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.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?
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.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.
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.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.
Section 30 in the Irish statute book on co ownership
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.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?
Starting to sound very Freeman-esque now.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
T
How can some posts say I conned the bank's if I gave the deeds as security
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.
You miss the whole pinot but that's ok.Because the deeds weren't yours to give as security.
The law you quote is there to protect co-owners from fraud, not to allow you get a loan without having to pay it back.
Hi it is a reform act. The previous act states the same regarding co ownership.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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?