The Kelly's actions were shameful and not the banks. They have stayed in a property that they were making no repayments on and abused the MARP process to do so. The mortgage is about equal to the property value. They had a choice of living in any one of 18 different properties. He said he could not move into the rented properties because of leases. Leases come up for renewal all the time, in addition one of the reaons that a landlord can move into a rented property is for his own use. As a landlord of many properties he of all people must be well versed on his rights as a landlord. He refused to sell the investment properties because he expected the bank to wait until property values go back to the level he purchased them at. He alerted the media to the eviction and played to the cameras. And people fell for it. I am sorry that anyone would get evicted but this case is not one deserving of sympathy. I thought the bailiffs did nothing wrong. The house belongs to the bank and the Kellys had many years of notice to leave in a dignified manner.
I cannot for the life of me understand his standpoint. Do people in D4/Killiney think that banks will not take their homes when they have other assets. Is that people's actual thinking?
On further reflection of this, if he had agreed to sell in 2009 he would presumably have received a better price. Now that this house is tainted (Ireland and eviction) it will be harder to sell so Kelly will owe more. Since 2009 he has made the situation far worse for himself. Now he owes the mortgage, the costs, 4 years of back payments, the security costs of the men minding the house (to keep him out), the bailiff's etc they are going to throw the book at him, particularly as he has assets.
I cannot for the life of me understand his standpoint. Do people in D4/Killiney think that banks will not take their homes when they have other assets. Is that people's actual thinking?
My point is that if you're in negative equity you're wasting money by paying your mortgage. You'd be better off not paying it and living rent free for as long as possible - unless you have some assets to lose if they come looking for their money back. You make more money living rent free than you will ever make my selling the property!James if the Kelly's had the 10K to squirrel away then they had it to pay down the mortgage.
Yeah, he bought the house pre-2007 thinking it was going to rise in value. It didn't and he stopped paying the mortgage.When he took out the Killiney mortgage he must have believed he was in a position to pay it.
Why not? Leverage up and make more money. Does it make any more sense for someone's in their 70's to need the rental income from 18 properties?It wouldn't make sense for someone in their 70's to have 18 mortgages, more likely these were used for income.
The Kelly's actions were shameful and not the banks. They have stayed in a property that they were making no repayments on and abused the MARP process to do so. The mortgage is about equal to the property value. They had a choice of living in any one of 18 different properties. He said he could not move into the rented properties because of leases. Leases come up for renewal all the time, in addition one of the reaons that a landlord can move into a rented property is for his own use. As a landlord of many properties he of all people must be well versed on his rights as a landlord. He refused to sell the investment properties because he expected the bank to wait until property values go back to the level he purchased them at. He alerted the media to the eviction and played to the cameras. And people fell for it. I am sorry that anyone would get evicted but this case is not one deserving of sympathy. I thought the bailiffs did nothing wrong. The house belongs to the bank and the Kellys had many years of notice to leave in a dignified manner.
I think that appears to be a very good summary of the situation Bronte.
The worst part of it is the abuse of the MARP process, people in genuine distress will now get that little bit less sympathy and have to deal with more scepticism.
Superb summary Bronte
DerKaiser
This is the real cost of the Kelly's abuse of the process. Is it any wonder that lenders are so suspicious of borrowers?
If someone had told me a month ago that Occupy and SF would be.... etc etc
Well put, Bronte. As an aside, may I add that the people who bought in Priory Hall-who, in my opinion are far more deserving of public and media support- have received nowhere near the equivalent amount of air time and media attention as this couple.
To be fair, the Priory Hall story was exhaustively covered by the media, and continues to be. The Kelly story looks dead in the water already.
Why not? Leverage up and make more money. Does it make any more sense for someone's in their 70's to need the rental income from 18 properties?
Whatever about the Occupy movement, I don't see any evidence for dragging SF into this (I am not a SF supporter, but I can't see where this association is coming from. See above).
Both Mary Lou McDonald and Richard Boyd Barrett expressed concern about the eviction.
They own 13 flats in London as well as their 21 properties in Dublin according to the Irish Times
[broken link removed]
Brendan
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?