Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[Crapstone]

Thanks bhall,

 

I know Apple didn't like any reference to the subrogated cases, but they all have one thing in common. A bank wins regardless of registration or deeds. That's stating the obvious when it's subrogated, but the judges agree with common law and that is the right to security when a mortgage is given regardless of how complicated the case is.

 

Certainly more appropriate legislation is needed for a borrower to defend a case and for the protection of any equity they have in a property.

[Peterbard]

Morning all

 

Yes the Sahib case was regarding an equitable mortgage, title deed documents are deposited with he lender along with a memorandum stating that he has done so of his own volition in respect of security on loan, a mortgage in equity is created, but there is no transfer in law.

 

In the 1989 regulations the requirement for agreements to be made in writing superseded the memorandum and thus were a requirement in this kind of arrangement.

 

This is not applicable in charge via way of a legal mortgage where the deed transfers title by the operation of law.

[fletch70]

Do you think we can get the results before Wednesday lunchtime as I go away for a few days and you need to remember it is all about me!

[bhall]

Do you think we can get the results before Wednesday lunchtime as I go away for a few days and you need to remember it is all about me!

 

Hello

 

Given Apple's previous post

 

Oh, is that what Crapstone is implying??

 

She is misguided if she thinks I have a crystal ball.... lol

 

You'd think if she had the decision and it was in the lenders favor - it would make sense to post it up - I know I wouldn't hesitate at all.

 

 

Apple

 

You might find out before you go away- where ever you are going, I hope you have a great time

[sequenci]

Equitable mortgages are still possible BTW.

[Peterbard]

Equitable mortgages are still possible BTW.

 

Yes I believe so, I knew that there was a change in the way they were made, must have half read something somewhere and presumed that it was the 2002 LRA.

It wasn't it was the 1989 LPMP, which introduced the requirement of the signed agreement.

[Peterbard]

On looking at this after you mentioned it before. I think that a charge or disposition which for any reason was not registered would still be enforceable in the same way as an equitable mortgage.

[sequenci]

Yes I believe so, I knew that there was a change in the way they were made, must have half read something somewhere and presumed that it was the 2002 regulations.

It wasn't it was the 1989 LPMP, which introduced the requirement of the signed agreement.

 

Indeed. But remember that an equitable mortgage doesn't have to have a signed deed.

 

Edit: Just seen your second post.

[citizenB]

Thanks . I eagerly await the decision and to be honest I just want to know whatever it is.

 

Yes, there definitely needs to be a conclusion, one way or the other.

 

Do you think we can get the results before Wednesday lunchtime as I go away for a few days and you need to remember it is all about me!

 

 

Email me your mobile phone number, I will text you !!

[Peterbard]

I am not sure what decision we are waiting for to be honest.

 

The argument presented, in case anyone has forgotten is not based on the incorrect actions of the lender,nor is is it based on the problems of the debtor(although both or either may be present) the argument is based soley on the presumption that the architects of the legislation, both housed of parliament and the lending industry have all "got it wrong" for the last 12 years and misinterpreted legislation.

 

Well I for one am on the edge of my seat, can't wait to see how it all turns out.

[fletch70]

Thank you Citizen B I will. Going to be in Krakow for a few nights

[citizenB]

Thank you Citizen B I will. Going to be in Krakow for a few nights

 

Have a nice time

[bhall]

Any one else? bhall?

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1389.html

 

17.In my judgment the case in United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib does not help Mr Green, because that was a case where there was no deed, unlike this case. There was in that case a purely informal equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds. That had no effect because, as a contract, it was required to comply with section 2 and it did not comply. In my judgment His Honour Judge Jones was right to reject the submission that Mr Green made on the effect of section 2. Having referred to the point that it was unarguable, he said:

 

"Section two applies to a contract for the sale of an interest in land or a contract for some other disposition in relation to land. A contract to create a mortgage would obviously have to comply with section two and if it did not then it would not be a valid contract.

 

However, in this case there was no contract for the mortgage, there was simply the execution of the mortgage deed. That mortgage deed is a mortgage deed. It is not a contract to create a mortgage. I need really say no more than that about it."

[bhall]

Then don't bother. You are not the only person on CAG or this thread. Fyi this is a discussion thread. Discuss. Expand. No one's forcing you to take part in it so climb off your high horse. 'Worth the effort of responding to'?? Or shall I read that as, doesn't have an explanation logical or lawful? I think I can safely say that your brain has been picked on this one, so don't waste any more precious brain cells.

 

Someone needs a chill pill

[Peterbard]

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1389.html

 

17.In my judgment the case in United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib does not help Mr Green, because that was a case where there was no deed, unlike this case. There was in that case a purely informal equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds. That had no effect because, as a contract, it was required to comply with section 2 and it did not comply. In my judgment His Honour Judge Jones was right to reject the submission that Mr Green made on the effect of section 2. Having referred to the point that it was unarguable, he said:

 

"Section two applies to a contract for the sale of an interest in land or a contract for some other disposition in relation to land. A contract to create a mortgage would obviously have to comply with section two and if it did not then it would not be a valid contract.

 

However, in this case there was no contract for the mortgage, there was simply the execution of the mortgage deed. That mortgage deed is a mortgage deed. It is not a contract to create a mortgage. I need really say no more than that about it."

 

Wasting your time Ben, this chap doesn't even understand about the formation of an agreement, may as well give a chicken the times crossword

[Peterbard]

both Is It Me? and Apple are at the present time a.w.o.l and not posting anything about the decision issued by the chamber, so we will have to wait and see, won't we

 

 

Yes why is that I wonder

[sequenci]

I don't think anyone has a hidden agenda. What is clear that it appears easy for a few to become so engrossed in a tiny issue that they fail to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. It doesn't take being a solicitor or a barrister to have a hunch that borrowing doesn't disappear on a daft technicality.

[fletch70]

Well for what it's worth I do not think there are any HIDDEN agendas at all but there have been some rather open ones.

 

I would also say that some people may have been discouraged from asking questions when those questions are totally ignored . WP and MP you have both made comments and been answered, just because you do not like the answer doesn't mean that answer was wrong.

 

From what I can see this is a very confused situation and it has not been made clear exactly what result is hoped for. Obviously IIM and Apple have been hoping for one result but I am still not sure what they expect that result to achieve.

 

Now if I were a cynic and god forbid anyone would think that I would question why people with several years membership but very few posts are suddenly joining in this thread to attack certainly two of the people I most respect on this forum ( Sorry Ben we haven't had many dealings lol)

 

lets hope we get to hear the result very soon, I certainly have my suspicions as to which way it has gone owing to the absence of certain posters , but if I am wrong I will admit I am wrong

[bhall]

( Sorry Ben we haven't had many dealings lol)

 

no problem, I hope it rains (joke) in Krakow

[fletch70]

no problem, I hope it rains (joke) in Krakow

 

I was hoping for snow but it seems to be warmer than here. will have to go to Zacopane for the snow.

 

Oops Beer garden talk

[citizenB]

few posts have been unapproved as they contribute nothing to the discussion. Sorry to those who then responded by quoting those posts, because they have been unapproved as well.

[bhall]

few posts have been unapproved as they contribute nothing to the discussion. Sorry to those who then responded by quoting those posts, because they have been unapproved as well.

 

My apologies to WP, my response was a little juvenile

[Crapstone]

I actually thought by now that there would be some answers. Seems not.

 

It appears I have missed something but it probably wasn't relevant if it was removed.

 

Have a nice time in Krakow Fletch. I've never been but my cousin assures me that his travels around there were well worth it.

[Winged Piglet]

Well for what it's worth I do not think there are any HIDDEN agendas at all but there have been some rather open ones.

 

I would also say that some people may have been discouraged from asking questions when those questions are totally ignored . WP and MP you have both made comments and been answered, just because you do not like the answer doesn't mean that answer was wrong.

 

From what I can see this is a very confused situation and it has not been made clear exactly what result is hoped for. Obviously IIM and Apple have been hoping for one result but I am still not sure what they expect that result to achieve.

 

Now if I were a cynic and god forbid anyone would think that I would question why people with several years membership but very few posts are suddenly joining in this thread to attack certainly two of the people I most respect on this forum ( Sorry Ben we haven't had many dealings lol)

 

lets hope we get to hear the result very soon, I certainly have my suspicions as to which way it has gone owing to the absence of certain posters , but if I am wrong I will admit I am wrong

 

Firstly, I've been on here for a while if you scroll back long before you mate and directed one of the people to this thread who has now taken their case to the PC. Secondly no-one has been attacked.

 

My post which (Citizen B can you please put back my orirignal post as I have not broken any forum rules at all) was simply to enquire how an equitable mortgage may be enforced if there is no underlying loan agreement signed. This was in response to the previous posts and is clearly relevant. Holidays to Krakov I fail to see the relevance yet these posts remain. You now have a thread which does not make sense to anyone else now reading.

[bhall]

I actually thought by now that there would be some answers. Seems not..

 

I am still DUMBSTRUCK that nothing has been posted by either Apple or Is It Me? about the decision issued by the property chamber - not even so much, if the application was successful or not.

 

I guess we are left to wonder if the continued period of silence on both of their parts is an indication of the decision of the property chamber.

 

Since you revealed that a decision had been issued, we have not heard anything. Is It Me? did log in but it appears that he did not post anything in this thread. Disappointing given how actively people have been encouraged to make applications, to now just go silent on the matter.

 

I am still waiting on a several responses to come back, including a couple from the Property Chamber and the Ministry of Justice. Hopefully one of them might shed some light on the outcome.

 

 

It appears I have missed something but it probably wasn't relevant if it was removed.

 

 

You didn't miss anything important

 

 

Have a nice time in Krakow Fletch. I've never been but my cousin assures me that his travels around there were well worth it.

 

I have a relative that goes to Poland 3/4 times a year, I have never been but I heard it is really nice - I am sure Fletch will enjoy himself, even if I am not one of the two people he respects