Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[IS IT ME?]

Your do well just hold your ground. lol

[p.j]

Your do well just hold your ground. lol

 

sure will is it me i am ready lol..

[marika41]

Thanks for your patience ......In relation to Ben’s Post on “Silver”

 

I do not retract my apology mate......because I’m good like that....and of course; because I should have been a wee bit more careful in addressing your reliance on “silver” for your contention with all things ‘Apple’....

 

On closer inspection of the above...I look at the ‘delivery’ of a Deed....but before I do, let me copy this bit for you to look at again:

 

“a writing cannot become a deed unless it is ‘signed’, ‘sealed’ and ‘delivered’ as a deed. Having reached that stage, it is correctly described as having been “executed” as a deed....'

 

As you know we no longer rely on a deed being ‘sealed’...it was abolished by the lpmpa 1989

 

So, today...this case would infer that we are looking only for ...’signed’ and ‘delivered’ then? And that “execution” is no longer a requirement after all??? I think NOT....

 

If ‘sealed’ is removed....how can we find out if the deed has been “executed” so that it meets the formality of ‘delivery’ in a decision required in a claim today?

 

Two further points to make here are:

 

1) The case in 2010 appears to rely on decisions from cases in 1989, 1969,

2) The case in Bibby came AFTER this decision in 2010

 

 

Having said that...let’s now look at what it says about ‘delivery’ which was ‘subject’ to the deed being ‘signed’, ‘sealed’ and ‘delivered’....

 

The case ("silver") says there are 3 ways in which a deed can be ‘delivered’:

• 
  
  
• A it may be delivered as an unconditional deed, being irrevocable and taking immediate effect
  
  
• B , it may be delivered as an escrow, being irrevocable but not taking effect unless and until the condition or conditions of the escrow are fulfilled
  
  
• C it may be handed to an agent of the maker with instructions to deal with it in a certain way in a certain event, being revocable and of no effect unless and until it is so dealt with, whereupon it is delivered and takes effect
  

Which one of the above would present the true state of ‘delivery’ today if the RRO had been mentioned?

 

The deed is signed by the Borrower alone....there is no ‘execution’ by the Lender....does that meet A, B or C to constitute ‘delivery’ of the Deed?

 

Had the RRO been taken into account, (in fact even we apply the RRO to any of the cases that Ben has posted) would the fact that RRO removed the presumption of ‘delivery’ on sight of the borrowers signature alone make a difference to meet any of the stated and accepted means of ‘delivery’ of A, B or C? .............(after all, we are saying that the RRO is the statute that made it possible for all Borrowers to rely that there can be NO 'presumption of delivery on sight of their signature alone since the coming into force of the RRO in 2005)......

 

If the Chamber accept that there is NO presumption of Delivery on sight of the Borrowers signature alone....which one of .A, B or C will they find applies in relation to that very necessary formality known as ‘delivery’ of the Deed??

 

Could they really say that A applies to say that the deed is ‘delivered’ unconditionally....when the applicable implication of the RRO says that the Borrower cannot be said to have ‘delivered’ it by virtue of having merely signed it?.....Article 10 (2)

 

Ok.... Could they say that B applies to say that it is ‘delivered in escrow’....yes, I suppose they could do....but then given this deed relates to land....if it is in ‘escrow’....then the ‘condition’ that B relates to...must be the ‘debt’....once it is paid in full...then the Lender can sign it....right?...NO, wrong....because the Borrower has no power to mortgage by demise, sub-demise or sub-mortgage..LRA section 23.......and finally a ‘charge by way of legal mortgage’ is wholly subject to section 32 of the LRA ....to say that it is only if the agreement is 'valid' that section 51 would have effect......

 

Ok...finally, what about ‘C’....surely that must constitute that the deed is delivered’......right?......regrettably ‘NO’...because although you hand the deed to your solicitor....the deed still has to be ‘executed’ by the Lender ......so, therefore.....the handing of the deed to your solicitor is ...... ‘revocable and of no effect unless it is so dealt with'...BEFORE "whereupon it is delivered and takes effect’ would apply............so.... even this would find the deed has not been ‘delivered’...

 

So in cnclusion.....

 

The Property Chamber can rely that the RRO establishes that the Lender must ‘execute’ the Deed BEFORE any presumption of ‘Delivery’ can be taken to be in effect....so, the likelihood is that the Chamber will and should find that –there is no ‘delivery’ and that it is “C” that applies....the RRO is wholly reliable along with the other statutory provisions that relate to dispositions in relation to land.... to find that this IS the case....

 

Apple

 

I may be jumping the gun a bit here as I am way behind reading this thread but I am becoming increasingly concerned about the RRO in regard to my situation as I know my mortgage was signed before this came into effect

[UNRAM]

Thank you Apple I am still reading (up to page 39) am still struggling but persevering

I struggled right up until the very moment it all made sense. Worthwhile to persevere.

[p.j]

does anyone know if redstone mortgages are sub prime lenders?

 

pj

[p.j]

does anyone know if redstone mortgages are sub prime lenders?

 

pj

 

yes they are just found the details i needed...

[citizenB]

Yes, they are. I believe they were censured some while back in respect of the charges they added to mortgages.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?700-Hot-news-for-anyone-who-has-suffered-mortgage-arrears-charges-irresponsible-lending-or-other-unfair-lender-conduct

[p.j]

Yes, they are. I believe they were censured some while back in respect of the charges they added to mortgages.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?700-Hot-news-for-anyone-who-has-suffered-mortgage-arrears-charges-irresponsible-lending-or-other-unfair-lender-conduct

 

thanks for that citizenB

 

pj

[UNRAM]

Apple,

 

This is not a discussion on mortgage sale agreements but of deeds so I believe its in scope. The mortgage sale agreeement contains both bilateral and unilateral deeds. Please can you share your opinion on this to further assist my understanding of the requirements of a deed. Do you agree with bhall that if a deed expresses only unilateral intent then it does not need to to be executed by the beneficiary... What happened to its specialty contract status in this instance? I can see problems with this as it opens up the possibility of abuse where a party may be included in a deed against their will or knowledge... However the mortgage sale agreement does include some unilateral deeds.

Apple I would certainly value your opinions on this topic. One of our primary assertions is that a deed is a specialty contract and requires the signatures of all assenting parties - though this will not always make sense i.e. to express a unilateral intent (if such an intent is really possible if it affects another...). My present understanding is that a mortgage is made by agreement to benefit two parties which makes it, without doubt, a 'specialty' contract.

Edited October 16, 2013 by UNRAM

[bhall]

Whilst this is American, the last paragraph might provide a welcome insight

 

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/the-formal-requirements-for-a-deed.html

[UNRAM]

Whilst this is American, the last paragraph might provide a welcome insight

 

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/the-formal-requirements-for-a-deed.html

 

This doesn't address the situation where a deed is used for bilateral assent... as is the case of every mortgage sale agreement I have looked at.... or in fact anywhere i have seen a deed used for the transfer of interest or any disposition of land (apart from a mortgage deed). I do hope the lender is not planning to use a book intended for Dummies as evidence...

[citizenB]

Was there a hearing yesterday ? What happened ?

[IS IT ME?]

none before the chamber,

[IS IT ME?]

Can't do PMs????????

[marika41]

How long does it take to receive the official copy of the deed from the land registry? I have not received anything yet and they received my letter Friday 11th october I did pay by cheque though

[MUTT1]

Hi marika41,

 

I have received my copy deeds within two days of posting and that was by cheque. I have also received other documents separately sent and paid for by cheque all within a few days.

 

Did you send your form and cheque to your local LR office?

 

My local office have been ultra fast in responding so it seems a bit strange that you are still waiting.

[sequenci]

Was there a hearing yesterday ? What happened ?

 

Any further news?

[MUTT1]

Hi sequenci,

 

Things have gone very quiet for some reason, seems a bit strange.

[sequenci]

I'm sure they'll be back to update us soon

[marika41]

Hi marika41,

 

I have received my copy deeds within two days of posting and that was by cheque. I have also received other documents separately sent and paid for by cheque all within a few days.

 

Did you send your form and cheque to your local LR office?

 

My local office have been ultra fast in responding so it seems a bit strange that you are still waiting.

 

yes it does, i posted it last thurs and paid for next day delivery,will have to phone them monday if nothing arrives over the weekend, thanks mutt1

[applecart]

Because an individual is not a company.

 

The Companies Act 1985 applies to companies and not individuals, as quoted that part amends the Companies Act 1985 only, that part has no impact on any other legislation

 

Oh, I get it now.....The RRO speaks of 'individuals' as you and I know......but, what you infer is that the mortgage deed is between an 'individual' who MUST be a 'sole trader'?.....as a 'sole trader' he is considered the owner of a company....therefore the RRO applies....but if that 'individual happens to be a 'consumer'......then the RRO does NOT apply.........

 

Gotcha......

 

OK.....not to disregard your 'idea' as 'fanciful''......let's look at this in more detail shall we???............

 

I take it you can accept that there are 'individuals' who are 'sole traders'....yes?.....they are companies.....yes??

 

so, if the RRO means that an 'individual' is a 'sole trader'.....take into account that as a sole trader....you are not a LTD Company....right???....

 

so - please explain to us all.....HOW does the 1985 Act apply to the 'sole trader' who is the 'individual'....when as an individual the 1985 Act does not apply to 'individuals'????

 

Don't tell me.... you too are fresh out of UNI...and you are 'testing' what you have learnt ...here on this thread....correct??

 

I think you might struggle trying to explain to the Chamber that 'individual' applies to 'sole traders' as much as it applies to 'consumers' Ben......I truly think you might struggle big time on that one mate......'

 

Remember, the Lender has caused the Borrower to enter into a MORTGAGE DEED to secure 'INDEBTEDNESS' .....It is not only a speciality contract but it's intent is to secure a debt...That's why the Lender MUST execute the DEED Ben...if it is not executed by the Lender.....then the Lender has not 'assumed' the Deed.....there is no DELIVERY..... The DEED is VOID!!

 

Ben.... Let me remind you.......A Borrower has no power to GRANT a mortgage.....even if the Borrower is a 'sole trader'...(individual).....there would still be no power to grant a mortgage Ben???

 

Let me remind you....A mortgage is UNLAWFULLY entered on the title of any registered estate Ben......A deed is void if not executed by the Lender Ben.......

 

Let me remind you.....The RRO applies to 'individuals' Ben....that applies whether the 'individual' happens to be a 'consumer' or a 'sole trader' Ben.....

 

Apple

[bhall]

Oh, I get it now.....The RRO speaks of 'individuals' as you and I know......but, what you infer is that the mortgage deed is between an 'individual' who MUST be a 'sole trader'?.....as a 'sole trader' he is considered the owner of a company....therefore the RRO applies....but if that 'individual happens to be a 'consumer'......then the RRO does NOT apply.........

 

Gotcha......

 

OK.....not to disregard your 'idea' as 'fanciful''......let's look at this in more detail shall we???............

 

I take it you can accept that there are 'individuals' who are 'sole traders'....yes?.....they are companies.....yes??

 

so, if the RRO means that an 'individual' is a 'sole trader'.....take into account that as a sole trader....you are not a LTD Company....right???....

 

so - please explain to us all.....HOW does the 1985 Act apply to the 'sole trader' who is the 'individual'....when as an individual the 1985 Act does not apply to 'individuals'????

 

Don't tell me.... you too are fresh out of UNI...and you are 'testing' what you have learnt ...here on this thread....correct??

 

I think you might struggle trying to explain to the Chamber that 'individual' applies to 'sole traders' as much as it applies to 'consumers' Ben......I truly think you might struggle big time on that one mate......'

 

Remember, the Lender has caused the Borrower to enter into a MORTGAGE DEED to secure 'INDEBTEDNESS' .....It is not only a speciality contract but it's intent is to secure a debt...That's why the Lender MUST execute the DEED Ben...if it is not executed by the Lender.....then the Lender has not 'assumed' the Deed.....there is no DELIVERY..... The DEED is VOID!!

 

Ben.... Let me remind you.......A Borrower has no power to GRANT a mortgage.....even if the Borrower is a 'sole trader'...(individual).....there would still be no power to grant a mortgage Ben???

 

Let me remind you....A mortgage is UNLAWFULLY entered on the title of any registered estate Ben......A deed is void if not executed by the Lender Ben.......

 

Let me remind you.....The RRO applies to 'individuals' Ben....that applies whether the 'individual' happens to be a 'consumer' or a 'sole trader' Ben.....

 

Apple

 

You can say it as many times as you like, still doesn't make what you think you know the actual legal position.

 

Wait until January and see if you know as much as you think you do .

 

Ben ;-)

[applecart]

not a problem

 

Just remember deeds are used for many things not just to secure a mortgage.

 

This is true...... However....we are interested in the unlawful mortgage deed here Ben.....

 

The POA does not secure indebtedness.......it is different legislation that applies to that type of deed as you know...best not to confuse it with the deed spoken of in the LPA section 52 Ben......

 

Apple

[applecart]

Apple I would certainly value your opinions on this topic. One of our primary assertions is that a deed is a specialty contract and requires the signatures of all assenting parties - though this will not always make sense i.e. to express a unilateral intent (if such an intent is really possible if it affects another...). My present understanding is that a mortgage is made by agreement to benefit two parties which makes it, without doubt, a 'specialty' contract.

 

Hi UNRAM

 

I am happy to oblige : )

 

Yes...any document drawn up in 'deed' form will be a 'speciality'..... it is the 'deeds' intent that is important...... the Chamber will know that when we say the Mortgage deed is void...we are are saying that -there was no power to 'mortgage' and ..... the deed has not been executed by the Lender.....

 

The Mortgage Sale Agreement Deed.....is just that.... a SALE to the SPV...it's intent is not to secure a 'debt' at all.... it's intent is to sell that which the Lender purports to own...which is your house....he sold it.... by deed...for a consideration...it is bilateral...because any sale that relates to land....or any creation or disposition in relation to land must be by deed....A SALE IS A DISPOSITION.....both must sign....Seller and Buyer

 

The POA is unilateral...because a POA is NOT A SALE.....it is as it says a POA...the Lender knows that he intends to keep his name on the title.....but he has SOLD it to the SPV.....the SPV wants and needs further assurance....the POA 'GRANTS' and assures the SPV and the SPV grants to the Trustee by way of POA all legal and beneficial interests...and so on and so on...

 

A POA Deed is a 'grant' ...... it is a unilateral obligation.....the deed does not need to be assumed by the donee.....not like a deed that intends to secure indebtedness......

 

The Mortgage Deed...albeit the 'mortgage' is unlawful......must be executed by the Lender as well as the Borrower if the Lender intends to secure the collateral...(the house) to repay the loan....in the event of a borrowers default...albeit no borrower can be said to be in default of a 'mortgage'.... a 'mortgage' is UNAWFUL...there is NO statutory grounds upon which ANY Lender can secure a mortgage against any registered estate......that includes those since the coming into force of the LPA 1925.....ooooopsss did I just say that..... Yes, I think I did!!!

 

Apple

[applecart]

You can say it as many times as you like, still doesn't make what you think you know the actual legal position.

 

Wait until January and see if you know as much as you think you do .

 

Ben ;-)

 

Don't tell me ..... you are in bed with the Chamber tooooooo????

 

If you are.... then, yes, we stand no chance..... I know how much you like speaking of flogging horses..... LOL

 

Apple