Investment property - being made to sell

K

KEITH RIDGARD

Registered User
Messages
2
Hi,

Looking for someone to help in my situation with AIB.

I have the financial means but just seem to be getting no where with solicitor to date in advising should I sell my 2 apartments as the bank want even though the rental income is half of what the mortgage would be if the bank accepted my offer. We agreed 7 years ago in a bank restructure that as part of the agreement I would sell 3 investment properties, give the bank €55k, and keep my ship.

In return for this they would write down €606k in debt. Thus was a 5 year agreement which expired in 2019. I have sold one of the properties and gave them the proceeds. However I am now trying to keep the two apartments. The bank put an Asset Disposal Target of €70k on the two them when they drew up the agreement in 2014.

I’m now in a position to pay them the €70k plus the €55k but they won’t accept. They say that I cannot keep the apartments and must sell them. Basically they are telling me that the valuation of the apartments are €180k now and that there’s no way I can have them for €70k.

They’ve now sent me a letter today 21/04 stating that my continued failure to sell the two apartments leaves them no option but to move my file to legal and call in the €606k write down too. That’s rubbish because that write down happened when the banks themselves were bailed out in 2015. So I have benefited from my restructure and maybe I’m being greedy here trying to hang onto the two apartments but I’m just looking for some advice from someone that may have gone through this or might know someone who can help. Time is not on my side they could appoint receivers very quickly I'm told and thus could put the shop in jeopardy.
 
Hello,

You can't have your cake, and eat it.

You are being greedy !

The intention was for both sides to share the burden - so you need to accept that as part of your burden share, you can't essentially "buy" the two apartments today, at their 2014 value. To do so, would result in you getting some upside, while the Bank does not.

Would you be prepared to pay today's market price for the two apartments, with the increased sale proceeds going in full debt reduction, so AIB have to write off a smaller sum, than the original €606k agreed?

If that deal was agreed for a 5-year period, expiring in 2019, then I think the Bank have already been more than fair with you - in agreeing the initial debt write down, and then agreeing to let you run circa 2 years over the agreed expiry date. That's 7 years that you got, to deliver on your side of what looks like a very good deal.

They could just pull the expired deal and enforce their security, and they'd be well within their rights to do so.

I would pull the deal, if I were them, and saw you trying this on.

Finally, given you felt the need to talk about the Bank getting bailed out - let me remind you who bailed AIB out, it was all of us - so why should you now gain further, at everyone elses expense?
 
Last edited:
So you were offered a write-down of over 600k if you sold 3 apartments - you sold 1 (so didn't adhere to the plan) and now want to keep the other 2 based on valuations from 7 years ago?
Is this a serious proposal?
 
No offence to the OP but it amazes me sometimes when a person can't see the woods for the trees!!
You got a super deal (IMO) don't be stupid, honour the deal and move on with your life
Otherwise you'll only have your own stupidity to blame for what's gonna happen next
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Let me know when you are on Joe Duffy, and I will call in as well.

Brendan
Click to expand...

Would be good radio. He could tell his story as Joe goes 'that's terrible' a few times and listeners ring in to tell their story about how the banks want their money back and that they are just normal people fighting faceless corporations.....

Meanwhile, you will be the background going ' but Joe'...'but Joe'...without ever getting a word in and then when you do, Joe will shout at you for not being incensed at the banks and inviting listeners to tell you why people should be allowed to borrow and not pay itback or pay back on whatever terms they see fit....
 
I think in this situation the OP should be allowed change their username, it's a bit stupid to be using your real name in a case like this, particularly one where it's easily found online - I won't even talk about news reports about flouting planning laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top