Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[Crapstone]

LOL..... your comments do not thwart the FACTS Crapstone.....

 

Apple

 

Facts? ..Oh yes..the ones you keep telling everyone.

 

Don't forget to mention the hearsay.... I say hearsay but there isn't a lot of saying to be honest but then you'd have to hear it - and to truly hear it you have to be there to say what you've heard.

[GiveHimaMask]

Hi Apple,

 

Have they gone to bed yet, weel they certainly buried that little nugget I posted from NI. They covered it up in the remedies the chargee would have in the event of a default. But here it is again... You cna not mortgage registered land...nor do you aquire the status of legal owner under the charge... you do not have a contractural nor legal right to possession. thats what the law says here in NI. Now to put this into some context here in NI I would refer to the Carlin case which Ben highlighted the point that repossession was thrown out because the Lender told a lie as to who owned the mortgage... but in actual fact the other valid point in this decision was that the judge stated thatalthough the mortgae was 'trnasferred away to another party' it would only be a matter of time before the rightful owner made a new application, but what the judge does not know is this mortgage has been securitised. So what do you think the possibilities of the SPV registering his charge and issuing proceeding against Carlin and if they do how will they contend with the fact that they have been sold a product which the original Lender had no Legal ownership of... you see how Ben squiralled that one away.

 

gham

[Crapstone]

Hi Apple,

 

Have they gone to bed yet, weel they certainly buried that little nugget I posted from NI. They covered it up in the remedies the chargee would have in the event of a default. But here it is again... You cna not mortgage registered land...nor do you aquire the status of legal owner under the charge... you do not have a contractural nor legal right to possession. thats what the law says here in NI. Now to put this into some context here in NI I would refer to the Carlin case which Ben highlighted the point that repossession was thrown out because the Lender told a lie as to who owned the mortgage... but in actual fact the other valid point in this decision was that the judge stated thatalthough the mortgae was 'trnasferred away to another party' it would only be a matter of time before the rightful owner made a new application, but what the judge does not know is this mortgage has been securitised. So what do you think the possibilities of the SPV registering his charge and issuing proceeding against Carlin and if they do how will they contend with the fact that they have been sold a product which the original Lender had no Legal ownership of... you see how Ben squiralled that one away.

 

gham

 

And where would that 'nugget' be buried?.. Don't tell me..N.I. ! Turn left past the first tree, keep walking through the trees in a westerly direction, until you come to a wood in the middle of those trees. Still can't see the wood? Then you must have got lost and ended up in England or Wales.....tut..

[GiveHimaMask]

Hi IS IT ME / Apple,

 

One last point before I say goodnite the other issue in the decision I posted in 2013 NIMaster 18 is this,

If you are a second charge Lender and there is insufficient equity in the property to discharge your debt, the the court here will not grant an order for repossession as it represents futility and waste. Subsequent hearing have had this decision applied and now the Lenders are adjourning such cases. Now there is another little nugget and just in case the alternative view police want to pick and poke at this here is what the Master suggest... when there is sufficient equity in the property some time in the future then you may make an application. So given that the first charge holder is possibly 50% in negative equity and the second charge holder is on the hind tit and the borrower will probably stop paying the second charge, how far into the future do you think that new application might be. Seems to me now that the second charge holder is open to negoiations with big discounts available.

 

And on that...Goodnite.

gham

[Crapstone]

Hi IS IT ME / Apple,

 

One last point before I say goodnite the other issue in the decision I posted in 2013 NIMaster 18 is this,

If you are a second charge Lender and there is insufficient equity in the property to discharge your debt, the the court here will not grant an order for repossession as it represents futility and waste. Subsequent hearing have had this decision applied and now the Lenders are adjourning such cases. Now there is another little nugget and just in case the alternative view police want to pick and poke at this here is what the Master suggest... when there is sufficient equity in the property some time in the future then you may make an application. So given that the first charge holder is possibly 50% in negative equity and the second charge holder is on the hind tit and the borrower will probably stop paying the second charge, how far into the future do you think that new application might be. Seems to me now that the second charge holder is open to negoiations with big discounts available.

 

And on that...Goodnite.

gham

 

No sugar Sherlock! I stand truly amazed and in awe of that revelation!

 

Now how many years ago did Crapwest secure a charging order on my property only to be told the exact same thing by a judge? And how many years did it take to have it set aside when they refused any payments and returned every cheque/ DD and PO ever sent? Even trying to take the same action out twice for the same debt! Well I did play a part in the 'equity' but that's another story....

 

It's stating the obvious that selling something at loss to all parties and without a gain for the plaintiff is a futile act when careful consideration is given to all circumstances.

 

Which is just why caution should be taken as all cases are different and depend on your circumstances for that decision to be made.

 

 

One size does not fit all.

 

I would encourage anyone reading to speak to their lender and avoid courts and legal action if possible. It can be done and you can challenge fees that have been applied to your accounts and certainly now in light of Yorkshire Bank coughing up, and in turn Accord which are part of the group I believe.

 

It's never too late to do something and there are some wonderful people that can help you champion the reasons why you should stay in your home, all for the right reasons and for free.

[Crapstone]

Why do I continue on this thread?

 

From my point of view it makes a mockery of the efforts put in by people that have gone to court, faced arrears and fought them or have been evicted. And the people that have helped them.

 

Apple has said nothing about experiencing that personally or having any qualifications to support their stance.

 

So what if the PC decides in favour? Loopholes are easily closed and several spring to mind when avoidance is at the fore. And don't forget how quick the Government were to act on saving the banks. Does anyone actually think they would get away with not paying a debt that they knew was to be charged? Law does not sit still and watch, it evolves and not on terms that Apple would dictate.

 

I'll wait for a decision to be made as neither party on here that promote it appear to be reliable.

[Crapstone]

Not in bed yet then Dodge???

 

Guess what... I do not have time for procrastinators .... I wish I was a solicitor... I could then increase my cost/time per hour... you would not be able to afford my time....hahahhaha

 

With respect, go to bed man - sleep on it...come back tomorrow in the cold light of day - that way you will see where the FACTS have been delivered upon you like a ice cold sword.

 

Apple

 

Look at that post. Does it speak wisdom or arrogance? The whole phrasing of it belongs on James Turner Street. Surely it's not W**** D** ?

 

It does not matter if you have 'time' for people or you wishing to be a solicitor or dictating, yet again, what people should do.

 

You seem to not get a grip that this is an open forum and is not under your control.

[applecart]

Facts? ..Oh yes..the ones you keep telling everyone.

 

Don't forget to mention the hearsay.... I say hearsay but there isn't a lot of saying to be honest but then you'd have to hear it - and to truly hear it you have to be there to say what you've heard.

 

 

"hearsay"??

 

Last time I looked the LRA s.23 was in black & white ; )

 

Apple

[mollypockets]

Can I just say thank you one and all for your time and words of wisdom:high5::

 

In my last post I said,I love reading this thread (as Im sure many CAG ers do) with all the banter ,slaggin and the craic.

Well,there certainly has been plenty of that over the last 3 or 4 pages.

 

Though I would hate for it to get out of hand and lead to someone or two getting sin-binned by admin.

I know deep down you all love each other and given the chance,everyone would kiss and make up,,,,,lol,,,,,,especially ben and apple

 

It`s certainly better value than east-enders and the like.

I think Im gonna stay up here,,,,sitting on the fence for a while longer,,lol,,,

 

I sort off feel like I threw a spanner in the works,,,,,,with the N Ireland thingy,,,

the debate got a lot more lively,,,,,,keep up the good work lads and lassies,,,,

but,be careful out there,,,,,,,(was that a line from Hill Street Blues???,,,,,,,,

nobody wants to get detention,,,,,lol,,

[applecart]

Look at that post. Does it speak wisdom or arrogance? The whole phrasing of it belongs on James Turner Street. Surely it's not W**** D** ?

 

It does not matter if you have 'time' for people or you wishing to be a solicitor or dictating, yet again, what people should do.

 

You seem to not get a grip that this is an open forum and is not under your control.

 

 

Apologies if the post offended you Crapstone;

 

I'm afraid not all consumers are as 'articulate' as thee....ah, well - it is as it is hey : )

 

Do you have an issue with those who live on James Turner St?.......Do you have an issue with them looking to take control of their own lives and their community spirit to watch out for each other??

 

Or are you highlighting or suggesting that I should not point out the Lenders wrongs on this forum and that instead I should take this issue to the BBC or the Press????

 

Just trying to read between the lines that's all ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Can I just say thank you one and all for your time and words of wisdom:high5::

 

In my last post I said,I love reading this thread (as Im sure many CAG ers do) with all the banter ,slaggin and the craic.

Well,there certainly has been plenty of that over the last 3 or 4 pages.

 

Though I would hate for it to get out of hand and lead to someone or two getting sin-binned by admin.

I know deep down you all love each other and given the chance,everyone would kiss and make up,,,,,lol,,,,,,especially ben and apple

 

It`s certainly better value than east-enders and the like.

I think Im gonna stay up here,,,,sitting on the fence for a while longer,,lol,,,

 

I sort off feel like I threw a spanner in the works,,,,,,with the N Ireland thingy,,,

the debate got a lot more lively,,,,,,keep up the good work lads and lassies,,,,

but,be careful out there,,,,,,,(was that a line from Hill Street Blues???,,,,,,,,

nobody wants to get detention,,,,,lol,,

 

Morning;

 

So long as you get the information you need to assist you, that's the main thing ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Why do I continue on this thread?

 

From my point of view it makes a mockery of the efforts put in by people that have gone to court, faced arrears and fought them or have been evicted. And the people that have helped them.

 

Apple has said nothing about experiencing that personally or having any qualifications to support their stance.

 

So what if the PC decides in favour? Loopholes are easily closed and several spring to mind when avoidance is at the fore. And don't forget how quick the Government were to act on saving the banks. Does anyone actually think they would get away with not paying a debt that they knew was to be charged? Law does not sit still and watch, it evolves and not on terms that Apple would dictate.

 

I'll wait for a decision to be made as neither party on here that promote it appear to be reliable.

 

Your getting far too emotional Crapstone,

 

Your home is your castle....you call the shots....Just because Is It Me's friend has chosen to defend his home differently, does not mean he is wrong to do so; the LRA s.23 is not 'Apple' - it is the Legislator BTW.

 

Apple

[applecart]

No sugar Sherlock! I stand truly amazed and in awe of that revelation!

 

Now how many years ago did Crapwest secure a charging order on my property only to be told the exact same thing by a judge? And how many years did it take to have it set aside when they refused any payments and returned every cheque/ DD and PO ever sent? Even trying to take the same action out twice for the same debt! Well I did play a part in the 'equity' but that's another story....

 

It's stating the obvious that selling something at loss to all parties and without a gain for the plaintiff is a futile act when careful consideration is given to all circumstances.

 

Which is just why caution should be taken as all cases are different and depend on your circumstances for that decision to be made.

 

 

One size does not fit all.

 

I would encourage anyone reading to speak to their lender and avoid courts and legal action if possible. It can be done and you can challenge fees that have been applied to your accounts and certainly now in light of Yorkshire Bank coughing up, and in turn Accord which are part of the group I believe.

 

It's never too late to do something and there are some wonderful people that can help you champion the reasons why you should stay in your home, all for the right reasons and for free.

 

"speak to the lender"??

 

I beleive UNRAM did that.....correct me if I am wrong - but did they not tell him that the RRO was for them and not for him???

 

Forgive me Crapstone for saying this...but, I think Is It Me's friend was right to take the issue to the Chamber ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi IS IT ME / Apple,

 

One last point before I say goodnite the other issue in the decision I posted in 2013 NIMaster 18 is this,

If you are a second charge Lender and there is insufficient equity in the property to discharge your debt, the the court here will not grant an order for repossession as it represents futility and waste. Subsequent hearing have had this decision applied and now the Lenders are adjourning such cases. Now there is another little nugget and just in case the alternative view police want to pick and poke at this here is what the Master suggest... when there is sufficient equity in the property some time in the future then you may make an application. So given that the first charge holder is possibly 50% in negative equity and the second charge holder is on the hind tit and the borrower will probably stop paying the second charge, how far into the future do you think that new application might be. Seems to me now that the second charge holder is open to negoiations with big discounts available.

 

And on that...Goodnite.

gham

 

Morning GHAM

 

I've always said this thread is progressive and your constructive input helps a great deal - Thank you ; )

 

Apple

[GiveHimaMask]

GoodMorning Crapstone,

Huh,

The Judge says that if you sre a 2nd charge Lender and there is insufficient equity in the property to cover your charge, then the court will not grant you an Order. Seems to me that if you are a Borrower and you fall under these circumstances thenyou do have a ' one size fits all solution... So yes talk to your lender and tell you will see him in court... not... and yes apply for all those over charging charges... remember you are under no pressure... and when you get that refund... Speak to your Lender and offer him 20p in the pound to settle his charge and use that refund to pay him. that will cover your loophole.

 

enjoy your day

gham

[mollypockets]

One size does not fit all.

 

I would encourage anyone reading to speak to their lender and avoid courts and legal action if possible. It can be done and you can challenge fees that have been applied to your accounts and certainly now in light of Yorkshire Bankicon coughing up, and in turn Accord which are part of the group I believe.

 

It's never too late to do something and there are some wonderful people that can help you champion the reasons why you should stay in your home, all for the right reasons and for free.

 

 

 

Hi Crapstone,

 

I know where you are coming from and normally you would be entirely right,,,,but,

In my case,talking to my lender didnt get me very far.While I was conversing with them on how to get things sorted,

they passed my case to their outside and independent solicitors firm without my knowledge,,,,,,

 

One day I was on the phone discussing an income and expenditure report with my friendly and honest so-called lender (TMB),,,,,,and

the next day I get a court summons.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!how hateful is that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I complained to TMB,,,,,,,their call-center staff kept telling me lies and conflicting B,,,S,,, and to cut a long story short,,

They sent me a cheque on two different ocassions for compensation.

 

Now the relevance of my case to this thread is this,,,

 

While Joe Bloggs`s only real tool in his armor is discussion forums like this (very good one at that) with like minded people.

But with respect,all we can hope to achieve is some sort of "damage Limitation" as all of us are just Joe Bloggs.

 

Even if it was clearly stated in law that all three parties had to sign the deeds,the powers that be,would simply tramp on us even harder to throw any family out on the street

and that is a fact.

 

When I say "all three parties" I mean,,,,,

 

a) The proud parents who thought they were doing the right thing,by buying their first home which eventually could be passed onto their children,to give them a start in this unforgiving world.

 

b) The so-called lender (leech #1) who creates numbers on a screen and doesnt have the decency to sign his name on a form.

 

c) The Wall-Street millionaire (leech #2) who at the end of the day,is the real owner and his only concern is his next million.They say your first million is the hardest to get,after that they just come rolling in and we all know where from,dont we?tmb

[Peterbard]

Which you choose to interpret in your own unique way and not as was intended or actually written.

 

But let us not forget.

 

It is not Apple that will be evicted.

 

Yes there has been a coupe of the freeman of the land arguments reached the courts on various subjects. They always get laughed out of court. The funny thing is that they change their agenda depending on the particular issue.

 

Some they are subjects of common law, and then when it suits them they are only subject to statute(although as Apple demonstrated, until recently he didn't know the difference between the two)

 

The sad thing is that many take these ideas seriously and can get drawn in to their cost.

 

The posting style of apple and IIM says it all to me, never a simple plain fact supported by evidence, always a half truth wildly interpreted subject to their own agenda, full of off hand remarks like" get a cup of tea all designed to distract the casual viewer from the fact that their arguments are so weak and flawed.

 

As for us ignoring the law, this is another FMOTL tactic, the accuse anyone who detracts from their silly ideas of doing exactly what they do themselves. Anyone who examines this thread can see pages and pages of actual evidence and authority which conclusively proves the ideas to be nonsense, completely ignored, because they do not fit with their doctrine.

 

As a final point Apple says that as long as IIM understands what is going on that is the only point, well no it isn't, if you are going to put the argument on a public forum and encourage others to follow your ideas, then it is everybody's business.

[fletch70]

Hi Caro

 

I can understand your line of questioning here and why you may be confused.

 

As I understand it - Is It Me is referring to the Deed issue raised in the Chamber.

 

I also understand from Is It Me's previous post that the 'mortgage' issue has 'merit' by virtue of LRA s.23......simply put - we argued that Is It Me's Friend had no statutory power to 'mortgage' by demise or sub-demise - reading between the lines - it would seem the Judge has accepted that argument - due to the Lender having NO DEFENCE on that point.

 

With the Deed... although Is It Me has said it was raised in the Chamber - he has moved on to another issue - (with respect - as I wrote the submissions - I do understand where Is It Me is coming from more than most here) the issue he refers to was the point made about the selling off of the 'mortgage'....

 

This makes sense because - if you as a lender have a 'mortgage' - when the Borrower has no statutory power to grant you a 'mortgage' - the question begs...what are you doing with a 'mortgage' - accompanied with evidence to show that the lender sold the 'mortgage'....this means that there is evidence of 'wrongful interference' ...... it may be a criminal offence......can't really say....but, you never know.....

 

What Is It Me appears to be saying is that the Lender has 28 days to submit further representation as to why it's objection should not be struck out........remember, the lender is arguing that it's charge should be allowed to remain on the title.....Is It Me's friend is arguing to say that it should be removed.....

 

I, again; reading between the lines get the impression that the Chamber have made a decision.......on the ground that - if the Lender has 28 days to respond....that suggests a decision has been made.....it is not in the Lenders favor either - because - it would appear from Is It Me's post - that it is the Lender who has 28 days to represent again....that must be to do with a decision having been made AGAINST THE LENDER.

 

It is within the Chamber Rules to allow a party 28 days to submit reasons for why they think the Chambers decision is wrong.

 

It is the Lender who appears to be tasked with the issue - Not Is It Me's friend.

 

It looks to me that things have changed around - no longer is Is It Me's friend on the 'back foot' - it would seem it is the Lender who is in that position right now.

 

That's a big turn around. A positive one for Is It Me's friend too..... so far at least......

 

The Lender will no doubt object again... we could see them take the issue to the Upper Tribunal yet..... I know Log Book Loans went all the way...... no reason why these Lenders won't look to do the same........

 

 

Apple

 

As far as I can see this is the first time that the 28 days was mentioned. It was then taken to mean (by apple) that the decision was made and the lenders had that time to persuade the adjudicator was wrong.

It has since become apparent (to most of us anyway) that no decision has been handed down so how in the interests of justice could the lender be given time to overcome an argument and the borrower no right of reply.

Apple then seems to change tac and suggest that once the decision has been handed down THEN the lender will have 28 days.

 

Another point, here is it mentioned that it seems S23 has some merit ( I think most people would agree that what that means is that it is not being dismissed out of hand, not that it means success) ;later on it seems that S23 is being quoted as the reason why the borrower WILL win.

 

These are all points of LOGIC ......and I am DUMBSTRUCK that people do not see this as supposition and quite frankly guess work.

 

As I said before, when the law is concerned , nothing is a forgone conclusion , I do not think that anyone expected the Carey case (CCA) to go the way it did

 

Anyway we should have a decision within days and i await it with interest

[fletch70]

I would echo what Dodge has said that a lot of the language used in this thread is not the language of Cag but that of FMOTL which has not a shred of eveidence to back it up

 

Equally as Crapstone said, it is all well and good for Apple to argue the toss but they will not end up homesless

[bhall]

Hi Apple,

 

Have they gone to bed yet, weel they certainly buried that little nugget I posted from NI. They covered it up in the remedies the chargee would have in the event of a default. But here it is again... You cna not mortgage registered land...nor do you aquire the status of legal owner under the charge... you do not have a contractural nor legal right to possession. thats what the law says here in NI. Now to put this into some context here in NI I would refer to the Carlin case which Ben highlighted the point that repossession was thrown out because the Lender told a lie as to who owned the mortgage... but in actual fact the other valid point in this decision was that the judge stated thatalthough the mortgae was 'trnasferred away to another party' it would only be a matter of time before the rightful owner made a new application, but what the judge does not know is this mortgage has been securitised. So what do you think the possibilities of the SPV registering his charge and issuing proceeding against Carlin and if they do how will they contend with the fact that they have been sold a product which the original Lender had no Legal ownership of... you see how Ben squiralled that one away.

 

gham

 

Blast it, you saw straight through my cunning plan. I thought by providing a link to the case, so that everyone could read it for themselves I could hide what was said in the judgement.

 

I would have got away with it, if it was not for that pesky Gham.

 

As for what you have said about the case. As with Is It Me?, I would direct you to what was actually said in the case and especially the part Is It Me? and it now would also appear you like to skip over what was said in regard to Pender.

 

Also you might be interested to know that there are cases where when the transfer has been completed by registration, a spv has taken borrowers to Court.

[bhall]

Apple said

 

"I, again; reading between the lines get the impression that the Chamber have made a decision.......on the ground that - if the Lender has 28 days to respond....that suggests a decision has been made.....it is not in the Lenders favor either - because - it would appear from Is It Me's post - that it is the Lender who has 28 days to represent again....that must be to do with a decision having been made AGAINST THE LENDER."

 

As the Property Chamber has confirmed that no decision had been issued and that judgement had been reserved - it looks like your reading between the lines skills are on par with your interpretation skills.

 

Have a cup of tea Apple and just sit back and wait for the decision to be issued -

[applecart]

Apple said

 

"I, again; reading between the lines get the impression that the Chamber have made a decision.......on the ground that - if the Lender has 28 days to respond....that suggests a decision has been made.....it is not in the Lenders favor either - because - it would appear from Is It Me's post - that it is the Lender who has 28 days to represent again....that must be to do with a decision having been made AGAINST THE LENDER."

 

As the Property Chamber has confirmed that no decision had been issued and that judgement had been reserved - it looks like your reading between the lines skills are on par with your interpretation skills.

 

Have a cup of tea Apple and just sit back and wait for the decision to be issued -

 

Ben,

 

Look up the word 'premise'.....or is that a word you didn't expect one from the likes of 'James Turner St' to rely on?

 

Perhaps you believe such words are reserved for the likes of your good self? LOL

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

Ben,

 

Look up the word 'premise'.....or is that a word you didn't expect one from the likes of 'James Turner St' to rely on?

 

Perhaps you believe such words are reserved for the likes of your good self? LOL

 

Apple

 

No apple you lead people to believe one thing , when in reality the opposite is true.

[applecart]

Yes there has been a coupe of the freeman of the land arguments reached the courts on various subjects. They always get laughed out of court. The funny thing is that they change their agenda depending on the particular issue.

 

Some they are subjects of common law, and then when it suits them they are only subject to statute(although as Apple demonstrated, until recently he didn't know the difference between the two)

 

The sad thing is that many take these ideas seriously and can get drawn in to their cost.

 

The posting style of apple and IIM says it all to me, never a simple plain fact supported by evidence, always a half truth wildly interpreted subject to their own agenda, full of off hand remarks like" get a cup of tea all designed to distract the casual viewer from the fact that their arguments are so weak and flawed.

 

As for us ignoring the law, this is another FMOTL tactic, the accuse anyone who detracts from their silly ideas of doing exactly what they do themselves. Anyone who examines this thread can see pages and pages of actual evidence and authority which conclusively proves the ideas to be nonsense, completely ignored, because they do not fit with their doctrine.

 

As a final point Apple says that as long as IIM understands what is going on that is the only point, well no it isn't, if you are going to put the argument on a public forum and encourage others to follow your ideas, then it is everybody's business.

 

I see your point here Dodge.

 

With respect, there is nothing that I have posted that does not rely on statute.

 

Perhaps you can provide for me an answer to the question recently posted.....How does a lender become a 'mortgagee' if the Borrower has no statutory power to grant him a mortgage over a registered estate (LRA s.23)?

 

You, Ben advise that the Lender can do so by way of being seen to be the 'proprietor of the 'charge'......

 

You say the Lender became the owner of the 'Charge' by virtue of LRA s.51 ....that's the statute that talks about 'charges by deed by way of legal mortgage' - right?

 

How does that happen, when LRA s.23 (1)(a) and then LRA s. 23 (1)(b) say no to mortgage by demise and no to legal sub-mortgages?

 

You do know that a 'mortgage' of anything related to land is a complete disposition.....you do know that don't you?

 

So, please do advise us how it is that the Lender is a 'mortgagee'??

 

oh, and Dodge; please if you do not understand the question - I can always break it down into 'street' language for you if it makes it any easier for you - no offence - just offering (i've been given the impression that I'm not only 'fanciful' but I'm now even bi-lingual - lol )

 

Apple

[applecart]

No apple you lead people to believe one thing , when in reality the opposite is true.

 

LOL - that's not true, and you know it Dodge.

 

That's not fair of you, and you know it Dodge.

 

Answer the question I posted - the stage is yours - I invite you to prove me wrong; direct me to the Statute that defends against LRA s.23.

 

Oh, and when you do - do so making it clear that you have ditinguished the powers of an owner of an un-registered estate (mortgaging for the first time) and those powers of a owner of a registered estate please - cheers ; )

 

Apple