Income of 80K debts of 17 million minimum, court makes no instalment order

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bronte

Registered User
Messages
14,585
Everyone be very careful before you reply on this. This is about how our legal system works, and how people can work with that legal system. No personal comments in relation to the person involved. One person is near being banned already for a reply.

_____________________________________________

Riddle me this.

I have a lot of debt, an income of 80K, but my spending expenses are 120K. I owe 17 million to my bankers.

I need to pay 27K for my children's private education, do you think it reasonable if the judge would allow this 27K a year to be not counted by the bank or do you think the judge will say I have to pay the 27K towards the 17 million debt. Do you think the judge will ask how am I spending 120K if my income is 80K. I am prepared to pay 100 Euro a week, what do you think will happen in court.
 
Debts of 17m

Why not write a book about your experiences? I'm a hard working man... Salt of the earth... Ordinary car... all that sort of self-serving guff...
 
The question really is can one go into court with debts, prove one's outgoings are for (any) amount and ergo the court will make no instalment order.

I do not mean the outgoings are not real, they are real, does the court look to the 'reasonableness' of your expenditure. Or does a court look to your status in society, your standard of living and the level of reasonableness goes up.

Surely if you have creditor's bringing you to court then all your income, wherever sourced should be available?

Example, can you say your family food bill is 500 because you shop in Harrods. Whereas it would cost 200 in Aldi.

Can you say you need to spend 5K on horseriding for the kids as part of your expenditure.

Can you say you receive rent from a property in France that goes to pay the mortgage of that property, would the court not direct that the rent be paid to the creditors and the property be sold and any profit be sold.

Can you go to court with no income to pay creditors but have money to pay lawyers

Please no comments on any individual. Just want to know what on earth is going on in the courts.
 
Hi Bronte

It's a curious decision but I reckon the logic is as follows:

The guy owes €17m to whichever bank brought him to court. He owes far more than that to other lenders.

He has an income of €80,000. The judge could tell him to live on €20,000 which is roughly what he would get on social welfare.

Even if he paid the entire €60k off the €17m it would make no dent in it. The judge probably reckons the priority is to pay the mortgage on his home.

Now, if the judge had told him to sell his home, I would agree with that decision. That is assuming that he lives in a big house with a lot of positive equity. But if he has that, then the bank will register a judgement against it.
 
absolutely disgusting.

Two tier society alright.

Makes me want to emigrate, and never pay any tax again in this country. I think Ireland is a dump. I'd almost prefer to live in a dictatorship than in this country.

This encourages tax evasion or avoidance, whichever is the illegal one. .. as who wants to pay tax to a government that allows this to happen? (I understand about the independence of the judicary, but we must pass mandatory laws removing power from judges if they act like this).

(For example... if a person owes more than ten times the difference between the social welfare paments they'd receive if on no income and qualified for the dole, and what they actually earn, then the judge must order that all income over the social welfare entitlement must be paid to the creditors, and this is mandatory)



The judge should be sacked.


5K on horseriding... no way... disgusting.
shopping in Harrods, disgusting.


Is this 17million that taxpayers now have to pay?


I would say that we should riot on the streets for this... but that would likely attract a ban., so I won't.


I am absolutely disgusted by this... absolutely shocked and horrified. This is the worst thing I've ever heard. .. and I have now completely lost faith in our government and the judicary... total jokers.


This has destroyed my day... if not my entire life here in Ireland.
 
Even if he paid the entire €60k off the €17m it would make no dent in it. The judge probably reckons the priority is to pay the mortgage on his home.


That's hardly the issue though Brendan

Either he should be obliged to start paying it off or he shouldn't. Who do you think is going to have to pay in the end?

Discretionery spending like €27K on Private School fees is not something that anyone could regard as a necessary living expense.

Anyway I don't want to get banned so I'm not saying any more on the subject
 
Im no lawyer but could this case be used as precedent for 'lower class' people with debts that need restructuring???
 
That's hardly the issue though Brendan

Either he should be obliged to start paying it off or he shouldn't. Who do you think is going to have to pay in the end?

Discretionery spending like €27K on Private School fees is not something that anyone could regard as a necessary living expense.

Anyway I don't want to get banned so I'm not saying any more on the subject

agree with the above.

At that level of debt 27k is unjustified amount to be paying.

anyone have breakdown of in general what makes up 80k income and 120k expenses
 
The guy should be declared bankrupt immediately. It's clear that he is bankrupt. All his assets should be sold or transferred to his creditors. His wife and children should be protected, but not at 'silver spoon' levels.. at basic social welfare levels. Anything else is a kick in the face to the general population.

Search google for 'Income of 80K debts of 17 million minimum' ... the first few results relate to this issue.


RedBhoy. I don't think precedent works like that. Even if it did a new judge can still set a new precedent... we will see poor people on the street eventually, if not already. It beggars belief that that story is true. Perhaps there is more to it, b ut it doesn't appear so,.. it appears as if the judge just got this completely wrong.
 
Beggars belief. Should be allowed no more than social welfare rates, one basic car, modest house. All other earnings to go to repay the debt. Time to get back to earth.
Outrageous!
 
I think the courts routinely show a similar attitude to people with a lower income and smaller debts. A district court judge in the west recently awarded an installment order of €10 per month in favour of a bank that had sought €400 per month for. At the end of the day our debt laws are not intended to create slaves. People make mistakes, sometimes enormous ones, does that mean that they should work for the rest of their lives without hope of improving their living standards to pay back a debt that they can never afford to pay?

I think the context is important too. I would feel differently if the debtor owed the debt to another private citizen who was suffering a drop in standard of living so that the debtor could sustain his. In this case the €27k for the kids school wouldn't even cover two week's interest. For all we know the children may have a year or two of school left, after which no doubt that money will have to go towards the debt. I am sure the children of any person whose affairs are reported so publicly are having a hard enough time without dragging them out of school and away from their friends. Personally I am glad that our judges show some degree of mercy and understanding.
 
...Personally I am glad that our judges show some degree of mercy and understanding.

yes, but what of the children of the shareholders of the banks?

I can see both sides... the banks want their money, but the people cannot pay.

In this case the man can pay something.. so the nil installment order doesn't make sense. The guy offered 100 (per week, month?)... why wasn't this ordered?

While I feel the banks should have loaned more sensibly, I feel they should also be entitled to money that they're owed, from people who can afford it. This guy appears to be able to afford it.

I wouldn't have a problem if the banks debts weren't guaranteed by the state. If deposits are guaranteed that shouldn't allow the banks to act riskily, lose money, and then come crawling to the taxpayer for help.
 
A district court judge in the west recently awarded an installment order of €10 per month in favour of a bank that had sought €400 per month for.
€10 a month? I know many judges who would refuse to even grant an order in those circumstances.
 
Read about this one in the Sunday Indo, I also wouldn't like to see the children taken out of school because their father made some poor choices.

However, if the children are at a fee paying primary school, they should be transferred to a state school for their secondary education. That's what we had to do with our son and it didn't phase him at all. He's in a great non-denominational school, has great friends and is doing well.

He should be declared bankrupt by his creditors and his outgoings should be reviewed in terms of necessities and luxuries.

According to the sunday paper, the house belongs to his wife, what a surprise!

Law and justice are two very different things.
 
He should be declared bankrupt by his creditors and his outgoings should be reviewed in terms of necessities and luxuries.
That costs more money for his creditors and they are likely never to see a penny under bankruptcy.
 
I would feel differently if the debtor owed the debt to another private citizen who was suffering a drop in standard of living so that the debtor could sustain his. In this case the €27k for the kids school wouldn't even cover two week's interest..

For the life of me I cannot understand this thinking. This debtor owes us all big time. It doesn't matter if the 27K is not even 2 weeks interest. Who cares. It's your taxes Kate and evereyone else that is going to be paying out the 17 million and if 27K of school fees (discretionary, wealthy living expenses) reduces that 17 million than that is the way it should be. All those tax cuts and child benefit cuts are ok so this debtor can live in the style to which he's become accustomed?

The arrogance of the debtor is breathtaking and so is the judges atttitude to the debtor. So cross about this I cannot even write in case I go overboard.
 
I think my point is that I think the context of each situation has to be considered when making the decision. I assume that that is what the judge did in this case. Yes the bank shareholders suffered huge losses (as my own family member did having worked for a bank for thirty eight years, retired seven years ago but left most of his savings in bank shares) but the scale of the losses we are talking about can't begin to be addressed by taking an extra €27k from the small group of big borrowers most of whom lost more than anyone else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top