Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[bhall]

Well Apple must be having a day off as hasn't been online since yesterday lunchtime, just after Crapstone had that interesting conversation.

IIM has been online, maybe we are waiting for a post to be authorised

 

I just had a quick flick through the last couple of pages and I couldn't see anything from IIM. Usually, his posts show up late but show in the thread at the time he made them (I think)

 

Doesn't look like there is anything new today unless the site team have still not authorised the post. Anyway if Apple is having a day off, I hope they are having a good one - nice bit of sunshine today

[bhall]

Sorry if this has already been posted or not relevant....I have been looking at this thread but due to work commitments not followed thoroughly.

 

UBK v Sahib & others

 

LL:-)

 

Hello LL

 

Sahib is an often quoted case on other sites in support of the argument that a deed must be signed by both parties.

 

However, as confirmed by the subsequent Eaglestar case, Sahib is not relevant.

 

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

 

"14.Mr Green relied on that for the proposition that the same should apply to this case because there was, in this case, within the mortgage deed a contract by him in the form of the covenant to repay. There were also contractual provisions or covenants by Eagle Star. So, he said, if the mortgage in United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib was governed by section 2 of the 1989 Act, so should this mortgage with similar results for its enforceability.

 

15.In my judgment this argument does not stand any real prospect of success. This is not a case of a contract: it is a case of a deed. If we were simply dealing with a contract to create a mortgage then Mr Green would be right. But in this case he and Miss Challis have actually executed a deed. It is clear from the provisions of the 1989 Act itself that a distinction is drawn between the formal requirements affecting the execution of deeds and the formal requirements governing contracts. Section 1 makes alterations to the law about the execution of deeds. For example, they are no longer required to be written on any particular kind of substance and a seal is not required for the valid execution of an instrument as a deed by an individual. There are a number of detailed provisions in section 1 relating to deeds. Section 2 does not apply to deeds; it applies to contracts. It may be a contract for the sale of land, it may be a contract for some other kind of disposition of an interest in land, one other kind of disposition being a transfer by way of security over what is commonly called a mortgage or charge."

 

 

The reason that sahib is not relevant is confirmed in the Eagle Star case

 

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."

 

Sahib is on many sites quoted and referred to, in support of the argument that a mortgage deed must be signed by both parties. However, in Sahib there was no mortgage deed, signed or otherwise.

Edited February 23, 2014 by honeybee13

[bhall]

A much more recent case as food for thought.

 

http://www.walkermorris.co.uk/business-insights/court-appeal-considers-detail-required-unilateral-notices

 

I've yet to read the full judgement but the terms used and the distinctions are worth a look.

 

Hello Crapstone

 

I think this is the case

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/28.html

[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

[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

[bhall]

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

 

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

[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

[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

[bhall]

Good Morning

 

It is nice to see Apple back after a few days away. All we need now is Is It Me? to comment and bring this to a close.

 

I would have thought, call this speculation if you will that if Is It Me?'s friend's application was in anyway successful, he would not be able to resist telling everyone.

 

Yet, we know that a decision has been issued and there has been nothing said by Is It Me? despite his insistence recently that everyone should make an application.

 

We should not lose sight that the decision was in regard to two applications and not just that of Is It Me?'s friend.

 

Today, I visited a site (fletch you will know which one, you recently posted there ) which has threads about mortgage deeds being unsigned. Unlike CAG it would appear that users can amend old posts as on the 25th a user amended their posts on this topic to now read "Unfortunately this avenue has proved unsuccessful, so post removed". As I understand it, this person was involved in promoting this idea and helping others on the basis on that idea.

 

I wonder, again call this speculation if you will, if this is a reflection on the decision issued of the Property Chamber.

[bhall]

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part55

 

CPR part 55

 

Interpretation

 

© ‘mortgage’ includes a legal or equitable mortgage and a legal or equitable charge and ‘mortgagee’ is to be interpreted accordingly;

 

Scope

 

55.2

 

(1) The procedure set out in this Section of this Part must be used where the claim includes –

 

(a) a possession claim brought by a –

 

(i) landlord (or former landlord);

(ii) mortgagee; or

(iii) licensor (or former licensor);

(b) a possession claim against trespassers; or

© a claim by a tenant seeking relief from forfeiture.

[bhall]

I would have no issue with the understanding that a negative decision at this stage - represents no more than a failure at the first hurdle.....

 

This could take yeeaaaarrrrrsssssss....

 

Apple

 

 

Easy to say, when you have nothing personally to lose and it is not your family home that is on the line

[bhall]

Apple

 

If the site that Ben referred to was not discussing this case i think i would eat my hat Mein Herr.

 

Ben I saw that post as well that suggested the argument was unsuccessful.

 

Apple , I love your "we will fight them on the beaches" speech easy to say when it is not your home or money. As for the 10 cases , we know that 7 have been stayed and we assume that it is dependent on the outcome of this case . They could be in for a very long wait.

 

Thank you for the confirmation Fletch - just in case anyone thought I may have been telling porkie pies

 

You packed yet and ready to go ?

[bhall]

we will soon get Dodge or Ben to post up the decision

 

Apple

 

Why either of us ? Why not IIM ?

 

Why doesn't IIM? post it or even comment about it ?

 

Why not ask IIM? to post it ? Why not ask IIM? to confirm what the decision of the chamber was

[bhall]

'moderation'....maybe he has not got a decision......maybe the cases you refer to he knows nothing about them.....eeeerrrmm...could be any number of reasons.

 

Differenc is - you are here - you insinuate that there is a decision - you say that another site also has notice of the decision...

 

Why are you delaying my getting onto it...??

 

Do you have it 'yes' or 'no'??

 

Apple

 

lol, no I do not have it - There you go a straight answer, just so you know what they look like

 

However, it was Is It Me? that said one of the applications that was heard on 20 Jan was his friends. Crapstone spoke with the Property Chamber on Friday, just before you took a break for a few days and the Property Chamber confirmed that the decision had been sent to the parties.

 

So the question still stands where is Is It Me? and why is he not mentioning anything about the decision

[bhall]

I know Ben which site you speak of I thought you did not frequent such sites?

 

Sorry what you thought was wrong

 

I have posted in this thread before about such sites and indeed on that particular site, one of the main contributors dismissed the deeds not signed argument along time ago

[bhall]

I very much doubt Ben can access the decision. He would need the Case numbers and names at the very least. Not all decisions made are made public. The only people who know the decision are the applicants at this stage and anyone they choose to then inform and or their representatives. If the decision has gone out to the parties neither Ben or Dodge will be able to get a copy, that's nonsense. Ooh the N word again. You can make all the enquiries you like both of you but there is a procedure and you both are not party to it so have no advantage. There is no way that either Ben or Dodge could possibly know for instance the names of the cases heard or any other info other than perhaps some of the Lenders and even then you would need to apply personally to the Judge of each case to ask for further details which is highly unlikely imho.

 

WP

 

lol, is this where, I am supposed to respond and argue back saying that actually I do know the case numbers etc ? -

 

Everything always comes out in the end, Is It Me?'s friend only has a limited amount of time to submit an appeal - if an appeal is required, who is to say, may be his friend won. I guess we will just have to wait and see won't we.

 

I just find it strange, he created a thread which in the most part was about making an application to the property chamber. He never posted to say that a date had been set for the hearing, with the exception of a few vague comments subsequently interpreted by Apple, he has said virtually nothing about what happened at the hearing and now he has nothing to say about the actual decision.

 

I am still DUMBSTRUCK about how silent he is at the moment, given his previous posts and encouragement of others to make applications

 

He has logged in since it was posted in this thread that a decision had been sent to the parties involved and whilst he is subject to moderation that would not prevent him from posting about it.

[bhall]

Ah Gotcha,

 

I had no idea; I truly thought he was tellng the truth.

 

Apple

 

 

Is it true Ben; were you leading me on again? ; )

 

Apple

 

Leading you on about what exactly ?

 

Sorry you will have to be more specific

 

I very much doubt Ben can access the decision. He would need the Case numbers and names at the very least.

WP

 

For Apples and Winged Piglet's benefit, you might just want to go back and read the responses from the Property Chamber, I have posted in this thread, including the one in which they gave me the reference numbers for both cases

 

Anyway, I am sure IIM? will soon be on to reveal what the decision was - I am sure at this time given everything he has posted, he will not let down those that have already made applications and those that may be thinking about making applications, would he by keeping the decision to himself

[bhall]

You forget

Ben has connections at the court, I am not sure if he works there, has a friend there or is even the Judge. Well this is according to some on here.

he is also various members and also involved in the site team !!!

Sorry Ben I can't help it

 

As for judgements, Arrow Global V Frost has not been published yet somehow I found it on the internet and have posted it on three sites now

 

lol

 

I know what you mean, in some of It Is Me?'s posts, he says I know as I was there at the hearing. Then in a more recent post he says that I don't know - Kinda confusing

 

The internet is a wonderful thing - not many secrets when it comes to the net, someone somewhere posts everything eventually

[bhall]

Nothing from Is It Me? yet about the decision ?

 

Ok will check again later

[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.

[bhall]

I wouldn't count on it Ben

 

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

[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

[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 ?