Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[mollypockets]

After reading the above,I would take a quick guess and say that explains the reason the lender does not

complete the deed,,,,,,,,,they go on to complete it when they sell it again,,,,

[mollypockets]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]49460[/ATTACH]

 

SP,

 

have a quick look at this deed,,,,,,its crying out to be signed,sealed and delivered

[steampowered]

There is a space for signature by the borrower and signature of the witness on that document. If it is then sent to the land registry for registration or handed to the lender that would be delivery.

[mollypockets]

there is an area for specific signature by the lender to sign,,,,,,,AFTER,,,,,,he receives,,,,,HE RECEIVES,,,,not lends all the moneys

[mollypockets]

what do you think apple?????

[mollypockets]

the above states that the attorney completes the deed by initials (signs it,makes a mark,,,,means the same thing really) and there you have it,,,,,,,the banksters dirty Deed is done

 

 

OOhh btw,the attorney is the lender of course

[Peterbard]

Just come across this, sorry if it has been posted before. Sums up quite nicely why Bibby has to do with the borrowers execution of the deed.

 

http://www.glovers.co.uk/news_article412.html

 

News

December 2011

Signed, but not delivered - why merely signing a deed does not make it enforceable

 

A recent decision in the High Court in Bibby Financial Services and others -v- Magson and Others [2011] EWHC 2495 (QB) has highlighted an important issue in relation to signing an agreement as a deed.

 

In this case, personal guarantees were signed and witnessed as deeds by two individuals and handed to the other party (Bibby Financial Services) as an act of good faith to illustrate their intention to proceed with the transaction. The deeds had been amended by hand, and it was intended that such amendments would be incorporated into final versions of the deeds which would then be signed again. The amended versions of the deeds were never signed and Bibby Financial Services sought to rely on the signed deeds which had been amended by hand.

 

The High Court decided that the deeds were not enforceable, as they had not been intended to be delivered as deeds in accordance with the meaning of Section 1 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. To be delivered as a deed, there must be an indication by the person signing it that he wishes to be bound by the terms in the document.

 

This case highlights the need to ensure that simply signing a deed and handing it to the other party is insufficient. There must be a separate indication that the person signing intends to be bound by a deed in order for it to be ‘delivered’. Parties may seek to prevent any difficulties in this respect by making it clear in the deed that it is intended to be delivered on the date it is signed, or by obtaining separate written confirmation that the parties intend it to be delivered.

[applecart]

what do you think apple?????

 

 

This is what I think MollyP:

 

http://www.crippslink.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1438:bibby-v-magson-when-is-a-deed-delivered&catid=88:commercial-law&Itemid=626

 

 

From it, I prefer the up to date understanding of 'delivery' that applies today and the authority upon which it relates to - without ambiguities:

 

 

 

 

WHEN IS A DEED DELIVERED?

 

 

 

Historically, delivery occurred when the document was received bythe other side. As the law evolved, the concept of delivery became the point atwhich it could be shown that it was intended that the document would becomebinding. This is still the test used today.

 

 

 

For companies, a deed is deemed to have been delivered inaccordance with the provisions of the Companies Act 2006. However, no deemed delivery provisions apply to individuals.

 

 

 

The link to the case of 'bibby' is here:

http://www.crippslink.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1438:bibby-v-magson-when-is-a-deed-delivered&catid=88:commercial-law&Itemid=626

 

 

Apple

 

 

 

 

 

[Peterbard]

Yes more conformation that the deed need only be signed by the borrower and delivered

[bhall]

 

 

As the law evolved, the concept of delivery became the point at which it could be shown that it was intended that the document would becomebinding. This is still the test used today.

 

At last the penny has dropped, I have only been telling you for nearly a year that delivery is about the intent to be bound by the deed and not the deed being signed by the grantee (in the case of a mortgage deed the lender)

 

There is also the bit at the end

 

ADVICE TO TAKE AWAY FROM THIS CASE

 

Whilst the case adds nothing new to the law surrounding the execution of deeds, it is a timely reminder that delivery of a deed should not be overlooked.

[Peterbard]

At last the penny has dropped

.

 

I wouldn't count on it Ben

[bhall]

I wouldn't count on it Ben

 

Wait for it, the usual yes but, no but response is expected at anytime

[applecart]

Yes more conformation that the deed need only be signed by the borrower and delivered

 

Surely, you must know by now - I do not look to confirm any of your posts Dodge - or heaven forbid anything that Ben posts ; )

 

Here you go guys - you both mysteriously missed this bit:

 

 

"However, no deemed delivery provisions apply to individuals"

 

 

Apple

[applecart]

there is an area for specific signature by the lender to sign,,,,,,,AFTER,,,,,,he receives,,,,,HE RECEIVES,,,,not lends all the moneys

 

Yes, but, no, but.......... I noticed that too - I can also confirm that it will be signed once they get all the money in too ; )

 

Apple

[bhall]

Surely, you must know by now - I do not look to confirm any of your posts Dodge - or heaven forbid anything that Ben posts ; )

 

Here you go guys - you both mysteriously missed this bit:

 

 

"However, no deemed delivery provisions apply to individuals"

 

 

Apple

 

And there you go, right on schedule

 

Nope didn't miss it

[bhall]

Is It Me?

 

I consider it more likely than not that whilst you are not logged in, you are still reading this thread. Given the time and energy that Apple has put in on behalf, don't you think it is only fair that you inform Apple of the decision of the Property Chamber ?

 

By allowing Apple to continue to post these fanciful ideas, without you at least telling Apple, seems very unfair on Apple, don't you think ?

 

I am still DUMBSTRUCK that Is It Me? is so slient

[applecart]

At last the penny has dropped, I have only been telling you for nearly a year that delivery is about the intent to be bound by the deed and not the deed being signed by the grantee (in the case of a mortgage deed the lender)

 

There is also the bit at the end

 

ADVICE TO TAKE AWAY FROM THIS CASE

 

Whilst the case adds nothing new to the law surrounding the execution of deeds, it is a timely reminder that delivery of a deed should not be overlooked.

 

Typically Ben

 

You've only gone and highlighted only the bit to do with the 'execution of the deed' - yes, but no but - you have left out the bit to do with 'delivery'.....which says....yes, but, no but.....:

 

"it is a timely reminder that delivery of a deed should not be overlooked."

Apple

[bhall]

Typically Ben

 

You've only gone and highlighted only the bit to do with the 'execution of the deed' - yes, but no but - you have left out the bit to do with 'delivery'.....which says....yes, but, no but.....:

 

"it is a timely reminder that delivery of a deed should not be overlooked."

Apple

 

lol, I wish you could grasp what delivery actually related too.

 

Why don't you be a good little Apple and wait for Is It Me? to post details of the decision - I am afraid nothing you can say, can change the decision that has already been issued by the Property Chamber. You remember the Property Chamber don't you ? It is that place you have encouraged others (but not yourself) to make an application to, to determine if a mortgage deed is void if it has not been signed by the lender.

 

Now Is It Me?, as his friend's application was heard on 20 Jan should now be in possession of that decision, that you have actively encouraged people to apply for.

 

Why is Is It Me? now after so long, gone completely silent on the issue ?

 

Surely, if any of your fanciful ideas were in the least bit successful, Is It Me? would be letting the world know -

 

 

Even you must be considering given his silence that you might just have got it all wrong ?

[Peterbard]

Typically Ben

 

You've only gone and highlighted only the bit to do with the 'execution of the deed' - yes, but no but - you have left out the bit to do with 'delivery'.....which says....yes, but, no but.....:

 

"it is a timely reminder that delivery of a deed should not be overlooked."

Apple

 

Naught Ben, you seem to left out the bit where it says that it must be signed by the lender as well............... no hang on a minute

[mollypockets]

Deeds

legal documents executed under seal

short slang term for "Registry of Deeds"

[Peterbard]

lol, I wish you could grasp what delivery actually related too.

 

Why don't you be a good little Apple and wait for Is It Me? to post details of the decision - I am afraid nothing you can say, can change the decision that has already been issued by the Property Chamber. You remember the Property Chamber don't you ? It is that place you have encouraged others (but not yourself) to make an application to, to determine if a mortgage deed is void if it has not been signed by the lender.

 

Now Is It Me?, as his friend's application was heard on 20 Jan should not be in possession of that decision, that you have actively encouraged people to apply for.

 

Why is Is It Me? now after so long, gone completely silent on the issue ?

 

Surely, if any of your fanciful ideas were in the least bit successful, Is It Me? would be letting the world know -

 

 

Even you must be considering given his silence that you might just have got it all wrong ?

 

Perhaps the decision is so certain there is no need for confirmation. After all there was NO DEFENSE apparently.

[Peterbard]

Ever see the bit from the "holy Grail"(Monty Python) where the knight is getting his arm and then his legs chopped off, "only a flesh wound he says".

 

Brought it to mind, don't know why.

[bhall]

Naught Ben, you seem to left out the bit where it says that it must be signed by the lender as well............... no hang on a minute

 

Let me put my Apple, rose tinited glasses on, I hear they let you see things that aren't there and I will take another look

[bhall]

Perhaps the decision is so certain there is no need for confirmation. After all there was NO DEFENSE apparently.

 

That must be it

[applecart]

lol, I wish you could grasp what delivery actually related too.

 

Why don't you be a good little Apple and wait for Is It Me? to post details of the decision - I am afraid nothing you can say, can change the decision that has already been issued by the Property Chamber. You remember the Property Chamber don't you ? It is that place you have encouraged others (but not yourself) to make an application to, to determine if a mortgage deed is void if it has not been signed by the lender.

 

Now Is It Me?, as his friend's application was heard on 20 Jan should not be in possession of that decision, that you have actively encouraged people to apply for.

 

Why is Is It Me? now after so long, gone completely silent on the issue ?

 

Surely, if any of your fanciful ideas were in the least bit successful, Is It Me? would be letting the world know

 

'good little apple'.........???

 

Please behave yorself and conduct yourself in a mature manner Ben ; )

 

I do grasp the concept of delivery - Just accept; like the big boy that you purport to be (given you refer to me as a little apple) and take on board that my opinion is different to yours.

 

You stick to what you know Ben; and I'll stick to what I know - ok?

 

SP put this point rather well I thought - let's do the same hey and 'respectfully disagree' ; )

 

Apple