Where does we come into this. You have been opposing every aspect of this thread. Is that it is because it is entirely incorrect. Evey aspect? "You" are presenting your version and you have created no opportunity for "we", and your logic appears to have collapsed with the revelations of the mortgage sale agreement. i.e. bilateral mortgage deeds for bilateral agreements. Do you accept or reject that a mortgage deed places an obligation on the lender by the mere fact of its existence? What doe the statute say about the very purpose of a mortgage deed?

Ben what is your argument here? You have said it yourself a bilateral deed is when obligations exist on both sides. Borrowers are not just signing of legal interest in their properties (or is that their entire legal estate?) as an act of unconditional benevolence. Come on lets step out of the legislation for a moment and apply some common sense...

Ben the mortgage deed itself is the obligation on the lender. How can you (or anyone) suggest otherwise?I believe you may appear to be getting lost in words... Please state the purpose of a mortgage deed. Is it conditional on any factors not stated in the charge clause. Of course it is.

Ben a mortgage deed is saying: "i grant you legal interest, you grant me an advance". Are you suggesting otherwise? You stated in another thread that there may be situations when, if a grantee obligation is not fulfilled the judiciary may simply seek to simply remove an obligation rather than void a deed. This is not making logical sense.

A bilateral deed for legal interest in exchange for a mortgage advance does have to even mention the condition of the advance. A mortgage deed fundamentally defines bilateral obligations. Your statements are now fully supporting Apple's argument. The very existence of the deed indicates the pre-condition of the mortgage advance as an obligation on the lender. As you suggesting the advance has already passed when the deed is signed? You have also failed to address the "signed as a deed" vs "executed and delivered as a deed". "signed" is not the same as "executed and delivered" and this document highlights that very well. Up to now I have been staying very open minded to your opposing views but this document is revealing serious errors in your judgement... Ben, A mortgage deed is a bilateral contract. A specialty contract. I can see little value in throwing more statutory references at this one....

How is a mortgage deed unilateral? A borrower grants interest in return for consideration. It is clearly a bilateral obligation. Has the advance already been forwarded at this point or is the deed signed ahead of the advance? Where was the advance (consideration) assumed to be past at the point of signing the deed? This also contradicts what you have said elsewhere about a lenders signature for any obligation for further advances being a moot point if they have not been made. You actually said that a judge would likely just remove the obligation. Just remove an obligation from a deed because the obliged didn't sign it?

Please can you comment on (i) deeds are bilaterally signed by assenting parties as executed and delivered (ii) minor or supplementary deeds signed by one party are explicitly stated to be executed and delivered (iii) mortgage deeds are only "signed as a deed". (iv) When did signed become "executed and delivered" in the case of a borrower and why the difference?

I am confused this is a mortgage sale agreement for Northern Rock PLC - which changed its name to NRAM. Northern Rock was not a registered company in 2011.