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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not sure I understand this correctly.

This person earns 80k a year yet has expences of 120k a year.

Who is paying for the extra 40k??? Surely the bank that he owes 17m are hardly extending his credit as well???


There has been no explanation (or even an attempted explanation) of where the shortfall comes from
 
One would assume the shortfall comes from the spouse.

Not just this case but I also assume in general if you're going into court on an instalment order you 'prove' you are spending more than you are earning.

What is hard to fathom out is why the figures were not gone though and 'discretionary' spending discounted.

Can the bank appeal the decision of the district court judgement?
 
 
Can the bank appeal the decision of the district court judgement?
Nope. They can make another application, but that is doomed to failure as it will be before the same judge. If the bank do this they would be going down the road of harassment and abuse of process, i.e. making what would be seen as a vexatious application.
 
I think people need to be careful not to make assumptions that serve to back up opinions that are pre-formed.

A statement of means was prepared in this case and it was examined by the judge. I think that the courts will prioritise debts - ie you pay for a roof over your head, food, heat etc and after that you pay for other debts. I have no idea what was in this man's statement of means, but I have some faith that the judge examined the statement carefully before reaching his decision.

When I said that 80k was not a lot for a family to live on I assumed that it was pre-tax (leaving an after tax income of €4200 per month) and assumed like most that there are mortgage payments to make. A house that cost €650k during the boom (worth prob €350k now) would cost €3k per month in mortgage payments. Food bill, heating costs, maybe a car loan, general education costs (even apart from school fees), and you are already under the water.

None of us can judge the decision the judge made in this or any other case without examining the statement of means which we are not in a position to do.

All you can debate is whether or not a debtor in these circumstances should be permitted to pay school fees from his income.

I agree with onq on that issue and I think that it should be permitted in limited circumstances.
 

What types of expenditure would you consider inappropriate?

Do you find it credible that someone could have necessary expenses of €10K per month?

And if the house is in his wife's name then why would the mortgage payments be allowed as forming part of the husband's expenditure?
 
Fair enough DB74.

But my core point is still the same. The only item specifically reported (or at least referred to here) is school fees. I don't know what the other expenditure is. Nor do you. I don't know if €80k is before or after tax income.

What I do know is that Peter Kelly and other High Court judges made it clear that no debtor will be permitted to live a lavish or luxury lifestyle while leaving debts unpaid.

I doubt very much if the judge in this case did that. This person's financial situation can be re-visited if there are any changes to it and an installment order made at that time.

As to your questions, excluding debt I think €10k per month expenditure would generate a very lavish lifestyle. But I don't believe that the 10k is excluding debt. I would imagine a large proportion of it is taken up with debt of one form or another.

Where the family home is not owned by the debtor then no mortgage payment for the family home would be included, but other mortgage payments or debts could and would be. E.g. if someone owned an investment property which was mortgaged, the mortgage holder of that property has a fixed charge and is therefore entitled to all income from that asset in priority to any other creditor. Assume that the mortgage payment on a portfolio of investment properties is €15k per month, and the rental income from same is €10k per month. The debtor cannot make up the shortfall but the mortgage holder does not want to call in the loan. Result? A yearly "income" for the debtor of €120k with yearly "expenditure" of €180k and a shortfall of €60k. In reality none of this money flows through the debtor's hands - the rent goes directly to the mortgage holder. In those circumstances the judge cannot make an installment order in relation to this income because this income is charged to the mortgage holder and therefore not available.
 
What I do know is that Peter Kelly and other High Court judges made it clear that no debtor will be permitted to live a lavish or luxury lifestyle while leaving debts unpaid.

.

Well it's now clear that a judges definitiion of lavish or luxury is far different to what most people think it is.

Indeed some people live on less than the school fees of 27K a year. And some people on less than 27K a year no doubt get instalment orders against them every week in Irish courts.

The person on 80K also has a family home owned by the spouse and presumable no mortgage, he referred to the fact in print that other people were stupid if they didn't transfer property to their spouse in anticipation of going bust. Pr
 

Judges don't like that. What else can they do. Seek a judgement mortgage on the UK property? And then ultimately a well charging order?
 
Indeed some people live on less than the school fees of 27K a year. And some people on less than 27K a year no doubt get instalment orders against them every week in Irish courts.
Indeed, and such people will be hounded to the ends of the earth by the banks.
 
Judges don't like that. What else can they do. Seek a judgement mortgage on the UK property? And then ultimately a well charging order?
They would have problems slapping an Irish JM on a UK property. That is if any UK property is in his name of course.
 
Kate said:
This person's financial situation can be re-visited if there are any changes to it and an installment order made at that time.




So it seems that the bank cannot do anything... except walk away with 17 million owing to them. If this is true then the bank has been very hard done by... but of course the bank were silly themselves to give such a large loan with no security. Perhaps the bank can go back to court if the debtor situation changes... but how would the bank be aware of such changes in circumstances?
 
Perhaps the bank can go back to court if the debtor situation changes...
They most certainly can.
but how would the bank be aware of such changes in circumstances?
This is the thing. Judges always tell banks they can reapply if circumstances of the debtor change. I don't know how they find out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.