is my mortgage legal?

Bronte said:
Odd to get a mortgage to fund a business. How much was doing it up and how much for the business. Are you sure it wasn't a loan versus a mortgage? You borrowed the money, you owe the money, you agreed to repay it back, they have your deeds, they're unlikely to let you have the deeds, without a mega legal costly fight that you'd probably not win, you have an asset, methinks the bank has you.

Where are you quoting the statute from? Who told you about that?
Click to expand...
Hi thanks for your point of view but I don't think you understand my position so put it short and you can reply. First I was given a mortgage only in my name even though my father owned half the house.no bank or solicitor ever asked about who names were on the deeds I just handed them over as security and the bank gave me the mortgage I knew nothing regarding the legal side of been given a mortgage without prior written consent of co owner or owners. If you look up the Irish statute book and the section on co ownership part 30 I think it is you will see what I mean. No co owner who has interest in same property as the other co owner or owners can lease rent or get a mortgage without prior written consent if it happens it is void in law and equity. That is were I am the bank made a massive mistake that is why they sold my mortgage for less than half of its value to a private equity firm now it's there problem. So they will have to do a deal with me its to much hassle for them.
 
shane kirwan said:
I just handed them over as security and the bank gave me the mortgage I knew nothing regarding the legal side of been given a mortgage without prior written consent of co owner or owners.
Click to expand...
Funny how you seem to be trying to make sure you do now though. Too little facts are known here and you seem to come accross as someone who is purely trying to slither out of paying your debt.
 
elcato said:
Funny how you seem to be trying to make sure you do now though. Too little facts are known here and you seem to come accross as someone who is purely trying to slither out of paying your debt.
Click to expand...
First of all I always pay my debts you lack experience in the law regarding land ownership maybe you should do a bit of reading in the Irish statute book regarding co ownership. Then you will understand. Any here is a saying you should know " the greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about.
 
Bronte said:
You mention a solicitor, who hired and paid for the solicitor?

Did you sign a mortgage acceptance form? How did you get the money physically?
Click to expand...
Hi I hired and paid the solicitor I signed what must of been a mortgage acceptance form I am sure, otherwise I would of not got the mortgage it was in 2003. The solicitor paid me from his clients account with a cheque after he took his fee.
 
Well you're solicitor must have also been also acting for the bank, and would have signed a document to say he would make sure the legals were in order. Solicitors undertaking I believe.

I think that's been much tightened up now as it was no longer deemed sufficient due to so many rogue solicitors. I wonder is this another case for their indemnity fund.

Was this a new solicitor or the family solicitor, the one who dealt with your mothers probate, and the transfer to you and your fathers probate?

Still don't see how you are getting out of paying even if they don't have a secured mortgage. Not when you have an asset.
 
shane kirwan said:
First of all I always pay my debts you lack experience in the law regarding land ownership maybe you should do a bit of reading in the Irish statute book regarding co ownership. Then you will understand. Any here is a saying you should know " the greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about.
Click to expand...
Starting to sound very Freeman-esque now.

You mentioned a few posts back how the Banks were throwing money at people in 2003. They didn't throw any at me....but then again I didn't go in to them looking for money like you did!

The Law can be read in many ways, depending on your bias...a bit like the Bible. There's only so much advice you can get here or even from your own legal team. The real test will come in Court as I'd assume the Private Equity fund won't be looking at this in the same was as you seem to be
 
shane kirwan said:
Can anyone put a light on this question I co own the family home with my dad I took out a mortgage and used deeds as security I'm in arrears 6 years bank hasn't threatened repossession just takes small amounts per month it turns out the bank never asked my dad for his prior written consent as a co owner for me to get a mortgage I am told the mortgage is illegal is this the case.
Click to expand...

From examining section 30 of the Land and Conveyancing Reform Act 2009 it can be seen, the law in on the side of Shane Kirwan. The mortgage is void ab initio and can be proved thus. The fact of the matter is that the bank erred in law in issuing a mortgage to Shane Kirwan, when the security for the mortgage was the deeds of the family home, which, at that point in time, was in co ownership with Mr Kirwan's now deceased Father, without his Father's written consent. Mr Kirwan's Father did not unreasonably withhold his consent, on the contrary, he was never even informed by the bank that there was now a charge on his property. Therefore, the provisions of section 31 (2) (e) of the said Act, do not apply and cannot be relied on by the bank. It can be seen that the law is very clear on the matter.

So, the simple answer to the poster's question is, yes, the mortgage is void and cannot be enforced.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Helping Hand

Have you read the entire posts?

This was a loan in 2003. The Act is 2009.

I think the OP is clutching at straws. He has a debt to the bank - I don't think there is any dispute about that. OP is just hoping that he can get his Deeds back because of some perceived flaw.

It is never a good idea to entirely accept a version of events first posted here. Without exception, the first version of events is never the actual version of events by the time it has been teased out!

mf
 
shane kirwan said:
If you look up the Irish statute book and the section on co ownership part 30 I think it is you will see what I mean. No co owner who has interest in same property as the other co owner or owners can lease rent or get a mortgage without prior written consent if it happens it is void in law and equity.
Click to expand...

Surely this looks like a good reason for you to be prosecuted for fraud.
 
T
HelpingHand said:
From examining section 30 of the Land and Conveyancing Reform Act 2009 it can be seen, the law in on the side of Shane Kirwan. The mortgage is void ab initio and can be proved thus. The fact of the matter is that the bank erred in law in issuing a mortgage to Shane Kirwan, when the security for the mortgage was the deeds of the family home, which, at that point in time, was in co ownership with Mr Kirwan's now deceased Father, without his Father's written consent. Mr Kirwan's Father did not unreasonably withhold his consent, on the contrary, he was never even informed by the bank that there was now a charge on his property. Therefore, the provisions of section 31 (2) (e) of the said Act, do not apply and cannot be relied on by the bank. It can be seen that the law is very clear on the matter.

So, the simple answer to the poster's question is, yes, the mortgage is void and cannot be enforced.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your post at last someone can see things and realise what I am saying. How can some posts say I conned the bank's if I gave the deeds as security what the bank and solicitor failed to do was a simple search to see who owned the property if they had there is no way I would have been given a mortgage. My then bank has since sold my mortgage to a private equity firm for less than half of its value they seem to have passed the buck with this mortgage. Hopefully something can be sorted out soon it's nearly 7years now i would hope a judge would see that the bank made a blunder again thank you for your insight.
 
HelpingHand said:
From examining section 30 of the Land and Conveyancing Reform Act 2009 it can be seen, the law in on the side of Shane Kirwan. The mortgage is void ab initio and can be proved thus. The fact of the matter is that the bank erred in law in issuing a mortgage to Shane Kirwan, when the security for the mortgage was the deeds of the family home, which, at that point in time, was in co ownership with Mr Kirwan's now deceased Father, without his Father's written consent. Mr Kirwan's Father did not unreasonably withhold his consent, on the contrary, he was never even informed by the bank that there was now a charge on his property. Therefore, the provisions of section 31 (2) (e) of the said Act, do not apply and cannot be relied on by the bank. It can be seen that the law is very clear on the matter.

So, the simple answer to the poster's question is, yes, the mortgage is void and cannot be enforced.
Click to expand...

That advice is simply wrong.

As mf1 points out, the Land and Conveyancing Reform Act 2009 came into force after the relevant transaction so is of no relevance.

In any event, Section 30 of that Act says nothing at all about the creation of mortgages so the relevance of this Section to mortgages created after the Act came into force is far from clear.

The bank may well have a difficulty enforcing security in this case and I would repeat my earlier advice to simply let sleeping dogs lie.
 
Sarenco said:
That advice is simply wrong.

As mf1 points out, the Land and Conveyancing Reform Act 2009 came into force after the relevant transaction so is of no relevance.

In any event, Section 30 of that Act says nothing at all about the creation of mortgages so the relevance of this Section to mortgages created after the Act came into force is far from clear.

The bank may well have a difficulty enforcing security in this case and I would repeat my earlier advice to simply let sleeping dogs lie.
Click to expand...
Hi it is a reform act. The previous act states the same regarding co ownership.
 
I understand your point perfectly. The banks gave you a loan without checking that the deeds you gave them as security were yours to give.

Absolutely the bank made a mistake.

But who suffered as a result of this mistake. You didn't. You got a loan for your business.

What action should a court take to fix this mistake?

The lack of understanding here is on your part. You effectively stole the deeds from your father to get a loan from the bank. And then didn't pay back the loan.

If your father were still alive and hostile to you, you could well go to jail for what you did.
 
What previous Act? Where does it say anything about mortgages? Why do you think this section has anything to do with the validity of the loan?

Just because you don't like the advice you are receiving doesn't mean that advice is wrong.

If your father didn't consent to the creation of the mortgage then what right did you have to give the title deeds to the bank?

You could get yourself into real trouble here.
 
shane kirwan said:
T

Thank you for your post at last someone can see things and realise what I am saying. How can some posts say I conned the bank's if I gave the deeds as security what the bank and solicitor failed to do was a simple search to see who owned the property if they had there is no way I would have been given a mortgage. My then bank has since sold my mortgage to a private equity firm for less than half of its value they seem to have passed the buck with this mortgage. Hopefully something can be sorted out soon it's nearly 7years now i would hope a judge would see that the bank made a blunder again thank you for your insight.
Click to expand...

I sold my mother's car to a garage. If they had even looked at the vlc and at my driver's license they would have seen that we have different first names and it wasn't my car but they messed up and gave me the money.

Now the garage want their money back but I've spent it.
 
You really lack understanding. You have perceived I stole the deeds. If that was the case when my father gave me the deeds to put up as security to get a loan to help me out the bank would of contacted my father to ask for his written consent but they failed to do this so you really dont have a clue what your talking about. Don't post me again your a fool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top