Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[IS IT ME?]

Well £29.00 well spent lol

[bhall]

Ben - thanks for taking the time to sort of answer my questions. I'm trying to find the page where you've posted up this part of Harlsbury Law. I want to see for myself. What pages of volume 77 am I looking for?

 

Hello TimetogoRam

 

Not a problem.

 

I will let you know the exact page numbers when I get home (either Sunday night or during the day Monday) - However, to enable what I posted to be independently verified, I quoted which volume, section and subsection the information I quoted was from.

 

Using that information if you are attending a library today, you should easily be able to find what I have quoted. ;-)

[bhall]

Taken from Ben post on the other thread: "Halsbury's Laws of England/mortgageicon (VOLUME 77 (2010) 5TH EDITION)/1. DEFINITION AND CLASSIFICATION/(1) IN GENERAL/104. Legal mortgages."

 

and then...in relation to 'deeds'...you need volume 13 the 2007 're-issued' version....

 

Taken from Ben's post on the other thread: "Halsbury's Laws of England/DEEDS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS (VOLUME 13 (2007 REISSUE))/1. DEEDS/(3) EXECUTION OF A DEED/(ii) Formalities of Execution under the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989/33. Signing"

 

There you go TimetogoRam, Apple has been kind enough to highlight the specific section you need to look for in each particular volume. Thanks Apple

[bhall]

After all it is Ben's integrity and credibility that we seek to protect here - not ours ; )

 

Apple

 

lmao, I am touched by your "concern" about my integrity. However, as touching as it is your "concern" is not necessary.

 

I am looking forward to your response when it is independently confirmed what I have posted is accurate lol

[bhall]

Well £29.00 well spent lol

 

That is a complete bargain, considering a complete edition retails for several thousands of pounds.

 

Good on you for finding it so cheap. Look forward to Is It Me? of all people confirming the accuracy of the quoted extracts lol

[bhall]

Apple ,

Don't worry I am going to order the Book we need and check for myself, Ben as always states things then never backs them up.

As he has already' so called' posted up the parts he has already broken copyright any way! so I don't know why his not done it.

And yes Ben I 've heard of Halisburys and its only the volume that deals with mortgages that I need not all of them lol

 

Citienb; thank you for your post but its not what we are looking for, all that is is a fly sheet on it and the link to the site which is just used by solicitors????? or people in the legal prof or another side lol wink wink.

 

Didn't you previously post somewhere that you knew some "high up" solicitor or barrister ?

 

Why not call them, a five minute phone call will confirm what I have posted ;-)

[applecart]

That is a complete bargain, considering a complete edition retails for several thousands of pounds.

 

Good on you for finding it so cheap. Look forward to Is It Me? of all people confirming the accuracy of the quoted extracts lol

 

I think you'll find that Is It Me is humouring Ben ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

lmao, I am touched by your "concern" about my integrity. However, as touching as it is your "concern" is not necessary.

 

I am looking forward to your response when it is independently confirmed what I have posted is accurate lol

 

I think you will find that my concern for your integrity is not misplaced Ben......you can 'style' it out as much as you like.....

 

Our Man Sequenci is at the library today - he will get us a hard copy of the information that you are not willing to supply - intending that we rely on your 'word'.....which as you must realise by now has proved to be somewhat 'suspect' to-date (imo)... Sequenci also has access to a legal database.... so, until we get confirmation.....I remain concerned for your credibility and integrity...genuinely ; )

 

Failing that TTGR is also attending the library - so, would you be good enough just to state the 'page no's' from the volumes you have referred to please?

 

Surely that's not too difficult for you to just 'look' and then post up the page No?

 

 

Apple

[bhall]

I think you will find that my concern for your integrity is not misplaced Ben......you can 'style' it out as much as you like.....

 

Our Man Sequenci is at the library today - he will get us a hard copy of the information that you are not willing to supply - intending that we rely on your 'word'.....which as you must realise by now has proved to be somewhat 'suspect' to-date (imo)... Sequenci also has access to a legal database.... so, until we get confirmation.....I remain concerned for your credibility and integrity...genuinely ; )

 

Failing that TTGR is also attending the library - so, would you be good enough just to state the 'page no's' from the volumes you have referred to please?

 

Surely that's not too difficult for you to just 'look' and then post up the page No?

 

 

Apple

 

I am at this precise moment unable to provide the exact page number as I am not at home (as I stated in my response to TimetogoRam). Halsbury's is to large and bulky for me to carry around with me, just to satisfy your concern about its content.

 

However, the information posted in terms of volume and section should be sufficient for anyone visiting a library or who has access to confirm what has been posted ;-)

 

As for your concern for my integrity, it is only the Apple fan club that questions my integrity and I feel no need or compulsion to satisfy their doubts in the extracts of what I have posted from Halsbury's. Believe it or disbelieve it - you are free to make that decision.

 

If any member of the site team is concerned about my integrity please let me know and I will provide evidence to a member of the site team of the content of Halsbury's - upon my return home.

 

Either way it does not change the fact that the quotes posted are word for word quotes from the issue year, edition, volume and section of Halsbury's quoted. ;-)

 

 

Your concern about Halsbury's not supporting your fanciful ideas is noted though.

Edited November 29, 2013 by bhall

[bhall]

I think you'll find that Is It Me is humouring Ben ; )

 

Apple

 

That is a shame, I was looking forward to Is It Me? confirming what I had posted lol

[applecart]

I am at this precise moment unable to provide the exact page number as I am not at home (as I stated in my response to TimetogoRam). Halsbury's is to large and bulky for me to carry around with me, just to satisfy your concern about its content.

 

However, the information posted in terms of volume and section should be sufficient for anyone visiting a library or who has access to confirm what has been posted ;-)

 

As for your concern for my integrity, it is only the Apple fan club that questions my integrity and I feel no need or compulsion to satisfy their doubts in the extracts of what I have posted from Halsbury's. Believe it or disbelieve it - you are free to make that decision.

 

If any member of the site team is concerned about my integrity please let me know and I will provide evidence to a member of the site team of the content of Halsbury's - upon my return home.

 

Either way it does not change the fact that the quotes posted are word for word quotes from the issue year, edition, volume and section of Halsbury's quoted. ;-)

 

 

Your concern about Halsbury's not supporting your fanciful ideas is noted though.

 

I hear you.

 

Why would you only supply the info to the site team.....we only want the page No here..... you have already supplied the purported quoted word of Halsbury.....

 

Are you seriously going to say - the page No is an issue Ben??

 

I am doing all I can to assist you confirm once and for all.... with our assistance .... that the detail I post is a 'fanciful idea'......and yet you won't give us the page No's.....??

 

Perhaps the site team will be good enough to give us the page no's then when they get the 'evidence' from you???

 

Apple

[ims21]

 

If any member of the site team is concerned about my integrity please let me know and I will provide evidence to a member of the site team of the content of Halsbury's - upon my return home.

 

 

Not necessary bhall. There are no issues on your integrity as far as we are concerned.

[bhall]

Not necessary bhall. There are no issues on your integrity as far as we are concerned.

 

Thank you Ims21 that is very much appreciated.

[bhall]

I hear you.

 

Why would you only supply the info to the site team.....we only want the page No here..... you have already supplied the purported quoted word of Halsbury.....

 

Are you seriously going to say - the page No is an issue Ben??

 

I am doing all I can to assist you confirm once and for all.... with our assistance .... that the detail I post is a 'fanciful idea'......and yet you won't give us the page No's.....??

 

Perhaps the site team will be good enough to give us the page no's then when they get the 'evidence' from you???

 

Apple

 

Apple

 

If you don't believe what I have posted is accurate or if you think I have added my own words to the extracts posted (as you have implied "shoehorned in") - continue on that premise. I won't be losing any sleep over your concerns over my integrity.

 

Continue to post your thoughts. Don't worry about what I have said is stated in Halsbury's - continue as you were ;-)

[applecart]

Apple

 

If you don't believe what I have posted is accurate or if you think I have added my own words to the extracts posted (as you have implied "shoehorned in") - continue on that premise. I won't be losing any sleep over your concerns over my integrity.

 

Continue to post your thoughts. Don't worry about what I have said is stated in Halsbury's - continue as you were ;-)

 

Enough said ......LOL ; )

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

Bhall,

No I only need that one, I am touched by your opinion of me thank you but don't jump the gun just yet lol.

[IS IT ME?]

Ims21

So you know ball then???

Or is it????.

You have never taken any one else's word on here!

Thank you.

[ims21]

Ims21

So you know ball then??? Nope

Or is it????. Is it what?

You have never taken any one else's word on here!

bhall has provided the source of the information. That is good enough reference for people to check for themselves. Anyway, you have bought your copy so should be able to research it now.

Thank you.

 

Thank you

[citizenB]

eeeerrrmmm....Thanks for this (very interesting info indeed..) However- this is not quite what we are looking for.... we want 'Halsbury's Law' volume 77 and volume 13......have you got a link to those CitienB??

 

Apple

 

Something wrong with your googling skills, Apple.. ??

[bhall]

Bhall,

No I only need that one, I am touched by your opinion of me thank you but don't jump the gun just yet lol.

 

That's great news, I thought as Apple had said that you was just humouring me.

 

As you have ordered your own copy at an almost unbelievable price (hope you have ordered the correct issue and volume)- you can confirm the page number to Apple and you will also be able to confirm that I quoted it word for word with nothing 'shoehorned in'.

 

look forward to reading your confirmation ;-)

 

I do find it strange that Apple has previously relied upon and quoted Halsbury's but there were no cries from the Apple fan club to post links, page numbers etc to it. If I recall correctly, the application (or one of the defences posted by Apple) even refers to Halsbury's - I hope this was not done without someone actually reading what Halsbury's states for themselves first.

[IS IT ME?]

Erm

I thought that you needed evidence of every thing or have you already checked this?

[IS IT ME?]

Barn,

I thought that Apple was quoting your post as it's you that has this.

As your at home can you post up the page numbers as asked?

[IS IT ME?]

Opps sorry it should be Ben don't. Know what happen there lol

[bhall]

Erm

I thought that you needed evidence of every thing or have you already checked this?

 

Yes I have checked and Apple has made a number of references to and quoted Halsbury's - without links and page numbers ;-)

[bhall]

Barn,

I thought that Apple was quoting your post as it's you that has this.

As your at home can you post up the page numbers as asked?

 

No, if you read Apple's previous posts you will note references too and quotes from Halsbury's

 

Such as -

 

Borrowers will be interested to know that according to Halsbury's Law of England, 4th Edition 1975 vol 12, para 1360:

 

"..where a party named in a deed has without executing the deed, accepted some benefit under it, that person must give effect to all the conditions on which the benefit was expressed by the deed to be conferred, and so must perform all the covenants and stipulations on their part contained in the deed'

 

Halsbury's Law is essentially saying, that where it can be shown that the Lender has not executed the deed, but benefits from CMI, repossession and the eventual sale of a borrowers home, then they are to be made liable to the Borrower for all the monies and benefits they have derived......

 

Apple

 

When I get home, I will post what Halsbury's actually states rather than what it "is essentially saying"

 

 

Confirming who 'owns the mortgage' is not a Borrowers true or main concern.... securitisation is tantamount to the Lender 'going off on a folly of its own volition'.... and has nothing to do with the main concern of the underlying Borrowers relationship with the Original Lender per se.......that's to say, if the Lender has entered into a third party relationship off the back of a purported legal interest in the Borrowers mortgage - his risk is that the Borrower finds out that the Deed is void.....in finding that the Lender was at no time bound.... if he is not... then....knowledge and evidence of the sale assists the Borrower prove; not only that the Deed is void... but that the Lender has benefited from the Deed that he did not execute.... Halsbury's Law says the Lender must make good his obligations to the Borrower in such an instant....this would of course be the 'obligations' implied by Statute at LPA s.85 (freeholds) s.86 (Leaseholds) and is to do with the Borrowers inherent legal right to redemption.... regardless of the Lenders conduct. (see the thread on Mortgage Deeds headed up by Ben)

Apple

 

No benefit from an un-executed Deed?....(Halsbury's Law....posted on Ben's thread).....but posted here for ease and reference:

 

Halsbury’s Law of England, 4th Edition 1975 volume 12, para 1360:

 

“…where a party named in a deed has without executing the deed, accepted some benefit under it, that person must give effect to all the conditions on which the benefit was expressed by the deed to be conferred, and so must perform all the covenants and stipulations on their part contained in the deed”

 

Deeds signed in 'Solemn form' and its meaning and interpretation?

 

Best to keep focused : )

 

Apple

 

 

Hi Is It Me

 

Have a look at this 'draft'......let me know your thoughts?

 

 

[enter details of the parties here]

 

REPLY TO DEFENCE

 

[enter date here]

 

 

1 The applicants application leads on the premise that the Respondent failed to execute the deed within the statutory provisions more fully set out in the application submitted on the [enter date]. The applicant does not concede any of the grounds stated therein.

 

2 It is submitted that the Respondent admits that it failed to comply with its statutory duty to execute the deed in the mistaken belief that it had no statutory duty to do so.

 

3 It is submitted that the Respondent has failed to defend the issue; and as a consequence the Chamber is apt to set aside the deed.

 

4 Both the Respondents and HMLR had fiduciary duty to keep abreast of the changes in the law and should have been aware that neither mortgages by demise or sub-demise or charges by way of legal mortgage or legal sub-mortgages or indeed; mortgages by assent have any correlation to a registered estate.

5 Both the Respondent and HMLR had a fiduciary duty to be aware that the presumption of delivery is no longer reliant on sight of the applicant’s signature alone regardless as to who sent them the applicants attested deed to the extent that the additional amendments to the LPMPA 1989 section 1 (2) included amendments made by the RRO as follows:

 

a) RRO Article 7 (3) removed the words ‘from the person making it’ in section (a) to the end; and removed the words: ‘by that person..’ to the end in section (b).

 

b) RRO Article 7 (3) inserted new words to place the onus of execution on the Respondent instead to say:

 

(a) It makes it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed

 

(b) It is validly executed as a deed

 

(i) by that person or a person authorized to execute it in the name or on behalf of that person, or

 

(ii) by one or more of those parties or a person authorized to execute it in the name or on behalf of one or more of those parties

 

c) RRO Article 3 amended the LPA 1925 section 74 (1) to include new sections (a) and (b), which are to do with the Respondents duty to execute by means of the signatory of at least two directors.

 

d) RRO Article inserted a new section LPA 1925 section 74A to say that a deed is only presumed to be delivered after it has been duly executed by the Respondent with the proviso being; ‘if and only if’.

 

e) RRO Article 5 repealed the former irrebuttable presumption of delivery on sight of the applicant’s signature alone.

 

f) RRO Article 10 (2)(b) amended section 1 (5) to remove the words ‘involving the disposition or creation of an interest in land’; to mean that just because the notary sent them the attested deed, did not mean that the sight of the applicants signature alone included either a transfer or created an interest or disposition of the applicants legal estate, or that the notary was authorized to do so.

 

Notwithstanding the above, at the same time it must be borne in mind that LPA 1925 section 73 was also repealed.

 

6 There can be no reliance on estoppel, given that Section 40 of the LPA 1925; was wholly repealed by LPMPA 1989 section 4 within the provisions of Schedule 2.

 

7 Notwithstanding that the applicant had no power to charge the registered estate or charge by means of mortgage in any guise; it is submitted that there can be no reliance on section 53 of LPA 1925 as a means of assent to a mortgage by demise; on the ground that the Administration of Estates Act section 36 (3) was repealed by the LPMPA 1994 section 21 within the provision of Schedule 2 to the Act

 

8 Consequently, the Respondents reliance on the un-executed deed is misplaced. The deed is void and wholly unenforceable. There is no enforceable contract. The Respondent did not secure a right to claim possession of the applicant’s property as a means of enforcing any indebtedness in any court of law.

 

9 In the circumstances; it is submitted that it is the applicant who is entitled to seek restitution by reason of HMLR’s mistake in entering a mortgage on the registered estate.

 

10 The applicant is the registered proprietor and is the party who’s title is conclusive by virtue of LRA 2002 section 58 (1).

 

11 The applicants conclusive title has not been impeached by reason of either the Respondents or HMLR’s lack of proper care; on the ground that there is no mortgagor and mortgagee relationship to determine within the provision of LPA 1925 section 131..

 

12 It is submitted that by reason of the Respondents lack of proper care; it is liable to indemnify the applicant for all benefits derived from the un-executed deed.

 

13 It is submitted that by reason of HMLR’s lack of proper care; it is liable to make good their mistake by means of rectifying the register by means of removing the mortgage in favor of the Respondent.

 

14 It is in accord with Halsbury’s Law of England, 4th edition 1975 volume 12, para 1360 to find that where the Respondent has benefited from an un-executed deed to say that it is liable to give effect to all the conditions on which the benefit was expressed by the deed to be conferred as more fully set out below:

 

“….where a party named in a deed has without executing the deed, accepted some benefit under it, that person must give effect to all the conditions on which the benefit was expressed by the deed to be conferred, and so must perform all the covenants and stipulations on their part contained in the deed”

 

15 Halsburys Law cited above is in accord with the Torts (interference with Goods) Act 1977 section 3 (2) to find that the applicant is entitled to indemnity against the Respondent due to all benefit it derived as more fully set out in the application at para ‘4’.

 

 

16 The Chamber is humbly requested to give effect to the applicants application and order that the deed is set aside; the register be rectified and find that an indemnity by way of restitution is to be determined and awarded in favor of the applicant.

 

The applicant believes the statements herein are true.

 

Signed:

 

Dated:

 

 

 

The above draft is made available with the normal caveats.

 

Apple

 

 

 

The above are just a few examples. However, we now discover that even though Apple has repeatedly told us what Halsbury's says, Apple does not actually have access to Halsbury's - Furthermore, you have not once Is It Me? asked Apple for pages numbers and links.

 

 

As for being home, as posted earlier, I won't be until Sunday night, possibly Monday if I don't finish.

 

But you have ordered your own copy, I am sure the index in that will answer your question ;-)

 

I will continue to post extracts from Halsbury's and you can either believe them or not - I have provided you with specific details in terms of issue, volume and section of where the information came from and you have ordered your own copy. So you will soon be able to confirm that I have not "shoehorned" anything in as implied by Apple.

 

Looking forward to you providing confirmation to Apple ;-)

Edited November 29, 2013 by bhall