Hubby's potential Insolvency / bankruptcy

[make them aktiv runners]

sounds like you both own it beneficially. It would state as tenants in common.

 

No it would not. Forr tenants in common, it would say "no disposition by a sole owner...."

[Gingerheid]

When negotiating the value with the Trustee in relation to the value were there to be a forced sale, keep in mind that it's just haggling, it's not set in stone.

 

The Trustee may find it unrealistic that you would cause too many problems with a forced sale. Half of any loss would be borne by you, and the Trustee may find it improbable that you'd want to lose your own money!

[reduk054]

Aktiv - re tenants in common.

I have a paragraph which states under B: Proprietship Register RESTRICTION No disposition by a sole proprietor of the registered estate (except a trust corporation) under which capital money arises is to be registered unless authorised by an order of the court.

Is this the para relating to tenants in common?

Gingerheid, wise words, thank you.

Red

[Goldlady]

Red I stand to be corrected but think the courts can order a variation from the assumed position if there is evidence to show that the equity should have been apportioned differently. Having learned about all this recently I was amazed that when OH and I bought our house the conveyancing solicitor registered the house in our joint names without discussing anything with us (we aren't married). Which is standard practice no doubt. But I think (and again i could be wrong) that if you were able to present an argument that you owned more than 50% of the equity in a court hearing you might succeed - and this might be enough to put the IP off.

[make them aktiv runners]

Aktiv - re tenants in common.

I have a paragraph which states under B: Proprietship Register RESTRICTION No disposition by a sole proprietor of the registered estate (except a trust corporation) under which capital money arises is to be registered unless authorised by an order of the court.

Is this the para relating to tenants in common?

Gingerheid, wise words, thank you.

Red

Yes, you are tenants in common.

[rory32]

If the tenancy in common is not stated then it is 50/50, for it to be other the share must be defined. Having said that the court can use the amount of financial input to determine the shares. The court may also use any agreement that has been reached between the owners as well as any work that has been done on the property over and above what would be considered to be the normal work that would be routinely carried out when two people own a property.

 

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the court will presume that the property is held in equal shares.

 

As Aktiv has stated you have a tenancy in common.

[reduk054]

Thank you again everyone for your input. Can anybody explain why we would be tenants in common, as this was not something that we would have suggested ourselves?

I deduce from all of your help, that realistically there is no difference as such in the outcome of the beneficial interest/equity as a result of tenants in common where no share percentage has been stated (therefore assuming a 50/50 split)?

Thank you again.

Red

[reduk054]

Thank you mods! That was a rapid response!!

Red

[Mr. Kipling]

Glad things are getting sorted REd - Nice one to get there ahead of the banks charging order;)

 

Heh the look on the Lloyds representative`s face must have been a picture

[tomterm8]

Hey Gizmo, nice to see you back - hope you had a restful break and that you are ok. The only down side about the banks was that hubby was unable to complete his claim for his personal bank charges, and I spent hours (and £!!) getting it through to court, however once the BR was granted, the OR took this case over and wasnt interested in chasing the money!!! Red

 

Phone up your OR / IP and offer him £1 and a 1/3 share of any proceeds for the assignment of the right of actions in the case.

[reduk054]

Mr Kipling, I wasn't allowed to be present at that particular hearing, and hubby apparently did not look across the desk in her direction!

To be fair the bank's rep. said she worked on behalf of lots of companies, and this was just another job! It felt like a relief standing outside the court afterwards, but the job is far from done!

TomTerm8, that is an interesting suggestion regarding the offer. Legally (other than the impending OFT court case) how would I stand though. I am very interested in proceeding with this, but if the claim is just for hubby's bank charges, would it not be him who has to take the formal acition? Have you heard of a similar offer being accepted by an OR?

Thank you, you have got me thinking!

Red

[tomterm8]

Mr Kipling, I wasn't allowed to be present at that particular hearing, and hubby apparently did not look across the desk in her direction!

To be fair the bank's rep. said she worked on behalf of lots of companies, and this was just another job! It felt like a relief standing outside the court afterwards, but the job is far from done!

TomTerm8, that is an interesting suggestion regarding the offer. Legally (other than the impending OFT court case) how would I stand though. I am very interested in proceeding with this, but if the claim is just for hubby's bank charges, would it not be him who has to take the formal acition? Have you heard of a similar offer being accepted by an OR?

Thank you, you have got me thinking!

Red

 

It's entirely legal, and normal - just a normal assignment of a cause of action. Anyone can buy it from the OR. people have done it in thousands of cases, including a couple that have found their way to the house of lords.

 

(EDIT: of course, there's nothing to say the OR / IP will go with it, but if you don't ask, you won't get.)

[reduk054]

Ok TT8, thank you again, I will write to the OR and see what the response is.

Would it make a difference though that an IP has been appointed or is he only interested in the house (it is not clear from the correspondence received to date)

Thanks again

Red

[Mr. Kipling]

Mr Kipling, I wasn't allowed to be present at that particular hearing, and hubby apparently did not look across the desk in her direction!

To be fair the bank's rep. said she worked on behalf of lots of companies, and this was just another job! It felt like a relief standing outside the court afterwards, but the job is far from done!

 

Fair enough. A `jobbing` representative... interesting.

I guess the wait must have been agonising though

[reduk054]

Mr K, I have never been so petrified, while waiting for something to happen. It was agonising, and almost felt like a criminal! And i was there for moral support! At least we were the only people there and did not have to wait all day.

It feels like a long time ago now, but I did shake before during and after.

Have you been in a similar situation?

Red

[Goldlady]

I was representing my friend in repossession hearing and I was quite confident I thought. However we had to go down the stairs in the court and my legs went really wobbly - is it the effect courts have on us?

[reduk054]

Goldlady, I think that for law-abiding folk, courts are intimidating, even with the reasons why you and I went to court, but do they deter criminals? Interesting thought, but not an experience I wish to repeat in a hurry! Hope that your court visit was sucessful though and worth the jelly-legs!

Red

[tomterm8]

Ok TT8, thank you again, I will write to the OR and see what the response is.

Would it make a difference though that an IP has been appointed or is he only interested in the house (it is not clear from the correspondence received to date)

Thanks again

Red

 

Doesn't make much difference. You just ask the IP instead of the OR.

[Goldlady]

I was talking to a client who has been 'inside' about something I had heard whereby if someone is guilty they sleep like a baby in the cells the night before the trial, whereas innocent people pace the floor all night. He reckons that is true, cos if you know it's a fair 'cop' you are relaxed about it .

 

Red is the IP sort of on your side/trying to help, or is he/she just an extension of the OR?

[Gingerheid]

Phone up your OR / IP and offer him £1 and a 1/3 share of any proceeds for the assignment of the right of actions in the case.

 

The role of the Trustee is to deal with all assets, so an IP appointed to replace the Official Receiver as Trustee will be dealing with everything.

 

It's likely the suggestion isn't really possible though, unless the bank charges exceed the amount owed to the creditor that charged them. Anything any less and they would just exercise a right of set off, reducing their debt and their claim in the proceeding. This is probably why the IP will regard the exercise as pointless. There's no benefit to you in reducing their claim in the proceedings unless creditors are going to be paid off in full and a surplus returned to you.

[reduk054]

Thanks Gingerheid, I am not going to pursue bank charges any further for hubby.

Went to see our IP yesterday. He feels that we can argue that hubby has no benefical interest, so will see what happens.

My concerns were raised somewhat though when the IP mentioned that the trustee could lie low for three years and then chase for the beneficial interest, maybe on the basis that the value of the house would have increased.

Slightly concerning to the fact that you could have got yourself back on track, only to suffer in years to come!

Red

[Goldlady]

I have heard that in many cases they leave your house alone. I don't quite understand how some people do lose their home and some are OK - but hopefully you will be one of the ones who survive:p As you say though it is going to be hanging over your head - this is one of the concerns we had when I was considering bankruptcy. How did the IP decide he had no beneficial interest by the way?

[reduk054]

Goldlady, thanks for your continued support and guidance! At the moment we are arguing as to who placed the larger deposit on the house and who paid the most mortgage (me in both cases).

We are therefore hoping that because of the early redemption figure on top of this that the creditor's IP will decide that there is not enough of hubbys equity to continue.

A little bit of a waiting game, but for me, involving our own IP has already proved beneficial and hope that our IP will continue to argue our case, especially as the IP company normally are dealing with BR cases from the other side so they can pre-guess what the creditor's IP will do next!!

Red

[reduk054]

Just a quick question (as having to keep all of my options open).

If I decide not to buy the trustees beneficial interest, will I be entitled to any of the equity I own in the proprty if the house is sold by him, assuming I have 50 % of the benificial interest?

thanks

Red

[Gingerheid]

Yes. But in these circumstances it may be much better to sell the house yourself with the trustee's agreement, ideally before the year from the date of the bankrutpcy was up. You are much more likely to care enough to make sure you get a sensible price...