estoppel

[tiger7861]

I am not in any panic but never been in this position before any body can say i promised this and that

[tiger7861]

Finally how can i evict her like i said i sent the eviction notice via the court she challanged it by saying you cant evict me as you promised me the house since than the court has advised to go to trial in between that how can i evict her?

[tiger7861]

I also don't understand why you are reluctant to take the house back as it yours! you have a perfect right..

It would then be up to her to prove her case and take you to court and doubt she would get legal aid for that.

As it is the judge may not grant eviction until her rights have been established or he may just dismiss them, risky!

 

Rights establshed? May just dismiss? What is risky?

[raydetinu]

You did not say you had already been to court!

Why are you confusing us.

That's what I meant at the eviction hearing she would claim that as her defence and she would have to establish her case.

Who is taking who to court here!

Is she taking you to court to claim the house? and you are defending?

[tiger7861]

You did not say you had already been to court!

Why are you confusing us.

That's what I meant at the eviction hearing she would claim that as her defence and she would have to establish her case.

Who is taking who to court here!

Is she taking you to court to claim the house? and you are defending?

 

No sir sorry if i confused you guys i sent her the eviction notice i am the claimant she is defendant

[tiger7861]

At the first hearing she defended the hearing by claiming i made a promise to her about the house. She then asked time from the court to get legal aid which took about 3 months. But was refused

[raydetinu]

Thanks for that.

good so you are now at a stage where she is back in court and she has to submit a defence.

You will just have to see if judge will rule on her claim as part of this action and possibly dismiss it or set the case aside until a separate action can decide the validity of her claim.

The judge could rule in your favour initially but be subject to a separate action or appeal later to prove her case.

Lets see what the evidence statements have to say.

You will have to be patient at this stage.

[tiger7861]

Thanks for that.

good so you are now at a stage where she is back in court and she has to submit a defence.

You will just have to see if judge will rule on her claim as part of this action and possibly dismiss it or set the case aside until a separate action can decide the validity of her claim.

The judge could rule in your favour initially but be subject to a separate action or appeal later to prove her case.

Lets see what the evidence statements have to say.

You will have to be patient at this stage.

She has submitted her defence to court

court has asked for standard disclosure and witness statements and set a trial date duration one day

Edited October 23, 2013 by tiger7861

[raydetinu]

have you seen the defence argument yet?

Statements will be interesting.

[tiger7861]

have you seen the defence argument yet?

Statements will be interesting.

 

yes i have it says "our client relied to her detirment while spending money on the house on the reliance it was a gift".

"her significant financial payment towards rennovations/improvemts of the property thorugh the purchase of materials/furniture etcc signify and illustrate her blief that the propgerty was a gift"

[steampowered]

Does the Defence actually say you promised the house was a gift?

 

Saying that she "believed" the house was a gift would be pretty hopeless. Proprietary estoppel requires a representation/promise.

[tiger7861]

Does the Defence actually say you promised the house was a gift?

 

Saying that she "believed" the house was a gift would be pretty hopeless. Proprietary estoppel requires a representation/promise.

It says "stating it was a gift she acted to her detriment

 

The it goes on propietry estoppel how a gift is like a promise etcc

[The Mould]

yes i have it says "our client relied to her detirment while spending money on the house on the reliance it was a gift".

"her significant financial payment towards rennovations/improvemts of the property thorugh the purchase of materials/furniture etcc signify and illustrate her blief that the propgerty was a gift"

 

This statement is a severe contradiction. On the one hand she alleges that she spent money on the property to her detriment on the reliance that property was a gift. In the second sentence she clearly states that she only believed the property would be gifted to her if she carried the improvements, in any event, neither statement confirms nor establishes any promise made by you - as alleged.

 

Based on logic, you allowed her and son/family to live in the property which you own in title absolute while their names remained registered with local housing authority; she wanted to make the property more comfortable while they waited to be housed by local authority.

 

You consented to these improvements to make their lives more comfortable, until the purpose to which arrangements were made were completed, therefore, you allowed her, your son and family to reside in said property rent and mortgage free over a period of 9 (or is it 10) years until they were housed by local authority, therefore, any monies spent by daughter-in-law on any such improvements have not been to her detriment as she resided in the property free of charge on the said conditions agreed, which your son will back you up on.

 

No detriment has been suffered by the daughter-in-law, it appears that she is bitter and wants her cake and to eat it also.

 

You must put her to strictest proof as regards detriment suffered in reliance of promise, sorry, alleged promise given.

 

Your sols need to get your case in order and your counsel must cross-examine her and her (any witnesses of hers) severely, he must attack her credibility and the credibility of her claim.

 

Your counsel ought to "pull the lever" on her and her witnesses and send them to the "legal gallows" when she is in the witness box.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[tiger7861]

This statement is a severe contradiction. On the one hand she alleges that she spent money on the property to her detriment on the reliance that property was a gift. In the second sentence she clearly states that she only believed the property would be gifted to her if she carried the improvements, in any event, neither statement confirms nor establishes any promise made by you - as alleged.

 

Based on logic, you allowed her and son/family to live in the property which you own in title absolute while their names remained registered with local housing authority; she wanted to make the property more comfortable while they waited to be housed by local authority.

 

You consented to these improvements to make their lives more comfortable, until the purpose to which arrangements were made were completed, therefore, you allowed her, your son and family to reside in said property rent and mortgage free over a period of 9 (or is it 10) years until they were housed by local authority, therefore, any monies spent by daughter-in-law on any such improvements have not been to her detriment as she resided in the property free of charge on the said conditions agreed, which your son will back you up on.

 

No detriment has been suffered by the daughter-in-law, it appears that she is bitter and wants her cake and to eat it also.

 

You must put her to strictest proof as regards detriment suffered in reliance of promise, sorry, alleged promise given.

 

Your sols need to get your case in order and your counsel must cross-examine her and her (any witnesses of hers) severely, he must attack her credibility and the credibility of her claim.

 

Your counsel ought to "pull the lever" on her and her witnesses and send them to the "legal gallows" when she is in the witness box.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

Just to clarify her defence according to solc she is saying that all the work she has carried out only because she new the house was a gift not that after carrying out the work it would be gifted.

[raydetinu]

from the above I don't think you have anything to worry about and the judge will just through her defence out.

Just be clear and concise in your statements and leave nothing in doubt.

[The Mould]

from the above I don't think you have anything to worry about and the judge will just through her defence out.

Just be clear and concise in your statements and leave nothing in doubt.

 

Agreed in full.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[The Mould]

Your killer counter-argument is that, yes, I allowed my sonand his wife to live in the property while their names were on the localauthorities housing list; at the trial I will rely upon local housing authoritylist to prove this fact.

Further, the daughter-in-law wanted to carry outimprovements in the property, because in our area, people often have to wait upto ten years to be housed, therefore, daughter-in-law did not wish to live inproperty in its present state.

The daughter-in-law said she would undertake cosmeticimprovements on the property to make the place comfortable for her, my son andhis family, while she and my son waited to be housed by local housingauthority.

I agreed to daughter-in-law’s proposals to carry out thesecosmetic improvements at her own expense on the condition that if she did so, I would not charge her or my son any rent orpayments towards the mortgage owing thereon. No other agreements were made as alleged and I certainly did not giftthe house or any share thereof if she undertook these cosmetic improvements.

It should be noted, that my son has divorced thedaughter-in-law and I believe that she has brought this claim against me as anact of revenge against my son.

I did not, at any time, promise her the house nor a share inthe house as she alleges and I put her to the strictest of proof on her proprietyestoppel claim thereon.

It should be noted that her name remained on the housingregister as per my original and only agreement given in this matter. Her claim is illogical, unsubstantiated andshe is battling with a case that she cannot advance because it simply is nottrue.

Give the above to your sols to consider, and the leading House of Lords authority Iposted here for you..

Kind regards

The Mould

[tiger7861]

Your killer counter-argument is that, yes, I allowed my sonand his wife to live in the property while their names were on the localauthorities housing list; at the trial I will rely upon local housing authoritylist to prove this fact.

Further, the daughter-in-law wanted to carry outimprovements in the property, because in our area, people often have to wait upto ten years to be housed, therefore, daughter-in-law did not wish to live inproperty in its present state.

The daughter-in-law said she would undertake cosmeticimprovements on the property to make the place comfortable for her, my son andhis family, while she and my son waited to be housed by local housingauthority.

I agreed to daughter-in-law’s proposals to carry out thesecosmetic improvements at her own expense on the condition that if she did so, I would not charge her or my son any rent orpayments towards the mortgage owing thereon. No other agreements were made as alleged and I certainly did not giftthe house or any share thereof if she undertook these cosmetic improvements.

It should be noted, that my son has divorced thedaughter-in-law and I believe that she has brought this claim against me as anact of revenge against my son.

I did not, at any time, promise her the house nor a share inthe house as she alleges and I put her to the strictest of proof on her proprietyestoppel claim thereon.

It should be noted that her name remained on the housingregister as per my original and only agreement given in this matter. Her claim is illogical, unsubstantiated andshe is battling with a case that she cannot advance because it simply is nottrue.

Give the above to your sols to consider, and the leading House of Lords authority Iposted here for you..

Kind regards

The Mould

What is house of lord authority?

[The Mould]

What is house of lord authority?

 

I have posted this authority earlier on your case. Go back through your thread until you come across it, click on link, then print off the same and give it to your sols who should have referred you and your opponents sols to it a long time ago.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[tiger7861]

I have posted this authority earlier on your case. Go back through your thread until you come across it, click on link, then print off the same and give it to your sols who should have referred you and your opponents sols to it a long time ago.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

Sorry totally lost

[tiger7861]

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2009/18.html

The above is the leading case on propriety estoppel.

Kind regards

The Mould

Ok u mean this

[tiger7861]

Is this one case or several ?

[tiger7861]

Just one more note as it was a joint application for a house via the council there names where taken off the list as they seperated in april 2012 but the council has confirmed it was on there prior to that for more than 8 years

[The Mould]

Just one more note as it was a joint application for a house via the council there names where taken off the list as they seperated in april 2012 but the council has confirmed it was on there prior to that for more than 8 years

 

The above, which you must obtain from council, confirms your defence in this matter.

 

As regards post #121, yes, you can rely upon this and refer your sols to the same and respectfully invite the Court to read the same (suypply the Court with a copy of this UKHL authority at the relevant time, you sols will know when this is).

 

As I said previously, your promise was that she and son and family (the grandchildren) could live in the house while their names were on local authority housing list. If daughter-in-law carried out any cosmetic improvements throughout this period of "waiting time", then no contract was agreed with you for these improvements other than, yes you consented to these improvements and in consideration for the same, you allowed them to live in property rent and mortgage free.

 

 

As of the date hereof, you confirm that no promise as alleged was ever given to daughter-in-law and that you believe the facts which you rely upon clearly establishes your Defence against her unsubstantiated case, which, as of the date hereof, she has not proved nor advanced with any credible evidence in support of the same.

 

Take the above and all of mine and other Cag members postings here to your sols and instruct them to act for you on the same!

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[tiger7861]

Post 121 can u briefly explain